During his dedication speech at the Martin Luther King Memorial, Barack Obama could not resist doing some politicking. With the day of remembrance and dedication to Dr. King now rooted in the history of this nation, it is important not to let current political agendas commandeer his memory or purpose.

Dr. King was not only a great leader for black Americans, but for civil rights for all Americans. King was a visionary. King foresaw the day when prejudice was so subdued and irrelevant in America, that a black man would rise through the ranks of opportunities to become President of the United States. What Dr. King could not foresee is that that very first Black President would use race to divide the nation and call on Americans to “snitch” on neighbors who opposed his socialist rooted agendas. (See: LEFT INSULTS BLACK AMERICANS – http://darwinsracists.com/book/?p=111.) It was King who stood in defiance against leaders of the Democrat Party that voted against equality for Blacks. It was Dr. King who cheered on Republican President Dwight Eisenhower for not only pushing through the Civil Rights Act of 1957 over Democrat opposition, but also for sending troops into Arkansas to desegregate schools that cleared the way for national school desegregation. As a life-long member of the Republican Party, Dr. King fought for the republic, its Constitution and its Bill of Rights that formed the very foundations of this great nation.

“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. King made no extra-Constitutional guarantees, nor did he seek a circuitous route around hard work and education as goals toward a step-up and not a hand-out. That Black Americans or any Americans should expect a free ride from the labors of their neighbors stood against King’s ethics, his faith and his vision of the American Dream. It stood against all he dedicated his life to and against his vision of individual freedom.

King said: “I have a dream that is deeply rooted in the American Dream.” King valued capitalism and free enterprise and could foresee the day when Blacks were not only part of America’s middle class, but were people of wealth and prosperity due to their own merits, education and hard work. That day has dawned in America, but due to the current economic policies of the Obama administration it is quickly slipping away for people of all colors. Barack Obama made it clear in one of his books that he does not identify with the fates of whites, Hispanics, Asians or other peoples of color.

“I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.” Barack Obama – from his book, Dreams From My Father

The catch for Obama is that his anti-capitalist policies equally impact and devastate the Black worker along with all other Americans. Unlike Obama, King sought justice through equal rights for all through civil law and opportunity and not through the enslavement and nihilism of Socialism. Obama’s “redistribution of wealth” socialist scheme holds all people reliant on and under the control of government. Martin Luther King would find Socialism an anathema to freedom: freedom of will, freedom of aspirations, freedom of self-reliance and freedom of expression whether conservative or liberal. King had a dream and it was not the socialist dream that so consumes Barack Obama. King would note that the poorest cities in the United States have continuously elected Democrats, many of which are Black, who have been the overseers that have plunged Black Americans into ever deepening poverty under Democrat rule. It is Obama and the Democrats’ recklessness that destines this nation into third world status if it is allowed to go unchallenged.

King would be against labor unions crossing the line from being an important organization in support of workers to a corrupt, bloated thuggery that breaks the financial backs of companies that provide jobs for all people — as those unions demand extravagant pensions for its members and labor bosses that most Americans could only dream about. King would be horrified at the heresy of some Democrat Black leaders who wanted the educationally disabling dialect of Ebonics or Black English integrated into course study for black children as a second language posing a clear danger to their futures as productive Americans. He would be horrified that Blacks would accuse educated Blacks of not “being black enough” or “not talking like a black” as if not doing so is a cultural or political impediment. He would admonish a president who told an opposing party that they could ”sit in the back of the bus,” and who, as a political maneuver, threatened vulnerable Seniors of all colors that he might withhold “their social security checks” unless he got his way. King would vehemently oppose a government that ignored threatened violence by Black Panther Party members at the polls. Martin Luther King moved mountains and minds through peaceful means. He, like Rosa Parks (a personal hero) stood up against the wrong thing in the right way.

As all visionaries who are pragmatist at heart, King knew that the government as master came with disheartening and demeaning controls over the lives of individuals. King saw the path to equality through self-determination, getting up and going to work every day, raising families as man and wife, respecting education and seeking God’s wisdom and guidance.

