Bloomberg said that the attempt:

Looks like an amateurish job done by at least one person, and that if I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that, somebody home-grown, maybe a mentally-deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the healthcare bill or something.

Seriously? After two successful terrorist attacks by Islamo-fascist and who knows how many failed attempts, Mayor Bloomberg places his bet on a fellow citizen. Why is it that Bloomberg did not suggest that a May Day protestor, or a G8 protestor where behind the attempted bombing? Could it be because Mayor Bloomberg and his ilk are eager for the opportunity to use violence to their political advantage?

This speaks volumes about how politicians feel about Tea Party members and the threat the Tea Party poses to their political power. Leftist politicians are salivating at the thought of a Tea Party member carrying out a terroristic act so that violence can be associated to the Tea Party as a whole. Much in the same way President Clinton blamed Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing hoping to cast all conservatives as violent extremists.

Even the self-proclaimed objective media is doing its best to come up with excuses for bona fide terrorists. Within hours after arresting Faisal Shahzad, the man accused of the attempted Times Square bombing, a CNN anchor stated that:

It can be confirmed that [Faisal Shazad’s] house has been foreclosed in recent years. I mean, one would have to imagine that brought a lot of pressure and a lot of heartache on that family.

Rather than making excuses for terrorists, perhaps CNN should focus on the fact that Shazad spent several months in Pakistan at a terrorist training camp learning how to make bombs. Lucky for us he wasn’t very good at it.

So, much to Mayor Bloomberg’s chagrin, it appears that Islamo-fascists are again behind this attempted act of violence. But have no doubt, given the next opportunity, politicians on the left will brand the Tea Party as the prime suspect, should violence occur.

ERIC CHESLEY: The country is at a crossroads and it’s time to make a choice. Choice A is that we grant the federal government greater power to control financial institutions in the hope that the feds posses the clairvoyance to see a meltdown coming and take appropriate action to prevent a crisis. Choice B is that we demand that the federal government restrain itself and allow financial companies that are “too big to fail” to do just that, fail. In the short term the choice appears simple, if failure can be prevented, why not do something about it? That’s the position Sen. Chris Dodd has taken with his financial reform bill “Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.”

There seems to be bipartisan agreement that financial reform is needed, but Sen. Dodd’s attempt at reform misses the mark. Sen. Dodd’s bill includes a $50 billion bailout fund for big Wall Street firms, awarding some of those who created the problem in the first place. It creates yet another bureaucracy, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would duplicate existing regulatory agencies. And the bill puts a restriction on derivatives that are blamed for last year’s financial crisis, and, as a result of restricting derivatives, U.S. companies probably will seek foreign investment opportunities and moving capital outside of the U.S. But the most worrisome provision of the bill is found in Subtitle B Section 151-156 that creates the Office of Financial Research.

On its face, the new entity sounds rather benign. What is the threat of a federal agency doing a little financial research? The threat lies in the fact that this new office will have the authority to dig into any financial transaction that they like.

Karl Rove shed some light on this proposed agency while appearing on Fox news. He points out that the bill creates a super-regulatory agency with too much power:

It creates a new office and gives it a half a billion dollars a year and a huge start-up for computer systems in order to monitor every financial transaction in the United States and to use that data to arrive at policy recommendations about sensible regulation.

So they’re literally going to have the capacity to go through everybody’s brokerage account and everybody’s checking account and everybody’s credit card and everybody’s financial transactions and collect – sweep that information and then analyze it. Karl Rove, Fox News

The website mediamatters.org calls this claim a conspiracy theory stating that “the OFR (Office of Financial Research) would simply collect and analyze data about potential risks to the financial system, and the proposal has been endorsed by Republican Sen. Bob Corker, as well as numerous economics and finance experts, including six Nobel laureates in economics.”

So what mediamatters.org is really saying to the American people is – as long as the politicians, experts and academics agree it is good policy, then there is no need for us, the uneducated and ignorant American people to worry. In fact the opposite is true. History has proven that when the citizenry stops caring, their leaders will place them in bondage.

