House condemns military action in Libya on the anniversary of Congress' repeal of Vietnam resolution

Today marks the 41st anniversary of the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which ended the unchecked war powers granted by Congress to the Executive Branch with regard to the handling of the conflicts in Asia.  In fact, after the Korean War and Vietnam War were waged without a declaration of war, Congress passed the War Powers Act which was vetoed by Nixon and then overridden by Congress.  The War Powers Act declared that the President must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to any military action and forbids the military from remaining in a conflict zone past 90 days without authorization from Congress or a declaration of war. 

Today, 41 years after the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Congress voted against a measure that would have given Barack Obama the authority to continue the U.S. military operation in Libya.  The bill was defeated 295-123 with 70 Democrats joining the House Republicans in rejecting the plea from the White House.  However, the House did not vote to cut off funding for the action.  In reviewing statements from tea party supported candidates like Allen West, Michelle Bachmann, Paul Ryan and Ron Paul, it appears that the resolution to defund failed because it did not go far enough.  Here is a list of those who voted against the resolution.  The video below shows Ron Paul's reason for opposing the defund resolution:

As was mentioned above, the lack of support for the President, especially with regard to his actions in Libya is bi-partisan.  In a shocking video, New York Democrat Representative Jerrold Nadler gives an impassioned speech calling on Congress to stand up and reclaim the powers delegated to them by our Constitution and to keep America from becoming an empire as opposed to a Republic.

Only 49% of Elected Officials can name the 3 branches of government

For all of you who wonder why the Republicans wanted to read the Constitution on the floor, consider this:

No cheating, take this test first:

1) What are the three branches of government? A. executive, legislative, judicial
B. executive, legislative, military
C. bureaucratic, military, industry
D. federal, state, local

2) What part of the government has the power to declare war?
A. Congress
B. the president
C. the Supreme Court
D. the Joint Chiefs of Staff

3) In the area of United States foreign policy, Congress shares power with the:
A. president
B. Supreme Court
C. state governments
D. United Nations

4) The United States Electoral College:
A. trains those aspiring for higher political office
B. was established to supervise the first televised presidential debates
C. is otherwise known as the U.S. Congress
D. is a constitutionally mandated assembly that elects the president
E. was ruled undemocratic by the Supreme Court

5) What impact did the Anti-Federalists have on the United States Constitution?
A. their arguments helped lead to the adoption of the Bill of Rights
B. their arguments helped lead to the abolition of the slave trade
C. their influence ensured that the federal government would maintain a standing army
D. their influence ensured that the federal government would have the power to tax

6) The phrase that in America there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state appears in:
A. George Washington's Farewell Address
B. the Mayflower Compact
C. the Constitution
D. the Declaration of Independence
E. Thomas Jefferson's letters

7) The Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits:
A. prayer in public school
B. discrimination based on race, sex, or religion
C. the ownership of guns by private individuals
D. establishing an official religion for the United States
E. the president from vetoing a line item in a spending bill

8) Identify one right or freedom below guaranteed by the first amendment.
A. Right to bear arms
B. Due process
C. Religion
D. Right to counsel

9) Under our Constitution, some powers belong to the federal government. What is one power of the federal government listed below?
A. Make treaties
B. Make zoning laws
C. Maintain prisons
D. Establish standards for doctors and lawyers

10) Who is the commander in chief of the U.S. military?
A. Secretary of the army
B. Secretary of state
C. President
D. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

Answer key:
1) A; 2) A; 3) A; 4) D; 5) A; 6) E; 7) D; 8) C; 9) A; 10) C

Now consider this:
AOL news found out that...

Elected officials at many levels of government, not just the federal government, swear an oath to "uphold and protect" the U.S. Constitution.

But those elected officials who took the test scored an average 5 percentage points lower than the national average (49 percent vs. 54 percent), with ordinary citizens outscoring these elected officials on each constitutional question. Examples:

• Only 49 percent of elected officials could name all three branches of government, compared with 50 percent of the general public.
• Only 46 percent knew that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war -- 54 percent of the general public knows that.
• Just 15 percent answered correctly that the phrase "wall of separation" appears in Thomas Jefferson's letters -- not in the U.S. Constitution -- compared with 19 percent of the general public.
• And only 57 percent of those who've held elective office know what the Electoral College does, while 66 percent of the public got that answer right. (Of elected officials, 20 percent thought the Electoral College was a school for "training those aspiring for higher political office.")