King’s greatest disappointment would be the first Black president’s denigration of people of faith as “clinging to their guns and religion.” King could not foresee a strategic move by a government under Obama to hijack Christianity by attempting to “transform” it into a community-organized, Marxist collectivism based on a substitute gospel of “social justice” of forced seizure of your neighbors’ goods and property. (See: CHRISTIAN PURGE: THE OBAMA FACTOR – PART ONE at http://darwinsracists.com/book/?p=155)

Today, a living reflection of King is his niece, Dr. Alveda King. Though portions of Alveda King’s history is in my book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, her full story is one of deep abiding Christian faith, higher education, an unfailing work ethic, love of country, a strong Constitutionalist and an advocate for people of all colors and backgrounds who are willing to do their share by contributing to the American Dream. It is the same dream her Uncle Martin had of an America where everyone is judged by their character and not the color of their skin. America elected its first Black President. That, America has lost confidence in Obama is not based on his skin color, but the failing of his character and his determined destruction of the American Dream that Martin Luther King lived and died for.

Only days ago Mitt Romney was saying that the Occupy Wall Streeters were dangerous. But, true to his penchant to “grow” in his opinion (“growing” is what the rest of us call flip floping), Romney is now beginning to accept the OWS theme of “the 99%.”

The OWSers — I call them the Occupy-Whatevers because they really have no idea what they want or what they are doing — have taken to calling themselves the “99%.” This class warfare battle cry casts anyone with a few shekels to rub together in the role of the eeeevil rich.

As I mentioned, during the first week of October Romney was pounding the Occupy-Whatevers as “dangerous.” He was right about these anti-Semitic, anti-American protesters, too. At the same appearance Romney also said that the whole series of protests were exercises in “class warfare.”

But that was then.

All it took for Romney to begin his flip flopping… er, I mean “growing”… this time was one week because now, at a townhall in Hopkinton, New Hampshire, suddenly Romney is all about “understanding” the plight of the “99 %.”

I don’t worry about the top one percent. I don’t stay up nights worrying about, “gee we need to help them.” I don’t worry about that. They’re doing just fine by themselves. I worry about the 99 percent in America. I want America, once again, to be the best place in the world to be middle-class. I want to have a strong and vibrant and prosperous middle-class. And so I look at what’s happening on Wall Street and my own view is, “boy I understand how those people feel.” Because with median income down 10%, with unemployment at 9% plus, with the president having run saying he would keep unemployment below 8% if we let him borrow almost a trillion dollars and then having failed to do so. With chronic unemployment, long-term unemployment worse even than during The Great Depression the people in this country are upset. And I understand middle Americans saying, “Wait a second, what’s going on? This wasn’t the deal! How can this be?”

So, now Romney is employing the Occupy-Whatever’s own terminology and accepting their premise? How long before Romney goes form “dangerous” to “I am with you”? He’s already half way there, after all.

This is why this man is wholly unacceptable as the GOP nominee for president. He’s been on Obama’s side at one point or another in his political career. So, how does Mitt Romney successfully defeat that notion that all he is is a flip flopper, a liar?

Why would people want to vote for Romney who will be successfully portrayed as Obama-lite when they can get full-blown Obama and just vote for the real radical in chief?

Now, It has been claimed by some that Romney has already beaten the rap I saddle him with here. But that is not the case. In fact, his flip flops have been wholly absent from the debates as well as the media discourse of his primary campaign. He hasn’t already beaten this rap because the media is holding its powder dry waiting until he wins the nomination so that they can pound him with it when the only thing between Romney and the White House is Obama and his sold-out, Old Media establishment.

Romney is not a conservative in any way. He is a finger-in-the-air politician that will say and do anything he thinks he needs to do to win. If the Tea Party cannot stop this man from winning the GOP nomination, we will have another 4 years of Barack Obama and the country may not emerge from that four years intact.

Now, on the other hand, is Romney worse or even just as bad as Barack Hussein Obama? Of course not. Romney is not driven by the hatred of the United States that Obama is. Romney does not have the hard and fast left-wing principles that Obama has. Romney was not brought up on Alinskyite tactics aimed at destroying this country. Romney will be a bad president, sure. But he won’t be the destroyer that Obama is and will continue to be if he wins a second term.

A vote for Romney in 2012 won’t be a vote for Mitt Romney. It will be a vote against Barack “Spread the Wealth” Obama.

But that Romney is but the lesser of two evils is no succor to a country bleeding as badly as the U.S. is right now.

Pick Perry. Pick Cain. Heck, pick Santorum or Newt, even. But don’t let the left-leaning, GOP country club establishment pick another McCain/Dole/George H. W. Bush with a Romney nomination. This election is too important.

The only GOP candidate running against himself if Mitt Romney.