Because of the government’s frequent intrusion into our lives, many Americans will be placated by the fact that the OFR will merely be an information gatherer without the authority to act on the information. But it would be unwise to allow ourselves to be lulled into apathy. The OFR will be providing information that it gathers to other federal agencies, which in turn have the power to act.

Besides, when did we become a country where we are comfortable with our government snooping through our personal effects? Any claim made that this is all for the greater good and we will all benefit rings hollow. Have we become so accustomed to governmental intrusion that each new violation provokes little if any response? Again, America is at a crossroads, the current path of a bigger, more intrusive government is unsustainable and fundamentally un-American. We must choose the path that leads to true prosperity, one based upon free market principles and a government that is held at arm’s length.

Weasel Eric Massa vs. Warrior Jim Bunning

WASHINGTON: The balance of health care reform lies in the hands of weasels. Case in point, former Rep. Eric Massa is claiming that he alone wielded the decisive vote in the House on pending health care legislation, and now he has been forced out of Congress by the White House in order to shore up support for passage of the bill.

An initial gut reaction to Massa’s claim is that the White House will stop at nothing in order to ram rod legislation that will fundamentally change this country, even if it means destroying a congressman’s career. It is true that to date there have been promises made, bribes taken and bullying employed to secure votes for socialist style health care reform. But if we turn a light onto the players of this debate, regardless of which side they favor, we find a house full of cockroaches scurrying for a dark crevice to hide within. Few in Congress are untainted by the corruption that exists there.

This is not to say that courage and honor do not exist in Washington, but their manifestations are rare, and when they do present themselves, the person exhibiting these attributes is denigrated and vilified. Senator Jim Bunning’s recent actions in the Senate are a fantastic example of legislative courage. Senator Bunning stuck to his ground opposing unfunded mandates by blocking a $10 billion spending bill. The media was quick to react though. Instead of reporting on the “Pay-Go” law that Democrats passed and President Obama signed, news outlets screamed that the unemployed would suffer at the hands of a single senator.

Eric Massa might believe that he is exercising political courage by exposing the coercive tactics employed against him that ended in his resignation. But is it courage, or is it the last gasps of a dying politician? Massa implies that the White House and the congressional leadership are behind a house ethics probe that involves Massa. The basis of the investigation involves an inappropriate remark made by Massa to a staffer, to which Massa fully admits. If Eric Massa possessed any form of political courage and honor, would he not fight to retain his House seat? The NIP believes there is more to this story than Massa is letting onto and facts revealed later may tell a different story. But for the time being it appears Massa is guilty of more than just an inappropriate remark, otherwise Massa would not have given up so easily.

The point being made here is that we pin our hopes on men and women, trusting that they will have the strength to go to battle in the ideological war taking place in the nations capital. Only to have these hopes dashed to pieces because these same men and women turn out to be weasels, not warriors, incapable of defending themselves much less the American people.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

DETROIT: President Obama addressed the nation on January 5th in response to criticism of his handling of the Christmas day terrorist attack. Early in his speech he tried to squelch criticism of his initial 4 day delay by asserting now it was a matter “of the utmost urgency.” He found fault with screeners and every agency he could think of. He announced tightened restrictions on all US citizen passengers as a fix for the problem, as well as his assurance that “We will close Guantanomo prison.”

For all his fault-finding he glaringly failed to address his own failure. Obama is trying Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a mere criminal defendant in the courts of Detroit. If Abdulmutallab were charged as the unlawful combatant he is, the military would be able to gain intelligence that would be invaluable in fighting the war on terror.

Is the United States at war? President Obama claimed that we are. In his remarks Obama reaffirmed the fact that the country is at war with al-Qaeda. Yet, as we are now all aware, this is not a traditional war involving an enemy state and uniformed soldiers. Rather al-Qaeda members pose as airline passengers placing bombs in their underwear and shoes, hardly conventional tactics. So in kind, President Obama has adopted an unconventional policy in dealing with al-Qaeda that is mudding the waters in the fight against jihadism.