Gov. Dupont is a TEA Partier

Former Delaware Governor Pete Dupont is one of the most respected living politicians in the state and when he speaks, Delaware listens.  Gov. Dupont is a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and other national publications.  During his tenure as Governor, Delaware experienced a rapid and expansive growth and for that reason, Delaware looks to him as a leader to this day.  He is a fiscal conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge, cut the taxes, reduce the spending and adhere to the Constitution.  Pete Dupont is in fact, a TEA Partier.  Gov. Dupont even honored the Delaware TEA Party groups by being the headline speaker at the 2010 Wilmington Tax Day TEA Party held annually at Dravo Plaza.  He addressed a crowd of hundreds who turned out on April 15th and he called for government to reduce spending, cut taxes and shrink the size of government across the board. 

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week, Gov. Dupont explains the Nov. 2nd elections and calls Obama to the carpet.  He calls for Obama and the new Republican majority in the House to shrink government and remove burdensome regulations so businesses can expand again, cut taxes to stimulate the economy as the Reagan, Kennedy and Coolidge administrations did before them, reduce government spending by cutting discretionary spending and finally to repeal and replace Obamacare with common sense alternatives.  He cited a 136 page rule inserted by DHSS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that places the federal government into a role traditionally held by the states.  He left out however, a regulatory reform from the radical Dr. Donald Berwick and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that will create the much maligned "Death Panels" that Democrats (including President Obama) promised would be removed from the health care law.  Berwick's rule will allow doctors to be paid for providing "end of life counseling" which will be used along with "Comparative Effectiveness Research" to determine the most cost effective future treatments.  By creating an incentive for doctors to "counsel" seniors as to how long they may or may not want to live, the government is effectively removing choice from the equation.  Medicare doctors, who already enjoy a unique control over their patients, will have a financial reason to ensure that every patient receives counseling on how long they should live. 

In the end, Dupont calls on the new Republican House to "Get to it" and begin the work to reform government.  Understanding that the road will be hard and paved with bumps, the new Congress and the improved Senate must fight to reduce the size of government, limit spending, reduce the tax burden and replace Obamacare with common sense reforms while returning choice and competition back to the people and the states.  Gov. Dupont is a TEA Partier at heart and he espouses the values and the principles which we hold dear.  In Delaware, we could not have a better man to look to for guidance as a grassroots movement.  I join Governor Dupont in his support of the new look Congress.  "Let's get to it".

Peeling back the labels on No Labels

Fans of this blog will recall that yesterdays post examined a new progressive group launched by Mike Castle and a host of other establishment political types.  For those of you who might be reading this blog for the first time and who may not be familiar with the term “Progressive” in politics, please begin your study here.  The term sounds benign, even wonderful, moving the country forward and progressing sounds appealing.  The problem is that along the way, as you evolve the government, individuals lose their personality and individuality.  You will need to understand Progressivism to understand the rest of this post.

Today we will focus on some of the founders of No Labels and their affiliations.  No Labels lists 11 founding members on their website and while each of these founding leaders is indeed linked to Progressive or liberal causes, we’ll examine 6 of them in total and 2 in this post. 

David Frum

American progressives (as you know from the history lesson above) have learned that in America’s political structure, it is imperative that you work within BOTH major parties if you are going to accomplish any REAL lasting changes.  In a Republic built to allow laws to be written, removed and reinstated depending on how the  people feel, it is increasingly difficult (and rightfully so) to fundamentally transform America.  That is why progressives cannot be pigeon-holed into only the Democrat Party.  Look at Teddy Roosevelt, perhaps the biggest Progressive to every become President, who was a Republican!  In fact, today, the Republican Party is nearly as progressive as the Democrat Party.  John McCain, Mike Castle, Olympia Snowe and Lisa Murkowski are just a few examples of Republican progressives serving in Washington, D.C. right now. 