Last but not least, let’s not forget how Romney praised one of the most vile partisans in recent congressional memory, the killer, Senator Edward Kennedy…

In news sure to inject shock and awe into the Republican political primary season, a Zogby poll released Thursday showed Herman Cain leading the Republican field, topping former front-runner Mitt Romney by an astonishing 20 points. Cain would also narrowly edge out Obama in a general election, the poll found, by a 46?“44 margin.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, would lose by a point to the president, 40 percent to 41 percent. Texas governor Rick Perry, who has slipped in the polls of late, would lose to the president 45 percent to 40 percent.

The poll found that 38 percent of Republican primary voters said they would vote for Cain if the primary were held today. Eighteen percent said they would throw their support to Romney, while 12 percent each said they would vote for Perry and Texas congressman Ron Paul. No other candidate attracted double-digit support.

Pretty amazing rise….the question is, can he maintain it? I think it reflects that voters want someone real that stands on real principles and has an actual thought out plan. If he keeps performing in the debates like he has been I think he is gonna surprise a lot of folks in the beltway.

In a good sign for blogger free speech, a lawsuit against a high profile conservative blog in Illinois has just been tossed out. A political contributor brought the lawsuit over a story about property tax reassessments and political contributions. This is a victory for free political speech as well as a victory for the status of blogs in the world of “journalism.”

I’ve been aware of this story for some time but the folks at Illinois Review, the blog in question, asked me to sort of keep it all quiet. There were all sorts of legal questions being thrown about and since the folks that run the blog don’t have deep pockets and the whole thing was being born at their own expense, they wanted to be sure this whole mess didn’t escalate and hurt them too bad financially.

The lawsuit meant to silence the blog was a convoluted one, to be sure. Illinois Review had posted a story that revealed that former Ill. State Rep. Paul Froehlich (R, Schaumburg) had sought campaign contributions from property owners who had won property tax relief claims that the Representative had assisted in getting settled. But after the story went live, due to the notoriety the county assessors office reversed those tax relief decisions.

One of the property owners mentioned in the original story was Satkar Hospitality. Illinois Review reported the facts of the case, noted that Satkar got a favorable property tax reassessment, and speculated that Satkar made “in-kind contributions” to Rep. Froehlich.

For his part Rep. Froehlich claimed that there was no quid pro quo and said he’d known the folks at Satkar “before they even opened their hotel and long before they contributed to my campaign.”

Satkar sued the Illinois Review for defamation — naming Fox News and others as coconspirators.

Fortunately, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew F. Kennelly dismissed the suit because Satkar “failed to show” that its claims against the blog were legitimate. Judge Kennelly also ruled that the bloggers have the right to seek reasonable attorney’s fees and costs from Satkar.

My friend John Ruberry noted that the plaintiffs’ complaint contained a particularly low blow to the blog, too. Satkar’s lawyer, R. Tamara de Silva, said that Illinois Review had “attracted a large goosestepping audience.”

Nice, huh? This sort of obscene language does not belong in our courts.

In his decision, Judge Kennelly also affirmed that the blog was expressing its right to the “furtherance of their right of free speech.” This means we have yet one more precedent that we bloggers can be protected in our rights to freely publish our political opinions without fear of being sued over our blog posts (legitimate slander laws aside).

We’ve won another one, folks. Let us hope that these precedents continue to pile up protecting us all in our efforts online.

The Chicago-based Thomas More Society represented the blog. Thomas More specializes in defending religious liberty, traditional marriage, and takes on right-to-life issues. (www.thomasmoresociety.org)

Note from JR: Rep Froehlich appears to be a D not an R, as given above

(The following is not an endorsement or lack thereof, it is an observation.)

When it comes to evolution, Presidential Candidate Jon Huntsman (R-UT) reveals a serious character flaw for a man who wants to become president. He ignores facts and disregards the latest findings by experts in the field of science while accusing others of “running from science.” It is Huntsman who is clearly “running from science” as he displays an Obama-Pelosi-Reid dictatorial style of declaring an issue settled when clearly the debate is far from over.

Huntsman appears to be a politician who suffers from a lack of basic knowledge and shows no desire to explore or correct it. Real science requires the full spectrum of information as Huntsman remains stuck in evolution’s hypothesized “mud-puddle.” Long-standing and recent scientific data reveal that the scientifically exposed flaws and frauds of evolution are so numerous that evolution should be relegated to no more than a scientific curiosity devoid of empirical scientific data. Perhaps Mr. Huntsman does not understand the difference between micro-adaptations to the environment vs. macro-evolution’s claim that one species evolves into another. Macro-evolution has never occurred anywhere in nature. Micro-changes occur, such as the darkening of one’s skin in sunnier climes, but too drastic a change to the human species (or any species) results in deforming or killing the species. Clearly, that is the direct opposite of “evolving.”