Under the Bush administration, al-Qaeda members were declared unlawful combatants. The term enemy combatant consistent with the United States Supreme Court, refers to “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

1864 Geneva Treaty

Enemy combatants are further separated into two subclasses, lawful and unlawful. Uniformed soldiers are considered lawful combatants and receive prisoner of war status among other protections under the Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants consist of citizens, not soldiers, who directly engage in armed conflict and are not recognized under the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration determined that al-Qaeda members are unlawful combatants. They did so because al-Qaeda is a non-state terrorist organization and therefore does not receive protections under the Geneva Convention.

Whomever happens to be the President of the United States in a time of war has complete authority to detain enemy combatants during wartime and has done so in every major conflict in the Nation’s history. The purpose of the enemy combatant designation is to gather intelligence and to ensure that enemy combatants do not return to assist the enemy. Sadly, this is exactly what occurred last year when President Obama allowed several enemy combatants to be set free. The Pentagon reported that a number of these released Guantanamo prisoners had rejoined militant organizations and carried out attacks. The unlawful combatant designation provides the U.S. military an important tool in gathering information and protects soldiers and citizens alike from subsequent attacks by released detainees. So why isn’t the unlawful combatant designation being applied to al-Qaeda lunatics that attempt to blow up airplanes?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

The policy that the Obama administration has espoused is to charge al-Qaeda operatives in U.S. criminal court, affording them rights not available to someone classified as an unlawful combatant (as did President Bush in the case of Richard Reid, the shoe bomber). The impending NYC trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a fine example of the Obama policy. But consequently this practice of charging enemy combatants as criminals is changing the landscape of the war on terrorism. In November of last year, Senator Lindsey Graham questioned Attorney General Eric Holder asking him that if Bin Laden were captured tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings. The Attorney General was unable to provide an unambiguous answer, to which Senator Graham followed up with “The big problem…is that you’re criminalizing the war. We’ve mixed (legal) theories and we couldn’t turn (Bin Laden) over to the CIA, or the FBI or military intelligence, for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we’re saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States and you are confusing the people fighting this war.”

In addition to confusing those fighting this war, the administrations criminalization of the war will cost the U.S. dearly in missed intelligence. Charging al-Qaeda operatives like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in criminal court gives the terrorist the opportunity to lawyer up and makes for a missed opportunity to interrogate him. The White House claims that although Adbulmutallab was charged under criminal law, the FBI was able to glean usable, actionable intelligence. But ultimately, Abdulmutallab stopped talking a few hours later and refused further cooperation.

In reaffirming the war, President Obama stated “As President I have a solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people”. If the President intends to hold true to this responsibility, then he ought to make use of the options available to him. By placing an al-Qaeda operative in law enforcement hands rather than military custody, the President has shown either that he does not fully comprehend the scope of the battlefield, or he intends to replace our frontline with lawyers and judges. If this is a war, then the President must fight it as a war, not in the courtroom, but upon the battlefield.

WASHINGTON

Some of the protections diplomats enjoy?

• Diplomats may not be arrested or detained by authorities.
• Their residences are not subject to search warrants.
• A diplomat may not be subpoenaed as a witness in a legal proceeding.
• And a diplomat may not be prosecuted, making them immune from both criminal and civil law suits.

A diplomat’s home country may waive immunity and allow its diplomat to be prosecuted, but this rarely happens.

Because diplomatic immunity offers such broad protection, it would only make sense to limit the privilege to those foreign officials who are the pipelines of communication between the United States and their home country. But common sense does not appear to be a factor within the Obama brain trust.

On Dec. 17^th, President Obama issued an Executive Order amending another executive order issued by President Regan in 1983. Regan’s executive order 12425 recognized INTERPOL (the International Criminal Police Organization) as an international organization and granted it some immunities traditionally given to diplomats with some important exceptions. These exceptions made INTERPOL property and assets subject to search and seizures, taxes, and duties. And in addition, INTERPOL was required to register any foreign agents coming into the United States as resident aliens.

Here is the text of Regan’s executive order with the exceptions highlighted:

Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983

International Criminal Police Organizations

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.

Ronald Reagan
The White House,
June 16, 1983.

The Obama executive order deletes the language that provides for these important exceptions. With his executive order, President Obama has elevated INTERPOL to diplomatic status.