Progressives also understand the need to make their views appear mainstream and accepted across the political spectrum in order to build support on both sides of the issues.  That is why modern progressive Republicans have attempted to call themselves conservatives in order to provide a “conservative voice” who can champion their causes.  Frum is a so called “conservative voice” who is frequently called upon by liberal sources like the New York Times, MSNBC and the Washington Post to provide opinions from “the other side”.   

Frum grew up in Ontario, Canada and his first real political move at age 14 was to volunteer for a member of the Canadian “New Democrat Party”.   After attending Yale and working for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes he did work at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (a conservative think tank in NYC).  Once President Bush was elected in 2000, the Canadian citizen (he received his U.S. citizenship on 9-11-07) was appointed as a speechwriter for economics in the White House where he worked from 2001 to 2002. Beginning in 2003 he worked at the American Enterprise Institute but was let go in March of this year amid his criticism of Fox News and the conservative opposition to Obamacare. 

This is not the first time Frum had been discharged amid controversy.  In 2008, Frum broke with National Review Online when he started The New Majority which has become a centrist funding arm.  Frum has also categorized younger readers as “a generation often repelled by today's mainstream conservatism” and he has consistently attacked conservative positions that conflict with President Obama’s agenda.  Frum has supported Obama and progressives in feuds with other more conservative columnists like Stanley Kurtz.  In fact, Frum has increasingly bucked the ideas of conservatism in favor of more populist and progressive positions even to the point of being widely considered to be a progressive plant in the media who practices “pragmatic conservatism” which is little more than slower progressivism.  He has also consistently attacked the TEA Party as being “too conservative” or “lacking pragmatism”.  He has joined a slew of progressive Republicans who have rejected the ideas of reducing the deficit by using the principles of Reagan who lowered taxes to drive up revenue and cut spending to balance the budget. 

Frums conservative credentials are weak when viewed in the overall context of his writing and political viewpoints.  It certainly doesn’t help his cause that his wife, author Danielle Crittenden, is a long time Huffington Post contributor.  In the end it’s pretty clear that Frum is little more than a shill for the progressive movement in general and specifically for the Republican Establishment progressives who value remaining in power far more than retaining freedom and liberty for the people.

Holly Page

Holly Page’s credentials from the No Labels website describe her as having spent 13 years at the Democratic Leadership Council (with the last 5 spent as Executive VP).  The site glosses over her real job which is as a lobbyist with Fontheim International.  Let’s go back just a moment and introduce you to the DLC.  It was started in 1985 by Will Marshall and Al From in response to the dramatic losses by Democrats in the 1984 General election when Reagan conservatism paved the way for Republicans.  Reagan’s natural conservatism reached out to the American middle class, a group that had long been courted by and been loyal to the Democrat Party.  Democrats had lost the popular vote badly and From and Marshall founded the DLC and it’s think tank the “Progressive Policy Institute” in order to discover ways to win back the American middle class.  DLC, PPI and their latest initiative “The Third Way” are aimed at using the moderates and the concept of bi-partisanship to push through the progressive agenda and encourage an ever growing, ever more powerful government.

Mrs. Page has played a key role with the DLC and is responsible for “The National Conversation” which is the largest gathering of Democratic elected officials outside of the DNC.  She brokered a deal with Harvard and the Aspen Institute to provide leadership development training to progressive elected officials.  Holly is also responsible for setting up the first ever online town hall with President Clinton in 1998 and a World Leaders Summit for the Third Way.  She is a dedicated progressive who has worked for progressive political candidates for almost two decades. 

This concludes today’s look at the leaders of “No Labels” and gives you an idea of what you will find in the weeks to come as we begin to peel back the label on the people behind the organization.  You will see the progressive roots in each leader and the connections to other progressive organizations.  The media has called this group “MSNBC’s TEA Party” and to prove its effectiveness the leaders spent the last 12 months preparing a launch event that drew 1,100 people to Columbia University in NYC.  By contrast, the 1^st ever April 15^th TEA Party in Wilmington, Delaware drew nearly 1,500 in the cold and driving rain.  Outdoor events across the state drew nearly 2,500 participants.  New York City is 9 times the size of Delaware in terms of population.  I’m just sayin’.