Crass proposal or not, $250,000 has been offered to anyone who can prove that macro-evolution occurs. The response to that quarter of a million dollar offer?: Crickets. Nothing, nada, zippo, dead silence as the money goes uncollected. The reason no scientist can step forward to collect a quarter of a million dollars with their evidence of evolution – is because none exists. Surely Presidential candidate Huntsman could use an additional quarter of a million dollars in his campaign coffers. Just “name it and claim it,” “put up or shut up” – whichever idiom applies.

It is true that Governor Huntsman is a politician and I am a news commentator and contributor. But, the primary difference is that I have studied evolution and co-wrote a book on the topic. Since Huntsman appears driven to portray himself as the final say, it is my pleasure to challenge the former Governor to a debate. If he does not want to debate the issue (since he appears to prefer a “science-stifling the debate is over” mentality), then I suggest he order a copy of the book, “Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” (www.DarwinsRacists.com). He will read the conclusions of brilliant scientific minds who dismiss evolution as mere theory and recognize that it has been and continues to be an obstacle to real scientific study. He will find that proponents for evolution are, for the most part, either on the government-grant dole or are such hyper-secularists that the idea of a Creator God is abhorrent to them. The latest polls show that the majority of Americans, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other faiths, do not believe in evolution which puts them in disagreement with Huntsman.

Huntsman accuses others of “running from science.” The conclusion is that it is Huntsman who is uninformed, outdated and a threat to serious science. Brilliant men and women of science from top biologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, cosmologists to rocket scientists have denounced “evolution” as a man-made, anti-science theory with racist underpinnings. World renowned and revered pro-evolutionist scientist, Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Harvard professor of Geology and Paleontology who devoted his entire career to studying evolution has written: “We are not evolving.” After years of probing the tenuous claims of evolution, this top scientist, Dr. Gould, concluded and stated clearly on record:

“For all practical purposes we’re not evolving. There’s no reason to believe we ‘re going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever – we are what we are.” This career Darwinian evolutionist went on to say: “The fossil record does not show gradual changes [of evolution] and every paleontologist has known that since Cuvier.” Stephen J. Gould, Harvard Scientist and Professor

Many other top-tier scientists are named and quoted in the book, “Darwin’s Racists,” should the former governor wish to give it a read. (Also see peer-reviewed I.D. studies at: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 )

Jon Huntsman is the product of a program of misinformation long taught and perpetrated by Fabian Socialists who gave birth to the American Progressive-Liberal party. At its core, evolution is a racist theory that declares people of color as less evolved and more closely connected to African apes. It is a belief stated by Charles Darwin, who introduced his theory of evolution over 150 years ago. Famed Fabian-Socialist and fierce eugenicist, George Bernard Shaw, thought evolution was a dandy idea. The liberal-environmentalist Shaw first proposed using gas chambers for population control and ridding the planet of lesser human beings. That Huntsman’s position on evolution is opposed by the majority of Americans, is anti-science and is, by association, racist at its core should be noted by every American. It is a good thing that former Governor Huntsman opened that can of worms from which he believes all humans evolved. Once again in national discourse, Americans can decide what is fraud and what is truth.

I spent most of the day on Aug 30 sort of embedded with Congressman Peter Roskam, Republican of the Illinois 6th District and Chief Deputy Whip in Washington, as he toured his district talking to local businesses. The whirlwind tour of businesses in Roskam’s district — topped with a presser in downtown Chicago — was the precursor of Roskam’s next focus. Roskam wants to begin an assessment of the regulatory edifice in Washington D.C. with any eye toward making Washington more business friendly in this moribund, recessionary economy.

My chauffeur was Roskam communication director, the genial Dan Conston. He told me he was born and bred in Philly, but I assured him that I would not hold that against him. No matter that he is an Eagles fan, he knew his way around the area. Still I promised not to tattle on his driving… but I guess even saying that much is saying something!