So how do these newly acquired privileges affect INTERPOL and the American people? Let’s start with Section 2(c), searches and seizures. Under American law, INTERPOL property and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held are now immune from search and seizure, and its archives are inviolable. Prior to Obama’s executive order, INTERPOL archives were subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Today that is no longer the case. Documents that come under the control of INTERPOL are now inviolable. No longer are these documents within the reach of the United States Congress, Courts, law enforcement or the public.

Section2(d) and Section 3 make INTERPOL exempt to any kind of import tax or duty levied on baggage or effects brought into the United States by INTERPOL. But this is a forgone conclusion, because how can the U.S. impose a tax when it is incapable of searching any container that is brought into the country by INTERPOL?

Section 4 exempts INTERPOL from property taxes, meaning it can buy, build and occupy any property without the burden of a property tax.

Anytime you or I travel outside the country, we are required to present a passport in order to return. Not so for INTERPOL officers and employees. Under Section 5 INTERPOL is granted immunity from registration of foreign agents. So like diplomats, agents of INTERPOL may enter and exit the country at will.

The jewel of Section 5 though, is immunity from law suits. It states that “officers and employees…shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity”. If an agent of INTERPOL violates an American citizen’s constitutional right in the course of an investigation, there is no redress available to the citizen. Or if an INTERPOL agent is driving under the influence of alcohol and happens to plow into and kill an American citizen, a wrongful death suit is not available, a manslaughter conviction is not available. The plaintiff’s only hope is that the home country will waive immunity to law suits, but don’t count on it.

Forth Amendment constraints, the Freedom of Information Act, Constitutional protections, and federal law are devices that protect Americans from an over zealous police force. President Obama’s actions in removing President Reagan’s limitations on INTERPOL establish, on American soil (the U.S. headquarters is located in the Justice Department in Washington D.C.) a police force that is neither subject to the U.S. Constitution nor American law. What is the endgame here? Why would the administration enable a foreign organization the ability to act as a shadow police force? Could it be that the Obama administration sought to create a vault for government files that are beyond the reach of Congress, U.S. law enforcement, the media and the public? Is it even conceivable that benign motives provoked this order? Regardless, you are now in possession of the facts, do with them what you may.

WASHINGTON:

Members of the House have unveiled a bill authored by Illinois congressman Luis Gutierrez, which I affectionately call “Immigration Reform version 2.0.” Because this bill, as opposed to the defeated immigration bill of 2008, by Astroturf activists, would have to be new and improved. It must be fresh and innovative; otherwise what’s the point? The American people have already said no to previous attempts at reform.

Here is the meat of Rep. Gutierrez’s new bill. It would allow migrants to legalize their status without returning to their home countries. It would give nonimmigrant status to the 20 million illegal aliens living in the United States upon registering with the federal government, paying required application fees and a $500 fine, plus pass a criminal and security background check. And best of all, the bill eliminates the ability of local law enforcement from enforcing immigration laws. Thus only the federal government and its agents will have the ability to arrest and prosecute immigration violators.

If this all sounds vaguely familiar, then it should. Rep. Gutierrez’s bill, for the most part, includes the same ideas that the American people soundly rejected in 2008. The number one item that Americans take issue with is that the bill grants amnesty to lawbreakers, and strips states and cities of their ability to deal with illegal immigration.

But proponents see an opportunity. Eliseo Medina, Executive Vice President of SEIU is claiming that the bill “charts a new course for our country—a course that protects workers, respects families, and reflects our nation’s interests and our better instincts. It upholds our values as a nation of immigrants and embraces the vitality and diversity that are the fabric of a vibrant and strong society.”

SEIU is a labor organization that stands to benefit immensely should amnesty be granted to illegal aliens. SEIU hopes to unionize the 20 million undocumented workers which would greatly strengthen its power base. And given SEIU’s links to the Obama Administration, formal recognition, in the form of voting rights for illegal aliens would give the Democrat party a nice advantage at election time.