Next up: Jonathan Cowan and Mark McKinnon

Castle joins other Progressives in creating “No Labels”

Congressman Mike Castle has once again displayed the reason he was soundly rejected by the Delaware GOP electorate in his primary bid for U.S. Senate this past September. He has joined New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Evan Bayh from Indiana, former Florida Governor (and Republican turned Independent) Senate candidate Charlie Crist and New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in helping to form the new activist group “No Labels”. The group is said to be “a counter to the T.E.A. Party movement” and the motto is “Not left. Not right. Forward”. The idea of the motto is to portray the group as a mixture of many different ideological perspectives all seeking the common goal of “doing what’s right for the people”. The group seeks to fill a perceived void between MoveOn.org on the left and the T.E.A. Party groups on the right. Sadly, the fact is that the group is built on the idea that THEY know what is best for “the people” and that THEY in turn need to make the decisions. It’s entire concept of a perceived void speaks to its roots in Progressivism and not a real need for Centrist movement.


The group is a concept hatched by political strategists Nancy Jacobson (Hillary Clinton campaign veteran) and Mark MicKinnon (John McCain/George Bush) and touted by MSNBC hosts. In fact, the launch event was moderated by Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, Dylan Ratigan, and Michael Smerconish. Politicians like Crist and Castle jumped on the chance to get behind this new reincarnation of the Soros “Mainstreet Republicans”. Looking through the leadership of the group, it’s easy to spot the real purpose behind the facade. It’s a group intended to promote Progressive policies by using whatever direction the wind blows. Their idea of bipartisanship is little more than moving the country further to the left incrementally instead of all at one time.

Their cause sounds noble. Seeking to make government more efficient and more fluid sounds great but we have to stop and look at what our founders gave us. Is our government meant to be efficient and solve all of our problems? Well, let’s look at the quotes our founders gave us to find that answer:

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” – George Washington

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry

“Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” – Declaration of Independence
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." - Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare." - James Madison

It’s quite clear from these quotes that the founders intended a limited government based on rights possessed by the people and lent to government. It is a government rooted in individual liberty and natural law. What does that mean? Natural law is a law of nature that every person is entitled to from birth such as the right to self defence, the right to pursue happiness and the right to live. Ask yourself this question next time you read about a law the government wants to pass: “Do I have the natural right to do that?” If you don’t have the natural right to do it, government cannot do it either. Yes, that means that a great many of the laws government has created extend beyond the intended reach of government at many levels. Let’s look at an example:

If your friend Tom does not buy health insurance, do you have the power to force him to buy it? Of course not! Neither does the government.

So the Founders intended government to be restrained by the Constitution. There is little doubt of that. But what about the political class we have today? The founders intended the people to be involved in the process and in fact to control government. The founders themselves were not aristocrats; they were farmers, merchants, lawyers (not nearly the lucrative profession it is today), doctors and writers. George Washington is an example of the idea of the founders for government, he was elected President unanimously and could easily have been King for life but he chose to leave office after only 2 terms. The founders even built wording into America’s first laws “Government derives its power from the just consent of the governed.” (Declaration of Independence) and Thomas Jefferson was quite clear when he said, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." The American government is meant to be small, limited to a few powers defined in our founding document and controlled by the people.

Lastly, let’s talk about the founders intentions for efficiency of government. Washington called government “force” and said “Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” This is a common feeling throughout the origins of our nation. The founders distrusted a powerful government that was able to give the citizens everything they wanted. Ben Franklin said as much, when he intimated that a government large enough to give us all that we desire is large enough to take everything we have. A cursory look over the Constitution itself shows you that the document is meant to be a series of checks and balances. No branch of the federal government has complete control or can even accomplish anything without the others. The President may set the agenda but Congress must pass it and the Supreme Court can overturn it. Congress may control the writing of the budget but the President must sign it and the Supreme Court may strike portions that are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court may determine the constitutionality of a law but they are restricted from writing it or setting policy. Finally we have the issue of the people and the states. They are the final arbiters of federal law. The states were intended to retain more powers than the federal government and the people were left with the bulk of the power. The states, in conjunction with Congress, even have the ability to alter the Constitution which is a power that even Congress cannot do alone. The President has no role in this process at all. The two ways the Constitution can be amended are:

1.) Constitutional Convention (this method has never been used) called by 2/3rds of the state legislatures


2.) A proposal by Congress which is done so by obtaining 2/3rds majorities in both the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4ths of the state legislatures.

