Category Archives: TPNN Online

Cantor's Loss Should NOT Be Surprising

Eric Cantor Dave Brat

Those within the Tea Party movement should not be surprised by Rep. Eric Cantor’s loss simply because of where we currently stand as a country. We have not had a jobless recovery, despite what Barack Obama says, and Virginian’s (just like the rest of America) are trying to figure out how to put food on the table, gas in their tank and pay for this “affordable” healthcare system. Yet, instead of focusing on these issues, Cantor was pushing and flip-flopping on immigration reform.

While a large part of the problem is the numerous failed and overreaching policies of the Obama Administration, just as worrisome is that Republicans in Congress haven’t stood up to them and done their job. Eric Cantor, just like so many of his colleagues, has not been focused on the issues that matter to the majority of Americans.

While many are placing the blame on Cantor’s push for Immigration reform, it was also his support of large spending plans, votes on tax increases and to repeal the sequester which gave more than enough motivation for voters to look for another option. 

This is one of the largest single Tea Party victories to date, but there are many more to come. Tea Party victories like Ben Sasse in Nebraska, Joni Ernst in Iowa and Dan Patrick for Lieutenant Governor in Texas only confirm that the Conservative voice is not just strong in one area. We are winning across the country. What is great about the Conservative movement is that we are a movement of momentum and just like a snowball, we are continuing to grow with each Primary.

Our support does not come mainly from large donors, as in the case of Eric Cantor, where more than half of his war chest of $4.7 million dollars came from PAC’s and just 2% came from small donors. Dave Brat’s fundraising was completely opposite than Cantor’s in terms of donors. Brat’s $206,000 came almost completely from individuals, with around 30% being given in $200.00 or less increments. Like in any case, individuals usually put their vote where they put their money regardless of whether if it is $5 or $5,000. In a case where the incumbent outspent his challenger 25-1 and yet the final vote numbers had Brat winning by 56%-44%, the people of the 7th Congressional district of Virginia were obviously invested in David Brat.

I just wonder if once again media pundits will be so quick to write off the power of the Tea Party. In the past, the headline was usually written before the election was even called about the end of the movement. Yet, we must remind them time and time again, that we are a movement, not a Party. Do you remember the other movement that began around the same time at the modern day Tea Party? It was called the Occupy Movement and while I hope their disappearance means they went home, took a bath and got a job, truth is, they are gone from the conversation. You never hear of them pushing legislation or promoting candidates who are faithful to their ideals. But do we ever hear that the Occupy Movement is dead from anyone other than a conservative media personality ever so often? 

Many members of the Grand Old Republican Party are not representing the views of conservative Americans that the Tea Party represents. Hence why so many are focused on the land of the Delta. Can lightning strike twice in Mississippi with a Chris McDaniel win? I believe so, as the Conservative movement in Mississippi is already energized and as the race continues to get more and more dirty with Thad Cochran now allegedly recruiting Democrats to cross over and vote. There is no wonder why the latest polling shows McDaniel ahead by almost 5 points.

The real take away lesson for this is that the Establishment has to learn that they cannot live without the grassroots support, passion and energy of the Tea Party and the Tea Party must recognize that the Establishment has the structure and financing that the Tea Party does not. Right now we are having this power struggle within our own family. However, if we don’t quickly find some common ground to unite our side of the aisle promptly after the Primary season is over, then I fear the Democrats will have the ultimate victory.

Why I Admire This Coach Crying Tears of Joy for Christ

Louisville Head Baseball Coach Dan McDonnell

Louisville Head Baseball Coach Dan McDonnell

Leadership. Something we as Americans are thirsty for. After living through the last 6 years of blaming others, apologies which are later taken back, and lie after lie being told by those within this Administration, it is easy to see why Americans might have the lowest sense of moral and confidence in what a leader should be.

Dan McDonnell, the Head Baseball Coach for the University of Louisville baseball team, broke down in tears on Saturday at a press conference. However, as he described, these were tears of joy because of the men on this team. See, Dan is a very strong Christian who is open about his faith and actively prays for the men on his team. During Saturday’s press conference, Coach McDonnell humbly described how it was not he who was taking his team to the College World Series Championships in Omaha; rather it is his team who is taking him.