But let’s ignore this insight for the moment and address the claim on its face. In contrast to SEIU’s claim that illegal immigration protects workers, it in fact does the opposite. Unemployment is at a level not seen since the 1980’s. More Americans are out of work and looking for jobs. Illegal aliens occupy jobs that instead should be available to unemployed Americans. And in rebuttal to those of you screaming “illegals do the jobs that Americans refuse to do!”, I say that times have changed for many of us. Attitudes among unemployed workers are changing and they are now willing to take work where they can get it. Besides, are we willing to create a new underclass out of illegal aliens? Does the creation of a new underclass uphold our values as a nation of immigrants?

It is true that we are a nation of immigrants, and it has been to our benefit. Those who have immigrated over the last few centuries came to America looking for opportunity. Often willing to start at the bottom, these hardworking individuals were willing to leave their homeland behind, to adopt a new culture, language, and way of life. They have prospered, both in private industry and in government. The governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a prime example of an American immigrant success story. But success stories like Schwarzenegger’s are tied to legal immigration.

We welcome legal immigrants with open arms, eager to share the numerous blessings of this country, but under one condition. Become one with us, become an American. The door is not open for everybody, it is not possible and it is not logical. We are a compassionate people, but we adhere to the rule of law, and we expect those seeking entry to our borders to respect our laws also.

So what do we do about those illegals that are already here? Nothing. David Frum, resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute writes:

Okay, not literally nothing. Just nothing new.

By making illegal employment more difficult—and deportation more certain for criminal aliens—we can encourage current illegals to depart and discourage others from ever arriving.

Of course, enforcement will not reduce the illegal population to zero. Perhaps over half a decade we might drive the number down by a quarter, a third, conceivably even half—but unlikely more. What then?

That’s where the “nothing” part of the plan kicks in.

Those illegals who remain in the U.S. because they have formed deep attachments here —a stable job, home ownership, children—will remain exactly as they are now. They may legalize themselves through marriage or sponsorship by a citizen relative. Or the passage of time will remove them, as it removes us all, and their U.S.-born children will grow up as lawful citizens.

Yes, their lives will be uncertain—that’s the point. They signed up for that uncertainty, and the costs to society of alleviating that uncertainty are very great—including the creation of new incentives for further illegal migration.

This is one of those rare occasions where statesmanship coincides with the classic advice to the risk-averse politician: Don’t just do something—stand there.

I couldn’t have explained it better myself.

The "Unsinkable" Titanic

Democrats and a few Republicans must harbor the same mistaken assumption concerning American fiscal policy as that of Philip A. S. Franklin, Vice President of White Star Line when he made a comment in response to the sinking of his company’s ship, the RMS Titanic. He said “I thought her unsinkable and I based [my] opinion on the best expert advice available.” America has hit a fiscal iceberg and the ship is rapidly flooding with debt that will soon drag it to the bottom of the sea floor, and instead of bailing water over the bow, Congress is widening the hole allowing more debt to flood in.

Over the weekend Congress gave final approval to a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending measure that increases budgets for federal government agencies an average of 12 percent and gives federal workers a 2 percent pay increase. The bill also includes 5,224 pet projects known as earmarks at a cost of $4 billion. But what’s a few billion when you’re spending over a trillion dollars; we can afford it, right? (To get an idea of what a trillion dollars looks like, check out this link.)

Here is a small sampling of the disclosed earmarks:

• $2.7 million to support surgical operations in space.
• $200,000 for the Washington National Opera.
• $30,000 for the Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative.

The organization Taxpayers for Common Sense is meticulously searching through the bill looking for additional, undisclosed, earmarks. Check them out over the next few weeks to find out what else is being funded.

Democrats are not the only ones to blame for the included earmarks. For example, Republican Sen. Thad Cochran is responsible for the $200,000 Washington National Opera earmark and Republican Sen. Judd Gregg pushed for a $1 million earmark for a renovation of the Portsmouth Music Hall. Lets give these “fiscal conservatives” the recognition they deserve.