As you can see, the process to change the Constitution and even to write and pass a law is intended to be an arduous process that is not undertaken lightly. We haven’t even touched the partisan divide and lest ye think the founders weren’t a partisan group, remember that from the very beginning there were debates and opinions. The party process has actually streamlined the legal process by uniting individual lawmakers around common party causes and even undercut the states by dividing the Senate along party lines. During the time of the founders, the factions included Federalists, Anti-Federalists and Loyalists. Imagine the gridlock that met the first Congress as the individual states, which had just fought a war against the most powerful army and government in the world, vied for their own piece of the federal pie! Gridlock in government is built into the Constitution and built into the federal government design from the founders.

Now back to our friends over at “No Labels” who claim that the TEA Party is an extremist movement that they stand to be a counter to. We’ve already discovered that their opinion that government should be efficient and solve all of our problems is not in keeping with the ideals of the founders. So let’s examine what the “No Labels” crowd has said in their own words, that they stand to counter. The Tea Party stands for:

So it begs the question, does “No Labels” stand against these things? The media and the political establishment have consistently fought to portray the TEA Party movement as a radical right wing group but I ask each of you who read this, do you see anything extreme in the points above? Do you disagree with the idea that taxes should be kept as low as possible? Do you disagree that individuals should be able to pursue the career of their choice in a market that is not controlled by the government(meaning we aren’t told what to do for a living, what to buy, how to make it and what to sell)? Do you disagree that the government should abide by the Constitution? Finally, does anyone disagree that our government should be ultimately accountable to the people? If you can’t disagree with these things, seek out a TEA Party group near you.

1.) Constitutionally Limited Government
2.) Low Taxes
3.) Free Markets
4.) Government Accountable to the people

The “No Labels” folks are little more than the Progressive political establishment who see the TEA Party movement as a threat to their current monopoly on power OVER the people. They see that it is educating more and more people and that the movement reaches across party lines while the common sense it preaches is refocusing the debate on the issues on their merits and taking nothing for granted. They’re frightened because people like Mike Castle, who long ago stopped listening to his constituents were badly beaten in primaries and general elections across the country. Charlie Crist is another example of a Progressive who was rejected by the people and who has joined “No Labels” in an effort to stick it to the citizens who had simply had enough of the failed Progressive policies. In the coming weeks and months we will look into each of the leaders of “No Labels” in an effort to find the true purpose behind the group. All appearances at this time point to a group of Progressives, largely political pundits, strategists and politicians who are turning on the people of America after being rejected by their constituents and the American public at large.

Raising taxes on the car in the ditch and the gas that's in it

Democrats just can't help themselves.  Delaware Senator Tom Carper proposed a 25% tax on gasoline just one week before the House Democrats passed a bill to stop the Obama tax increases for Americans making less than $250,000.  At the same time, the Senate passed a bill that allows the federal government control over the entire agricultural sector (including your own home gardens).  There is another push to extend unemployment benefits as well.  Let's look at each of these proposals on their merits.