Our first stop was Federal Signal Corporation located in Oak Brook. The folks at Federal Signal told Congressman Roskam that they were worried that new EPA rules on the engines they use in their street sweeper machines were threatening to shut down production lines and put workers out of work. And not just for them but the engines of similar styles in every industry that uses them are facing the same jobs-killing requirements.

The problem was all the “uncertainty” which is casting a pall over what Fed Sig’s Dennis Martin, President and CEO, was happy to say is a recent uptick in orders for their machines. Orders have been down for years, said Martin, but now older street sweepers are not only wearing out but are themselves long out of compliance with new EPA rules and new orders are now rolling in.

New EPA rules for the engines that Fed Sig’s street sweepers use have been passed down from Washington without much regard for reality. New engines will be in what is being called “tier four” category, requiring stricter emissions and energy use. But the problem is, and it is an industry wide one, that the new engines have yet to make it out of the prototype stage and Fed Sig — as well as companies like Caterpillar — have no way to engineer their new machines to fit engines that don’t exist yet. Worse, these new rules, the EPA has decreed, will go into effect early next year. There is not enough time to both get the new engines and re-engineer the machines they will power to satisfy an early 2012 deadline.

Chief Administrative Officer, Jennifer Sherman, told Roskam that they have no logical way to plan their upcoming manufacturing lines because these new engines do not yet exist. Martin chimed in adding that if they can’t get the EPA to bend a little on the rules implementation dates they will simply have to stop production until the new engines are ready meaning “we’ll have no work for our workers.”

This is all evidence of how inflexible the Environmental Protection Agency is. It demands changes, sets a timetable, but takes no care to ascertain if that timetable is realistic. Congressman Roskam shook his head at these facts. “The irony is,” he told the businessmen, “the whole industry hasn’t caught a break in three years and now that orders are finally coming in the federal government is slamming down with these regulations.”

The next stop in this breakneck day was the Greater O’Hare Association of Chambers of Commerce, a group of chamber of commerce organizations of the nearby suburbs. *13 groups gathered to put on this luncheon giving the congressman a platform to speak about the coming focus on regulations that the GOP led House is going to begin in the fall session.

Roskam mounted the rostrum and began with a story of one of the businessmen he met in his district who warned that regulations were causing him real trouble with his business plans. The businessman Roskam met said that with the heavy handedness of federal regulations constantly coming down on him, with taxes threatening to go up wildly on businesses, not to mention the costs of energy soaring created such uncertainty that he just could not invest in the future of his business. The safe bet, he told Roskam, was to just tread water until he could be sure enough of the future to make concrete plans. No upgrades, no expansion, and no new employees was the result.
Roskam said that this wasn’t just this one local man’s problem but one that he saw as endemic across the country. “Regulations have a massive impact on business,” Roskam told us.

The congressman presented four slides that showed just how bad things are getting with spending on unfunded entitlements of Social Security and Medicare that by 2020 will take the entire budget of the federal government leaving not a penny for administration, even defense. In but a few years, Roskam warned, we’ll have $99.4 trillion in promised but unfunded spending and it will truly hurt this nation’s solvency.

Roskam also noted that we “cannot cut our way” to a solution for this mess. “We have to grow our way out,” he said. “We need to maintain discipline on the spending side but also help the growth side by holding regulations” to sensible measures so that we can create jobs and grow the economy.

“The whole question of regulations is if they add value to business, if the rules for safety and oversight make common sense,” Roskam said. “This all may seem esoteric,” he averred, “it may all sound like inside baseball, but it all has real life affects on real jobs.”

“This economy can be great. But right now the heavy hand of government is holding down this great economy. Regulations need to be rational to facilitate growth. You cannot program the U.S. economy. It is a thing of beauty but it can’t be programed,” the congressman told us.

After the luncheon we sped off the Bensenville to a company called Chicago White Metal Casting spearheaded by President and CEO Eric Treiber.

Mr. Treiber also worried that the regulations that were coming down on his metal casting business were so absurd that he couldn’t possibly cope with them. In one case, for instance, new EPA rules for the workplace air quality are so stringent that the air outside the shop would be filled with more particulates than that inside the shop if the EPA had its way. These are onerous, absurd requirements that have nothing to do with reality.

Roskam took a tour of the shop and got to see how the work was done.

… and then we jumped in the cars once again and sped off to WTTW, Chicago’s Public Television so that Rep. Roskam could make a short appearance on WTTW’s Chicago Tonight. Much of what went on there was a reflection of what was going on all day for us in the Roskam caravan. But one question asked of the congressman was interesting.