America’s debt ceiling now stands at $12.1 trillion. This means America can borrow up to $12.1 trillion and put it on America’s credit card. With such a high credit limit, you would think it very unlikely that Congress would ever exceed this and need to increase its own debt ceiling. Doesn’t Congress’s budget work the same as yours and mine? When you and I reach our credit limit, we have to pay it down before we have credit available to use again. You see, there is an expectation that you and I are responsible with our debt, but these rules do not apply to Congress. With this latest spending bill, Congress will have to increase the debt ceiling to around $14 trillion in order to have enough credit to pay for the increased spending.

If all this spending concerns you, then know this, there are a few fiscally conservative Democrats and Republicans who have your back. This group is claiming that they favor a deficit task force and they want any increase in the debt ceiling to be tied to a creation of this task force. So if I understand this correctly, the debt ceiling will have to be raised in order to create this deficit task force? I don’t know about you, but this concept does little to bolster my confidence in Congress’s ability to control spending.

Perhaps this statement by Majority Whip Richard Durbin will massage your fears of excessive spending; “Yes, we are spending more money to keep cops on the street, to keep neighborhoods safe so that families feel secure. I think it is money well spent.” Well, I feel safer already knowing that my security merely depends upon Congress spending money that it does not have.

America is a large ship equipped with the greatest financial engine that the world has ever known. But any ship, no matter how large will eventually succumb to an uncontrolled flow of water rushing in through a breach in the ships hull. Congress must stop the spending, it must cut up its credit cards and exercise fiscal discipline, else we as a country will find ourselves in a deep, crushing financial abyss.

But why wait for a crisis to come to you? What if a crisis could be created to serve a particular purpose? This appears to be what Democrats had in mind when the House passed H.R. 2454 The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Best known as the Cap and Trade Bill, it purports to tackle the challenge of Global Warming, or if you prefer– Climate Change. Guaranteed to have a dire economic impact upon our nation, the Cap and Trade Bill has another potential dark side, a legislatively fabricated crisis.

This is one bill that is sure to put a grin upon Rahm Emanuel’s face. On page 690, SEC. 705 REVIEW AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS (C)(6)(A), the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is required to report to Congress on the “increased risks to natural systems and society” that result from an “increase in global average temperature” of 2 degrees Celsius “above the pre-industrial average.” And on “an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations above 450 parts per million” of carbon dioxide.

This all seems fairly benign, just a few reports from the EPA informing Congress of the associated risks of climate change based upon two key parameters. But the bill couples this EPA requirement with a directive given to the President.

In SEC. 707. PRESIDENTIAL RESPONSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS, on page 698 it says, “The President shall direct relevant Federal agencies to use existing statutory authority to take appropriate actions identified in the reports.” The statutory authority referred to already exists within the administration’s regulatory framework and is not enlarged in this bill. But what this bill does is create a kind of crisis.

If the EPA reports to Congress that the risks associated with an increase in temperature and carbon dioxide levels above those outlined in the legislation are unacceptable, then the President is directed to take action once these limits are surpassed. It is important to note that the EPA is not independent of the President, the EPA is an executive agency and its administrator is under the authority of the President.

Today carbon dioxide levels are around 387 parts per million, and some predictions claim that carbon dioxide levels will meet or surpass the 450 parts per million limit within the next couple of years. If levels rise as predicted, and the EPA has reported to Congress that the risks are unacceptable, then the crisis scenario of SEC. 707 goes into effect and the President is then empowered to direct executive agencies to take “appropriate actions”. During the past year how many crises have occurred where the American people have heard the President say “If we do not act…” ?

STIMULUS PACKAGE: “If we do not act boldly and swiftly, a bad situation could become dramatically worse.”

HEALTH CARE: “If we do not act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. These are the consequences of inaction.”

GLOBAL WARMING: If we do not act, climate change will be “Irreversible catastrophe”.

This has been the conduit for which the Obama administration has used to pass controversial legislation. But this method of law making comes at a steep price. This is because a crisis leaves little time for debate and almost no time for compromise, thus opening up the “opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.” For if action is not taken, people will lose jobs, Americans will lose their health insurance and the planet will be irreversibly damaged.

There are a host of reasons why the Cap and Trade Bill is bad for America. But chief among these are the provisions that legislatively create a climate crises. These kinds of laws are fundamentally un-American, they have the potential to grant the President dictatorial type powers, thus subverting the protections granted to the people under the Constitution.