Whether you are a college baseball fan or not, I encourage you to watch this clip as it is a true display of man of faith who is honest enough to openly express his strong prayer life, his servant’s heart and his devotion to his team.

It’s a man like this who shows the next generation what leadership is truly about, not the men who we see standing up behind podiums in the Rose Garden or sitting behind a desk signing legislation that benefits themselves over the people they represent.

A friend of mine who used to be a former baseball player for Vanderbilt University sent me this video and told me that the current Vanderbilt baseball coach is a good friend of Coach Donnelly’s and will be facing them in the first round in Omaha.   Coach Tim Corbin also actively recruits Christians to his team and is not afraid to incorporate faith and prayer into their every day schedule.   Throughout the season, I heard several mention of gratefulness to his players and mentions of faith and how blessed the team was regardless of whether they had won or not.

Most parents today could only dream of having these kinds of mentors influence their children at some point of their life. Men and women who would not be afraid to teach their players lessons that would go beyond the playing field. 

But alas, you will not hear these stories being shared in the mainstream media. These men will not be put on a national stage to serve as role models. Instead, we will continue to see news stories filled with negative influences and examples of pop culture icons oozing with disrespect and disregard for others. However, it is moments like this, which show me not only does good still exist in this country, but more importantly true leaders do as well.



In an exclusive interview with TPNN, one of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s unit members stepped forward to slam President Obama’s and the administration’s handling of his former comrade. Private First Class Joey Cox is the first of those who served alongside Bergdahl in the 501st Airborne Infantry Regiment to step forward and comment on the prisoner swap of Bergdahl with five Taliban detainees. ““I have been through every emotion possibly known to man over the last three days because of this,” said Cox, “I lost a best friend (SSG Murphrey) searching for this man.  For the President to portray him as a National hero, it makes me sick to my stomach.”  

PFC  Joey Cox with his best friend (laying on the tire) SSG Mike Murprhey. They had been out for 10 days looking for Bergdahl.

PFC Joey Cox with his best friend (laying on the tire) SSG Mike Murprhey. They had been out for 10 days looking for Bergdahl.

The events of the night of June 30, 2009 are starting to emerge as well as the details of the actions of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl the weeks leading up to his “capture.”  According to the official report, at 0430, TF 1 Geronimo reported a missing soldier after he did not show up for the 0900L morning roll call.  Speaking exclusively with TPNN, PFC Joey Cox, who served with Bergdahl in the 501st Airborne Infantry Regiment out of Ft. Richardson, Alaska, said anyone and everyone who could were told to gather and begin the search efforts.

Bergdahl was assigned to OP Mest about 5 miles south of FOB Sharana with the orders to conduct watches over enemy activities of nearby villages. According to Cox, within 24 hours, there was no doubt that Bergdahl had gone AWOL amongst the Battalion and “deserted his unit in a combat zone.”  Just week’s prior, Bergdahl had sent most of his military uniform home to his family and at some point during the night Bergdahl grabbed a knife, a compass, water, camera and took off.  He left behind almost all of his personal items including all of his gear and bulletproof vest. 

“It was kind of brushed off.  It’s ok, just another guy down and out about what’s going on and he will bounce back. “  Cox went on to describe how Battalion morale was down around the entire camp as many soldiers often expressed how much they missed their families.  “It took about 24 hours to realize this guy betrayed America.” 

Upon realizing Bergdahl was missing, all combat operations in Afghanistan were halted and efforts put into searching for the missing soldier.  Bergdahl was classified as MIA instead of AWOL so that the military did not have to explain the details regarding either Bergdahl or the events surrounding his disappearance.

PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Chance Murphrey, 2LT Darryn Andrews were all killed in action directly related to the search for Bergdahl. 

Soldiers were made to sign a DUSTWUN Operations Special Disclosure Agreement (abbreviation for duty status-whereabouts unknown) that any soldier partaking in DUSTWUN Operations would not mention anything to the media or the family etc. However, many of the soldiers who are now talking about Bergdahl are now out of the military therefore freed from the agreement.

501st Airborne Infantry Regiment

501st Airborne Infantry Regiment

Do you believe PFC Joey Cox’s statement that Bergdahl was no hero, but rather betrayed America? Take the Official Tea Party Poll. Click HERE!