1. 25 cents per gallon tax on gasoline - This would certainly put more money into the federal coffers which is desperately needed until the government begins to cut spending but Carper wants to put this money into a fund specifically for road construction (to join the National Highway Trust Fund which is bankrupt because Congress has borrowed from it).  The tax would hit consumers at the pump, making gasoline that averages around $2.95 per gallon today, rise to $3.20 per gallon for regular gas.  It would also hit consumers across the board because businesses who transport goods will need to pay the same .25 cent fuel tax on each gallon their trucks consume.  Do you think that they will eat that cost or increase the cost of their products to cover the fuel cost?  That's right, they will pass it on to us.  Every product on every shelf and in every store will see an increase to help cover the costs associated with this tax and that will amount to BILLIONS of dollars in price increases for American citizens at a time when the dollar is already buying less and less.
2. Obama tax increases on those making more than $250,000 - The Democrats have sold this as class warfare rhetoric by claiming that these increases only affect the top 2% of Americans.  They get away with that because the tax increases would directly hit only the top 2% of wage earners however, it would trickle down to everyone else.  You see, the top 2% of wage earners are also the people who create the jobs in America.  They are small business owners, medium sized business CEO's and hiring managers at Fortune 500 companies.  Ask yourself this, ever gotten a job from a poor man?  The answer is most likely no and this is the reason why it's not smart to raise taxes on ANYONE right now.  When we need jobs as badly as we do now and when many with jobs are looking to salary increases to stave off the effects of inflation, it's even less understandable that the Democrats would fight so hard to stick it to the people who create the jobs.
3. Food Safety Act of 2010 - Progressives always come up with innocent sounding names for their bills in order to conceal the goal of the legislation.  This is one of the times where the name of the bill obscures the true intent.  Allegedly brought on by the recent egg scare, this bill builds on something that started in the 1930's with the Agricultural Adjustment Act.  The AAA allowed the government to control planting habits in many of America's staple crops by subsidizing farmers who let their fields lie dormant in order to artificially adjust pricing for certain crops (think corn, grain and cotton) and influence which types of crops are grown in each region.  Later the progressives would introduce genetically engineered seeds that produced higher yields and larger products than the original "heirloom" seeds but the problem with the genetically engineered seeds is that they are only good for a single season because they are sterile.  Heirloom seeds, the original seeds work in the traditional fashion where pollination can occur and seeds can be planted once and grown for many seasons thereafter.  Sterilizing the seeds serves a single purpose, it keeps farmers coming back every year for more seeds.  Now Congress has introduced a bill that allows them to control livestock, tomatoes, cucumbers, you name it, they can now determine where you can grow it, how you can grow it, when you can grow it and what you can do with it afterwards.  There is even a provision (put on hold by a last minute amendment) that controls home gardens.  It does almost nothing to increase safety unless you trust the government with every aspect of your life.
4. Unemployment benefit extension - Unemployment benefits are both a great safety net and a terrible tool of control.  They allow immediate relief for people who are laid off abruptly through no fault of their own and provide the necessary minimum (sometimes less than the minimum) required to sustain them until they are able to find work again.  The problem is that Congress has raised unemployment benefits so much and extended them for so long that there is a segment of the population that has become accustomed to living on these benefits and who no longer feel the need to seek gainful employment.  As one talk show host said, "If the government will pay you $300 per week to stay in a home paid for by someone else and do nothing, why go out and find work?"  Yet, unemployment benefits are crucial at this time with so many people out of work and so there must be a discussion about extending them at least until the job market improves so the conservatives have suggested that the Democrats use unspent TARP or stimulus funds to pay for their new spending on unemployment benefit extensions.  The Democrats have refused to do that and instead want to add more than $12 Billion to the federal deficit (which is now over $14 Trillion) in the most fiscally irresponsible move imaginable.  In fact, Democrats have said that increasing spending in one are and decreasing it in another doesn't make sense.  Conservatives say that the 2010 elections show that Americans want a more responsible management of funds and that using unspent TARP or Stimulus funds is the most responsible way to pay for these extensions.  They call it balancing the federal budget.

The current culture of spend, spend and spend some more has not changed with the wake up call sent to Washington on November 2nd.  We can only hope that the new Congress in January makes the changes we all want, needs and desire.

Unemployment Hits 9.8%

The Wall Street Journal reported tonight that unexpectedly low jobs numbers drove the unemployment rate up to nearly 10% and betrayed the idea that the economy is recovering at least at the speed with which the Obama administration suggests.  Employers added just 39,000 jobs in November which was a deep drop from October's numbers.  It's unlikely that the economy will make any miraculous recoveries anytime soon.  Most forecasters are suggesting that at best, the unemployment rate will shrink to 8.5% by the end of 2012.  The Obama administration has increased the national debt by more than $3 Trillion and has spent money on stimulus and bailouts like crazy hoping for better results than this.  Had they cut spending instead of increasing it, gotten out of the way of the free market instead of buying into it and reduced the tax burdens on job creators there is plenty of evidence to suggest the numbers would be far better.

These numbers are not what the American people had in mind in 2008 when they voted for "change" and they certainly are not what the people had in mind last month when a wave swept the Democrats out of control of the House and crippled their filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  If the numbers continue to stay this high, it's difficult to see how Obama and the Democrats will be able to overcome the push of conservative fiscal policy when the new Congress takes office in January.