The host asked Roskam what he felt about the Tea Party movement. Peter said that he felt the Tea Party was mostly a force for good. Roskam said that an element of the Tea Party that is beneficial is the “civic involvement” that Tea Partiers have engaged in. Roskam said that this is how democracy works when people are engaged and informed.

The congressman’s full appearance will air Thursday, Sept. 1st.

Finally, we were off to downtown Chicago to a presser with Roskam and representatives of Sarah Lee Corp. Once again the subject was oppressive regulations.

C.J. Fraleigh, CEO for Sarah Lee’s North American region, was on hand with Roskam to shed light on the absurd regulations they are facing. Sarah Lee, for instance, is being prohibited from advertising to any body of people that might have children anywhere near said advertising. This means that Sarah Lee cannot advertise their Ball Park Franks hotdogs at stadiums, concerts, or movie theaters — the very venues that buy the product for their own customers — merely because a kid might see the advertising. Additionally, Sarah Lee is being told that it can no longer advertise Halloween or Easter candy because the cartoon characters are somehow too enticing to kids. Even more ridiculous, the company is being told that it cannot even advertise its most healthy products like low fat turkey sandwich meats because of sodium content.

Roskam really warmed to his day-long theme at the presser and impressed upon the newsies gathered downtown that regulations were killing any hope that this faltering economy could grow.

“It’s gotten too easy,” Roskam said, “to move these regulation changes. We need to make it harder.”

During the day Roskam pushed a steady theme about the “absurdity” of out of control regulations. He felt that the EPA trying to “chase zero” on many of its environmental regulations was a flight of fantasy that was harming business. He felt that these oppressive regulations were creating so much uncertainty that business could not grow and jobs could not be created.

But he wasn’t saying, he reminded us several times, that because he was against some regulations that he must, therefore, be against all of them. That was also an “absurd” position to ascribe to him and the GOP leadership similarly striving for a level of common sense, logic and real effectiveness for the federal government’s various regulatory schemes.

“We need a bureaucracy that is nimble, one that can react sensibly” Roskam said several times that day.

Before I end this little report of my day with Congressman Roskam, I need to report one side subject, his answer to a question asked at the end of the Sarah Lee presser.

Congressman Eric Cantor (R, Vir.), House Majority Leader, made some news recently about requiring congress to offset spending on natural disasters with cuts in other areas. But with hurricane Irene bearing down on Virginia and after the recent earthquake hit the area, members of the Old Media and the Democrat Party are wondering if Cantor is going to back down and request disaster aid for his own native state without requiring cuts to offset the spending.

The question was put to Rep. Roskam by one reporter if the idea of offsetting spending on natural disasters was a problem politically for Republicans.

Think about it another way, I would say it’s not an ideological motivation, it’s an economic reality. When the rating agencies have literally for the first time taken us to a downgrade position which is completely new ground. We’re in a new season of our public life. So that means that there’s a consequence now to saying “yes” to things. And there’s no one that would argue with you that that is not an appropriate role of government. So, that’s a common ground where both left and right are able to come together and my hunch is that a lot of folks in the middle are saying, “OK, yeah, I get that, I understand that that’s an obligation of government but where are you gonna come up with it?” Because we’re not going to be able to borrow it. And in a three point six trillion dollar budget we can do this. We can come up with the resources internally to make it a priority to move some folks to the front of the line. But there’s a consequence to it.

So when Eric Cantor the majority leader says, “look… revenues have to meet expenses in that sort of sense, that’s the reality of where we are,” and I think that’s where the S & P has driven that and made it crystal clear that we really don’t have a choice.

With that, I bid the congressmen and his staff a good day and off I went back to my little bungalow in the suburbs! Any of you left-wingers reading this will be happy to know I trundled back home via public transportation, too. I feel greener already.

Thanks to Congressman Roskam for allowing me to tag along all day and thanks to Dan Conston and the rest of the staffers for shuttling me around for the day.

*The 13 groups that came together to put on the luncheon were the chamber of commerce groups from Addison, Arlington Heights, Bloomingdale, Carol Stream, Elmhurst, Elk Grove, Hoffman Estates, Itasca, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Rolling Meadows, Roselle, and Wheaton.

I go after the left all the time for opposing free speech and for doing its best to shut down citizens, especially at townhall events. Well here is an example of a Republican doing the same thing. His actions are those I’d instantly condemn were it a left-wing Democrat (but I repeat myself) perpetrating it. And so, I similarly condemn Rep. Steve Chabot (R, OH 1st District) for acting the jackbooted authoritarian at his recent townhall.