Don’t Believe the Democrat Lies about the Supreme Court Ruling on McCutcheon

After the Constitution was written in 1787, each member of Congress represented at most 30,000 people.  If someone wanted to be considered for that election, he just announced his candidacy, and although there might be something of a campaign, there was no need for massive, expensive media initiatives to introduce the challenger to the voters.  The voters already knew all about the challenger because, in a district as small as 30,000 people, almost everyone knew almost everyone. 

To say the least, things have changed.  It’s no longer possible for every member of Congress to represent just 30,000 people.  If districts were that small, there would be 10,593 members of Congress.  As far as I’m concerned, 435 is more than enough.  I don’t want a Washington, D.C. that has over 10,000 more arrogant, unprincipled, and disconnected politicians.

This math occurred to me yesterday after the Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, which dealt another blow to America’s campaign finance regulations by lifting the limits on the quantity of capped donations one individual can make to multiple federal candidates.  What does campaign finance have to do with the size of congressional districts in 1787?  It’s simple: Campaigns are expensive because districts are big.

It is cheap to run for office in a congressional district of 30,000 constituents, but it’s expensive to run for Congress in a district of 700,000 – or for Senate in a state with California’s 38 million people; or for President in a nation of 317 million people – because the only way for candidates to communicate with that many people is with expense television commercials, radio advertisements, and direct mail campaigns.  Want to send a letter to everyone in a congressional district?  That will be $343,000.  Want to send them a letter a month for 10 months?  That’ll cost you over $3 million.

In light of the liberal hysteria over the McCutcheon decision, I’d like to offer three simple reality checks.  The first is that we aren’t going back to 1787.  We aren’t going back to tiny districts.  And we aren’t going back to cheap campaigns.  Campaigns are expensive because districts are big.  Deal with it.

The second reality check is this: McCutcheon didn’t take away the limit on the amount of money an individual donor can give to a candidate in a federal election.  That limit was $2,600 before McCutcheon.  That limit is $2,600 after McCutcheon.  The only thing McCutcheon changed was the quantity of candidates who could receive $2,600 contributions from a single donor.  When Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi act as though the apocalypse is upon us, just think of Chicken Little getting hit on the head with an acorn and then declaring, “The sky is falling!”  Note to Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi: The sky isn’t falling, and neither are the individual limits on donations on federal candidates.

The third reality check is this: Campaign finance regulation isn’t better for Democrats than for Republicans.  The pre-McCutcheon regime of campaign finance regulation didn’t help either party more than other, and the post-McCutcheon regime won’t help either party more than any other.  There are plenty of big-money donors for both parties.  In the 2012 presidential election, Obama raised just over a billion dollars, and Romney raised just under a billion.  Among super-PAC donors, 49% of Democratic donors gave more than $1 million, while 42% of Republican donors gave more than $1 million.

There is, however, one group of politicians that is greatly helped by campaign finance regulations: incumbents.  Campaign finance regulation is really, really good for incumbents.  That’s because incumbents have a lot of built in advantages over challengers.  Most importantly, incumbents have high name recognition.

Think about it for a second: What does campaign finance regulation do?  It makes it harder to raise money.  You have to find more donors.  You have to attend more fundraisers.  You have to spend more time on the phone begging people for money.

All of that is great news for incumbents for two reasons.  First, a law that makes it harder to raise money is great news for incumbents because they already have a donor network.  Challengers have a harder time finding donors, and campaign finance regulations make that task even more onerous.

Second, a law that makes it harder to raise money is great for incumbents, challengers need money more than incumbents do. They need money to pay for the political speech that introduces them to constituents – because this isn’t 1787 and districts are no longer the size of a small town – and they need money to pay for the political speech that tells voters about the flaws in incumbents’ records.  Want to tell voters that the incumbent raised taxes?  It costs money.  Want to remind voters that the incumbent voted for Obamacare?  It costs money.  Want to make voters remember all the campaign promises the incumbent made and broke?  It costs money.   If challengers don’t have enough money to pay for all that expensive speech, the incumbents will coast to reelection on the basis of mere name recognition.  They already win over 90% of elections.

Do we really want a campaign finance system that protects them even more?

Secrets and Lies about Obamacare

In Casablanca, Captain Renault feigns surprise by famously declaring, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”  Moments later, a croupier hands Renault a pile of money, saying, “Your winnings, sir.”

Just as Renault wasn’t really surprised that Rick’s Café would break the law, none of us can be surprised this week that President Obama and the implementers of Obamacare are breaking the law – again.  After all, they’ve played fast and loose with the law creating Obamacare since it was (sloppily) written and (barely) passed almost exactly four (long) years ago.

The most notorious of Obama’s law breaking has come from his decisions to delay deadlines that were set by Congress.  Of course, most people think that when the President signs into law a bill passed by both houses of Congress, the President has to follow the law – just like the rest of us.  But Obama has repeatedly rejected that quaint proposition on which the rule of law depends.

When Obama didn’t like the deadline for states to decide whether to set up insurance exchanges, he pushed back the deadline.  When he wanted to delay the employer mandate to 2015, he did.  When he wanted to change next year’s open enrollment season, he changed it.  When he didn’t approve of the online-enrollment time-table for small businesses, he delayed it.  Last December, he extended the deadline for coverage effective January 1st.  Two weeks later, he extended it again.  The next month, he changed the closing date for high-risk insurance pools, which he had extended once already.  (Still with me?  There’s so much law breaking, it’s confusing.)  And then he delayed the employer mandate (again).  And then he delayed the deadline for high-risk pools (for the third time).

Now – in what is as surprising to us as gambling in the casino was to Captain Renault – Obama is delaying the final enrollment deadline beyond March 31st.  “I’m shocked, shocked!”

What makes this delay different from the countless other unlawful delays is that the Obama administration was so adamant that it wouldn’t happen.  Two weeks ago, the spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Julie Bataille, told reporters, “We have no plans to extend the open enrollment period.”  Bataille has spent much of life in politics working for some of the most notorious liars in modern political history – including the buffoonish my-grandfather-was-a-coal-miner-Joe-Biden and the masseuse-harassing inventor of the Internet, Al Gore – so she may have learned how to lie from some real experts.

In explaining why she was so sure there would be no delay, Bataille added, “In fact, we don’t actually have the statutory authority to extend the open enrollment period in 2014” – as if an absence of statutory authority had ever stopped Obama before.

The next day, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius seconded Bataille’s empty promise.  When asked at a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee if she was going to delay open enrollment, she replied, “No, sir.”  Her use of “sir” suggests an interesting strategy: Even if you have no respect for the law, at least feign respect for the people who write the laws.

Sebelius’s guarantee that she wouldn’t push back open enrollment wasn’t her only misleading statement of the day.  In her testimony, she told Congress that HHS wasn’t keeping track of the number of Obamacare enrollees who have paid their premiums.  But it now appears she was just trying to inflate Obamacare’s numbers – like LBJ inflating the enemy casualty figures in Vietnam – to cover up the gap between people who have “enrolled” and people who haven’t paid for their enrollment.  Days later, the Ways and Means Committee learned from an HHS website that the agency actually does have this information and was just keeping it secret.

At least someone somewhere has learned something from an HHS website.

Now that is a surprise.

The Costs of Obama’s Weakness

When George Mallory was asked in 1924 why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, he snapped, “Because it is there.”  Fourteen years later, Adolf Hitler might well have given the same answer if asked why he wanted to annex the Sudetenland.  And nearly a century later, Vladimir Putin is swallowing up the Crimea for the same reason: Because it is there for taking.  Putin knows when it comes to invading and annexing the Crimea, no one is going to stop him.

Consider the three candidates you might think at first glance would stand in Vladimir Putin’s path.  First, there’s Ukraine.  But its military is no match for Moscow.

Second, there’s the European Union.  But Western Europe’s anemic military budgets have taken a back seat to welfare spending in once-great nations that have said since World War II, “We’ll sit this one out; we gave at the office between 1939 and 1945.”

Third, there’s the United States.  But it is led by the weakest, most feckless, least intimidating President in the history of the republic.  As Russian dissident Garry Kasparov recently said, “Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Winston Churchill.”  Putin knows that Crimea is there for the taking because he knows Barack Obama would rather collect Nobel Peace Prizes than stand up for American allies and interests and values.