In fact, it’s such an outrage that I am going to reference a ThinkProgress.org report on the matter and, shock of shocks, agree with their basic point! Chabot was wrong to do this.

Fearing pushback on issues like ending Medicare and corporate tax dodging, Chabot took an extraordinary step in order to prevent a possible “Youtube moment”: he banned constituents from filming the town hall. Outside the town hall were multiple signs reading, “For Security Purposes, Cameras Are NOT Permitted.” In fact, on at least two separate occasions, middle-aged constituents who tried to record the public event had their cameras confiscated and were asked to leave.

Even worse, it was members of the Cincinnati Police that Chabot impressed to do the confiscating. Shades of jackboots, eh?

Chabot had “reasons,” though.

The congressman offered the weak reason that he’s trying to “protect the privacy” of the constituents that attend his townhall. This is absurd. People that attend public events have no expectation of “privacy” while in attendance as far as anyone is concerned. And he’s done this before, too. This isn’t the first time he’s banned recording devices at his events.

Absurdly, Chabot allowed the media to film the very same events at which he banned citizens from taking video so his claim that he’s trying to protect everyone’s privacy by preventing filming is laughable.

But I do have a small bit of sympathy to Chabot’s desire to quash video being taken at his events. At least, I understand why he wants to do it.

Listen, I get it that the so-called “voters” that ThinkProgress was touting in its report about Chabot’s townhall are not legitimate, average, everyday voters. Each and every one of them were bussed in and paid to be there, paid by unions meaning to turn the townhall into a donnybrook. The proof of that is the uniforms they were wearing, each sporting the same union bought T-Shirts with union slogans imprinted upon them.

These people are astrofturf, not real citizens individually motivated to attend the townhall out of their concern for their district. In fact, I’d guess that most of these unionistas that are attending Chabot’s townhalls don’t even live in the district.

This is a nation-wide union paid for campaign that I’ve already written about. Union operatives are creating a fake air of unrest by bussing in “voters” to Chabot’s townhalls. They are trying the same faux Tea Party-like atmosphere at Republican meetings across the country. It is fake. It is astroturf. It is union lies.

So, I get that Chabot is trying to throw a monkey wrench into these union thugs’ plans. But I’m sorry, Rep. Chabot, I cannot agree with your actions. If you don’t want a “Youtube moment,” then don’t scream back at the union thugs that accost you at your townhall! In fact, a deft politician would be able to turn the union thugs’ actions against them.

I mean, seriously! Since when was it a crime to take pictures or video of a congressman at a public event? And using force to confiscate people’s private property? It’s all beyond the pale.

Chabot should be ashamed of himself. This is no way for a representative of the people to act.

Remember when South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson called out “You Lie!” when Obama claimed in his 2009 state of the union address that his Obamacare plan would never go to care for illegal aliens? Well, turns out Wilson was right. We now know that Obama did lie. His latest move has been to turn Obamacare to benefit illegals just like Wilson said it would.

Last week the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it was funneling Obamacare cash to 67 community health centers where the money would be used for migrant farm workers. HHS also informed us that the immigration status of said farm workers would not be ascertained before free care was given meaning that illegal aliens would be given Obamacare funding.

… “approximately $8.5 million will be used by 25 New Access Point awardees to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers,” Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Spokeswoman Judy Andrews told CNSNews.com. HRSA is a part of HHS.

Andrews said that grant recipients will not check the immigration status of people seeking services.

“Health centers do not, as a matter of routine practice, ask about or collect data on citizenship or other matters not related to the treatment needs of the patients seeking health services at the center,” Andrews said.

Further, the grant recipients are required to serve “all residents” who walk through their doors.

Yep, just like Joe Wilson warned us.

On his campaign website, Wilson remarked about his vindication over the issue:

Nearly two years ago I made national news when I voiced your outrage at the misrepresentations being perpetuated by the Obama administration. The media and Obama’s liberal allies attacked me for only pointing out the truth that ObamaCare would cover illegal immigrants.

Yesterday, my point was vindicated when the Department of Health and Human Services announced its newest ObamaCare grant.

…The president specifically promised the American people that ObamaCare would not cover those who are here illegally. He misled all of us.