This weak excuse for a President isn’t about to “fight on the beaches”; he only fights in courtrooms defending Obamacare and on the stump excoriating wealth and success.  He isn’t offering “blood, toil, tears, and sweat”; he’s only offering cheaper student loans and free birth control.  He isn’t chomping on a cigar and praising his countrymen during their “finest hour”; he’s wearing mom jeans and apologizing for his countrymen to the rest of the world.

Whereas Vladimir Putin is a Cold Warrior, Barack Obama is a class warrior.  When he declares that “we’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends,” the enemies he’s talking about are entrepreneurs with the audacity to think they actually built their business, and the friends he’s talking about are the adoring fans of this Celebrity-in-Chief.  His style of warfare plays well among union leaders and community organizers, but it isn’t much help against KGB-agents-turned-lawless-dictators intent on territorial expansion.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t want to go to war over Crimea.  America shouldn’t be the world’s policeman.  Instead, what I want is a president who projects strength.  I want a president who understands that weakness provokes aggression.  I want a president who doesn’t draw red lines he can’t back up; who protects our diplomats from terrorists in places like Benghazi; who invests in militarily necessary projects and soldiers; who isn’t afraid to make a detainee stand on his feet for a few hours during an interrogation; and who doesn’t telegraph his spinelessness by flip-flopping for political reasons on everything from gay marriage to campaign matching funds to the individual mandate.

In his best imitation of a real leader, President Obama has vowed that “there will be costs” to Putin’s aggression in Crimea.  I doubt it.  But there are costs to American weakness.  Sadly, the people of Crimea are paying those costs.

The Tea Party Movement Turns Five; A Look Back

TPNN’s Greg Campbell also contributed to this article. 

On December 16th, 1773, colonists stormed Boston Harbor to destroy shipments of tea to protest actions by an out-of-control government that held a stranglehold on the lives and liberty of American colonists. The event became known as the Boston Tea Party.  The act lasted but a few minutes and yet it remains in the collective consciousness of American history to this day.

The Boston Tea Party was an act of civil disobedience- a rallying cry to patriots to stand up for God-given rights as free human beings. This month, the Tea Party Movement, born of frustration and an unwavering commitment to liberty, turns five years old.

On February 19th, 2009, CNBC commentator Rick Santelli stood on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade and offered viewers an impromptu diatribe that condemned the federal government’s most recent commitment of hundreds-of-billions of taxpayers’ dollars to prop up a failing housing market. In his frustration that mirrored the frustrations of millions of Americans, Santelli blurted out an urging for a modern-day tea party.

Americans everywhere who heard or read Santelli’s comments soon asked themselves, “Why not?” Though patriots did not storm harbors, independent groups popped up all around the country. The liberal media panicked and desperately sought out the single leader or industry behind the movement, but found that these groups were not artificial. They were not linked or franchised groups.  They were an organic, bottom-up, truly grassroots movement made up of millions of like-minded individuals who recognized that something had to be done about government.

The left went through the usual motions; they called it “astroturf;” surely the product of the much-maligned Koch Brothers or some other nefarious rightwing moneymen. When that narrative failed, the Tea Party was labeled as a group for bigots and racists who hurled epithets at members of Congress; however, that, too, failed to take hold on any meaningful level when it was utterly debunked. Since the earliest days of the Tea Party Movement, the left has waffled on how to approach these principled patriots- they are routinely dismissed by Harry Reid and his cohorts as an ineffectual fringe group. 

When Democrats cannot advance their radical agenda, however, these same politicians assign blame to the Tea Party- the all-powerful troublemakers who are, to liberals, seemingly, simultaneously, both everywhere and nowhere.

To the left, these Gadsden-adorned freedom-lovers are “anarchists;” to the turncoat Republican establishment, “wacko birds”- whatever that is. They’re derided as obstructionists, but where would we be without the Tea Party Movement?

When President Obama stoked fears amongst the left and center in the aftermath of the horrific Sandy Hook shooting, it was the Tea Party that remained steadfast and sympathetic; steadfastly loyal to our guaranteed rights as Americans, sympathetic to the pain felt by grieving Americans.

When Democrats tried to slide amnesty past the American people, calling it “an earned pathway to citizenship” and other coy euphemisms for rewarding criminality, the Tea Party spoke up. The Democrats have tried and tried again, but have come up short repeatedly thanks to the efforts of millions of grassroots supporters. 

Not every undertaking has been a victory for the Tea Party, however. They have pushed back against bailouts, debt ceiling increases, rampant government spending and other assorted fiscal insanity and have, at times, come up short thanks to the moderate turncoats in the GOP. But the point was made and those who hoped they would simply fade away have been bitterly disappointed.

It was the Tea Party who wrestled the House from the Democrats in 2010 and swept Republicans into office. It has been the Tea Party who has empowered some of our nation’s greatest contemporary patriots- people like Sens. Cruz, Paul, Lee and Reps. Gohmert, Bachmann and Huelskamp. 

Though not every battle has been won, many are still ongoing. The fight to defund Obamacare continues as the defunct program circles the drain. Millions continue to sign petitions, contact their representatives, picket outside buildings and demand accountability on such important issues as Fast and Furious, Benghazi and the NSA scandal. 

The Tea Party Movement became such a threat that the IRS spent years targeting them for systematic harassment- a move that backfired and became yet another scandal for which this administration must answer.

It has been five years since hardworking men and women- many of whom had never protested in their lives- picked up signs and picketed state buildings. These spontaneous acts of frustration and anger merged with political groups who promised more than venting, but helped organize congressional caucuses and political action committees dedicated to effecting meaningful change in Washington.

In five years, this upstart, grassroots community moved from picketing outside the Capitol to helping create nationwide changes inside the Capitol. 

It was one night in 1773 that has served as an inspiration to generations of patriots. The Tea Party Movement, despite continued efforts to delegitimize, diminish and destroy them, has been creating change on a local and national level for half-a-decade.

Change in government is often slow and best measured in years, not days. The Tea Party Movement has matured and grown, but much more needs to be done to save our nation and recommit our government to the fundamental foundations of freedom and liberty. Such transformations are not easy, but this nation, founded on the principles of guaranteed liberty, is a nation worth saving. 

Not All Presidents Deserve to be Celebrated

Obama Nixon
Our country has been blessed to be led by great men of intelligence, strategy and ethics.  However, our country has also suffered during administrations, which were plagued by bad decisions and scandal.  Buchanan’s pre-civil war inactivity, Harding’s Tea Pot Dome scandal, Grant’s bought off Administration, and Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War are just a few examples of president’s whose action or lack of action in office were harmful for the country they were supposed to be leading.

This President’s Day, is it fair for Americans to celebrate all of our nation’s Presidents the same?  Does every President deserve a party or a day of festivity just because they won a national popularity contest or should American’s take the day to reflect on the good and the bad of each President?  A day to study history and what choices made by the man in the Oval Office helped our country and, more importantly, hurt our country.

Currently, as Republicans continue to investigate, we can be all but certain their efforts will be to no avail.  The reason is not because there is lack of evidence, facts or even documents. It is because there will be no witnesses or whistleblowers who will turn against the Obama Administration.  Unless some brave soul turns against the Chicagoland culture of silence and intimidation, the Attorney General will never be forced to bring charges against those at the IRS, and possibly even the White House who directly broke the law by putting the full weight of IRS auditors and bureaucrats on conservative and tea party groups.

The entire investigation into the IRS targeting scandal has been tainted from the beginning.  The House committee conducting this investigation will continue to be stonewalled. The “investigator” from the Attorney General’s office will do little to seek justice.   Barbara Bosserman is a DOJ Trial Attorney who is a known contributor to both of Obama’s Presidential campaigns.   Ms. Bosserman’s appointment makes just as much sense as appointing Chelsea Clinton as head of investigation into Benghazi or Pat Nixon to head the Watergate probe.

In the end, Ms. Bosserman will more then likely conclude that there was a handful of employees out of the IRS’s Cincinnati office that led or conducted a witch hunt on their own.  Maybe one or two will be fired, but no one will be prosecuted.  Although Lois Lerner is smack in the middle of the investigation, she will not be indicted and prosecuted. According to newly released emails, she was in charge of coordinating the assault on the Tea Party and other conservative groups. Specifically, an email dated June 14, 2012, on which Lois Lerner was CC’d, states clearly that potential regulations of dealing with 501c4 groups were being discussed off plan.  Therefore, as has been the track record with other scandals in this administration, because there is clear evidence of guilt, she will be protected at all cost.