Facts, as they say, are stubborn things. Now when Wilson said “You Lie!” he didn’t exactly have any facts on his side saying that Obamacare was certainly going to fund healthcare for illegal aliens. He most certainly felt that the administration would end up using Obamacare cash for illegals, but he couldn’t say for 100% certain back in 2009. And in fact, at the time, even Democrats were claiming that they would never allow such a thing to happen.

But, as we know, Democrats are liars. Wilson’s feeling that Obama would eventually funnel Obamacare cash to illegals was the right prognostication, for sure.

Obama and Democrats DID lie. Your tax dollars really are going for the healthcare of illegal immigrants.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has been at the center of a storm since provocative questions about her migraines emerged two weeks ago. Now that the dust has settled, the question is … well, whether the dust actually has settled, or whether the dirt will emerge farther down the election trail.

It’s only been a few weeks since the original story about the migraines appeared, and the early verdict from political observers is that Bachmann didn’t just tread water, but might have come out stronger.

Former George W. Bush strategist and No Labels co-founder Mark McKinnon said Bachmann moved “quickly and effectively to knock down the story.”

Professor and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics Larry Sabato agrees: “From across the spectrum, I heard the issue was a nonstarter. Love her or loathe her, what do migraines have to do with anything?”

Exactly: what do they have to do with anything? But, she’s Michele Bachmann, a TEA Party and conservative favorite, and is unafraid to attack Obama’s policies.

That’s what many women asked. Migraines, which disproportionately affect females, reminded some of the ugliest stereotype in politics — that a woman can’t handle the stress of being president.

Kirsten Powers, a Fox News analyst and columnist for The Daily Beast, noted: “The way the migraines were talked about portrayed her as an unstable, pill-popping, hysterical female who can’t be trusted.”

In reality, Powers claimed, that’s exactly the opposite of the “energetic, incredibly stable and very clear-headed” woman Bachmann really is. The allegations, she argued, have only made the lawmaker sympathetic and thus strengthened her.

Most interesting was how many Liberal women, along with Conservative women, came to the defense of Bachmann over the silly migraine story, which never would have been tried against a man.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Senator Tom Coburn (R, OK) is trying to break heavy with the Tea Partiers — and for that matter his own party — by encouraging Republicans to include massive tax hikes in the on going budget discussions in congress this year.

Coburn appears to feel that a tax hike simply must be part of the discussion to get a deal this year simply because the Democrats control both the White House and the Senate. Apparently Coburn is afraid that a deal must happen this year or the U.S. will become a third world nation over night.

Unfortunately, Coburn’s ideas on the budget have no historical basis at all. Tax hikes have never helped raise a down economy. It seems Coburn is far more interested in the relative success of a deal to solve our economic situation than in what a tax hike means for both the country and his party and whether it will even work or not.

Coburn is fighting both his party and several anti-tax advocacy groups like Americans for Tax Reform.

In a recent National Review article, Ryan Ellis, Tax Policy Director for Americans for Tax Reform, clearly shows a tax history that makes Coburn’s position untenable. (Do read Ellis’ article. It has some great info on how constant tax hikes and spending hikes have brought us to the mess we are in today.)

Ryan reminds us how politicians in 1982, 1990, and 1994 were sure that a tax hike was necessary to save the country. Ryan also points out that in nearly every case the same politicians promised to make cuts in spending to make the tax hikes less painful. Sadly, such spending cuts never materialized. What we ended up with was both higher spending and higher taxes.

I spoke to Mr. Ryan about ATR’s position. “We don’t have an undertaxing problem, we have an over spending problem,” he said. “We need to cut spending because congress has an out of control spending problem.”

We’re trying to do the best we can every day to tell people that we need to cut spending. We need to cut spending because we have an over spending problem not an undertaxing problem. Taxes are coming in at historical levels, so tax receipts are just fine. They are down a bit now because the economy is down but we are on target to see historical levels later on in the decade.

ATR isn’t the only anti-tax hike voice out there. Coburn’s Senate leader is also saying that there will be no talk about tax hikes. Last Wednesday, Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) said, “I think I can safely say this Congress is not going to raise taxes. So why are we still talking about this?”

In fact, McConnell’s position is not unusual. Rather they are quite ubiquitous. Few GOP voices have joined Coburn in his desire to institute a massive tax hike on the American people. Senator Tom Coburn is virtually alone among Republicans for his looking to quash any recovery in an avalanche of new tax hikes.

Let us hope that Coburn stays the lonely, odd man out on this.