For those who study their history, this investigation was much like the Watergate investigation in 1973.  It too was bogged down. The committee investigating the Watergate Hotel break-in was getting nowhere.  Many people refer to former Senator Fred Thompson’s famous question — “What did the President know and when did he know it?” as the key comment of the Hearings.  

But what broke open the Watergate Investigation and turned the tide of history was not any investigator or member of Congress.  It was a White House staffer named Alexander Butterfield.  During Butterfield’s questioning by the committee, he made the off-handed comment that President Nixon taped all his conversations in the Oval Office. The committee immediately requested those tapes.  This was the “smoking gun” the committee had been looking for.  

To put the icing on the cake, John Dean, the White House’s Chief Counsel, turned on the President and assisted the committee in gathering enough evidence to proceed with Articles of Impeachment.  The rest, as they say, is history.

Unlike Watergate, there won’t be a “smoking gun” that comes to light nor will a major player in the White House come forward.   President Obama has the advantage of the unflinching loyalty of his staff, especially Attorney General Eric Holder.  A loyalty, that if President Nixon possessed among his staff, would have allowed him to serve the remainder of his term.

Joe Biden’s Third World Country

Joe Biden Laughing
Last week, our nation’s genius Vice President Joe Biden offered a statement that alienated some of his most loyal fans.  “If I blindfolded someone and took them at 2:00 in the morning into the airport in Hong Kong and said ‘where do you think you are,’ they’d say, ‘this must be America, it’s a modern airport,’” Biden said during a speech on infrastructure in Philadelphia.

Mr. Biden had a point, though not for the reason he thinks.  The Vice President believes that the government is not spending enough money on infrastructure projects like airports, bridges and highways.  If that is the case, why not hold Old Jumpin’ Joe accountable for the taxpayer dollars which have already been put in his care?     

After all, it was he who Obama put in charge of the $872 billion stimulus package that the Democratic-controlled Congress passed in 2009.  Remember, this is a stimulus that was supposed to reinvigorate our economy while repairing and creating many of the infrastructure problems plaguing the country.

But under Joe’s direction or negligence or both, the vast majority of these funds were spent as political payoffs to Democratic donors and government grants and programs that had not been receiving or were receiving very few federal dollars.  Solyndra, which was given $590 million and was bankrupt within one year is just one of the more prominent examples of these wasted funds.  The American people have not been given an accurate audit of where exactly these funds were used.  

People on both sides of the aisle ought to agree that LaGuardia needs an overhaul. America needs interstates. The electrical grid hasn’t been upgraded in decades. Major bridges are perilously close to catastrophic failures. Sewage plants in most major cities are a few breakdowns away from total collapse. 

But the reason the federal government as well as state governments can’t maintain this critical infrastructure is because they continue to spend tax dollars in places our Founders never intended government to ever be involved.  Such massive government programs such as the New Deal, Great Society and now Obamacare are sucking money out of the Federal Treasury and ultimately out of the pockets of taxpayers.  Taxes continue to rise and yet debt continues to increase as our government continues to pay for programs that cannot be managed properly or sustained.  

Politicians at the federal and state level will continue to expand these wasteful programs at the expense of infrastructure. They have no motivation or incentive to seek responsible use of taxpayer dollars because the magic wand of the Uncle Sam will always be there to sprinkle fairy dust of funds. Elected Democrats believe that the government is and should do everything for the citizens, and are willing to curry favor with key constituencies by showering dollars into entitlements, subsidies and social welfare programs.

Republicans are simply gutless.  They are not willing to cut a majority of the programs for fear that they will be negatively stereotyped in the media and public eyes.  And that stirs the greatest fear in their mind: they just might get voted out of office. The establishment Republicans are not about curbing the growth of government; they think they can manage and run it more efficiently.

For the few conservatives willing to buck the system and dismantle the growing welfare state, men like Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, they find themselves as a small minority. Fighting the Bridge to Nowhere, the Woodstock Museum, shrimp on the treadmill, unemployment benefits to millionaires are just a few of the major pork battles that Senator Coburn has fought.  But after 20 years, even Coburn has had enough. Washington has exhausted him.  He is packing it up and returning to Oklahoma to return to his medical practice. 

If a stalwart conservative like Coburn is giving up, should the rest of us?  What are we to do? Should we just give up holding DC accountable and let them spend everything with hopes that one day we might personally benefit from their irresponsibility?

That would be a grave mistake, one that I’m convinced America won’t make.  At its core, America is not a selfish nation. Most of us want a better country for future generations.  If we bothered to educate our children and ourselves regarding the facts about heading down the path to financial ruin and foreign bailouts, it would become obvious that we’d be a heck of a lot better off with a few more Tom Coburns and a few less Joe Bidens in charge.



Prostitution in the Constitution

chicken_ranchBack in December, France’s lower house of parliament voted to make prostitution a crime for those who pay for sex, subject to a fine of €1,500 ($2,030) for a first offense and €3,750 thereafter.  This new law follows similar laws in Sweden, Finland and Norway to restrict prostitution.  Even Germany is now having second thoughts about its decision over a decade ago to liberalize the world’s oldest profession.

Does this mean the U.S. federal government should follow suit and start looking at its own laws regarding the sex-for money-industry? In the eyes of the federal government, prostitution is legal. There are no statutes making it illegal, which is why some Nevada counties allow brothels to operate with abandon.

For millions of Tea Party and constitutional conservatives, prostitution is a thorny issue that mixes opposition of government regulation with issues of morality,  Many of us within the Tea Party find ourselves in conflict with what our opinion should be.  On the one hand, we want the federal government to stay out of our lives.  On the other we believe in the Bible and the standards of morality it prescribes.

Prostitution is a blight on America’s social fabric.  It occurs in every state, in every city.  The only solution is a federal ban on prostitution with the resources of the U.S. government brought to bear.

While exact number are hard to find, in 1999 a study released in cooperation with The Alliance for Speaking Truths on Prostitution and The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs estimated that more then $40 million per day was spent on prostitution which totals more then $14.6 billion per year.  Yet, with that lucrative of an industry, why do most prostitutes live in poverty? Most find themselves in the bottom of the income bracket with large portions of their income being paid out to pimps or agencies, health bills and legal fees.  The majority of prostitutes virtually give up their rights when they accept this career, because who can they run to when their rights are infringed?  Who can they look to for help when they suffer abuse or neglect?

In reality, the prostitution of women — and that’s who we are talking about most of the time — is a kind of violence against women.  Let’s not romanticize or glamorize what the business is. This isn’t something that is a highly-paid and exciting business for young women jet setting on yachts and five-star hotels. The majority of prostitution happens in underprivileged areas, where women are dominated and assaulted and battered.

Research shows it is not the prostitutes who control the money or have any say in the matter. It’s a business in which most prostitutes are not “free to choose” and whose rights are rarely respected or defended.  They get caught up in it and can’t leave.  The majority of those in the industry never were given the choice as some numbers suggest the majority of prostitutes were forced to begin selling themselves between the ages of 11-13.  Human trafficking and adolescent sexual abuse have become a very large problem in this Country, and any laws lessoning the punishment for sex crimes of any kind only encourages this evil to grow.

Just because prostitution may be an act between two consenting adults doesn’t mean that it’s right. It’s not a victimless crime. It’s a multibillion dollar business that exploits, debases and dehumanizes people.  I doubt too many little girls and boys begin life telling their teacher on career day that one day they aspire to become a male escort or a prostitute.

In reality, prostitution is a form of slavery for most and with the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December of 1865, Congress has the power to protect all citizens against being enslaved to another citizen.

The Tea Party movement, as a whole, should traditionally only make judgments on fiscal and Constitutional issues.  It ought to leave social issues to others. Because there are no specific provisions for or against prostitution found in our Constitution, the safety net of the 10th Amendment, leaving the powers of governance to the states, is traditionally referenced to keep the federal government out of prostitution.

But prostitution is an evil that ought to be tackled at a national level.  The Tea Party, doesn’t take the position of no Government; it calls for a limited Government.  For an industry that thrives on the infringement of a citizen’s rights, the Constitution does allow for the Government to make prostitution a federal crime – as it ought to be.