Do not be fooled by their docile appearance, the uninsured are a threat to the American society, and a threat that Rep. Pelosi takes seriously. So much so that on page 297 of H.R. 3962 Section 59B. “TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE”, the bill mandates that those without acceptable health care coverage will incur heavy fines and jail time.

PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail: According to Rep. Dave Camp, ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Americans who fail to maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage”, and choose not to pay the bill’s individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to criminal fines of up to $250,000, and imprisonment of up to five years. Rep. Camp stated that “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail.” (House Ways & Means Committee.)

Who would have thought that the day would come, when Big Government would command its people to open up their wallets to purchase insurance. President Obama tried and failed to make an analogy that a requirement to buy health care is no different than a requirement to buy automobile insurance. The President’s analogy fails because one may choose not to own a car and therefore exempt themselves from the insurance requirement. But the same is not true under the bill passed by the House. The only way to exempt oneself from the requirement to purchase “acceptable” health care coverage is to lay down one’s own body, permanently.

If you are asking the question, “How is it that Congress can mandate a requirement that every American citizen purchase health insurance?”, you’re not alone. A reporter recently questioned Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to enact individual health care coverage?” Pelosi’s answer: “Are you serious? Are you serious?” At which point Rep. Pelosi moved on to another reporter with more accommodating questions.

Nancy Pelosi may believe that it is ridiculous to question Congress’ ability to enact law under the Constitution. But for this writer and millions of Americans, it is no laughing matter. Whenever Congress acts to limit free choice, freedom is diminished and liberty is lost. Today you are free to choose whether to forgo health insurance at the risk of becoming ill and facing financial ruin. It may not be the best choice, but nowhere in the founding documents exists a prerequisite that one must make the best choice, else forgo freedom. The absence of choice is tyranny, and with the passage of the House’s health care bill late Saturday night, American citizens have lost the ability to make a choice.

Editor’s note: If you wish to view the version of H.R. 3296 currently released it is available from the House website here: H.R. 3962. Being 1990 pages long it will crash your browser. It is best to right-click on the document and save to the desktop for offline viewing. (Your browser is not the only thing this bill will crash.)

Me? Well perhaps it was the catchy tune and the vocally gifted piece of parchment paper begging for my sympathy (after all the bill just wanted to be signed), I felt at ease that those writing the bills were honorable citizens and disinterested legislators.

Now, a few years later amidst the cloudy and uncertain debate of health care, my mind is catapulted back to the elementary depiction of our government at work, and one question stands forefront in my mind. Who are the people that are writing the health care bill? Ordinary citizens? Unbiased legislators? As it turns out, the beloved cartoon of American educators everywhere failed to depict the true scribes of many of our laws.

According to a U.S. House of Representatives publication entitled “How Our Laws Are Made”, the source of legislation originates from diverse quarters. The source may come from constituents, representatives, the Presidents administration, and citizen groups, among others. But one source that is not mentioned are special interest groups.

Many special interest groups are composed of unions, political think tanks and conglomerates of like-minded corporations. Where as others, like the National Rifle Association (NRA) or Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) represent grass root citizens who seek protection of certain rights or promotion of single issues. These groups write legislation that is then presented to congressmen and senators, who then introduce it in their respective chamber. Note, I have no real objection to proposals these groups may write, and, in turn serve as a basis or a starting point for legislation. The reason being that these organizations are acutely aware of the issues, and regardless of your political leanings, it is likely that at some point, legislation that you yourself supported originated or was supported by a special interest group.

What I do object to is the commandeering of the legislative process by these groups. Take for instance the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As part of the $787 billion stimulus package, the act doles out billions to clean energy and green-collar job programs. Who wrote this piece of legislation? You guessed it, a special interest group, in particular the Apollo Alliance.

What exactly is the Apollo Alliance? Well, according to it’s website, the Apollo Alliance is a coalition of labor, business, environmental, and community leaders who seek to revolutionize America’s energy sector. Apollo’s goals are clean energy, green-collar jobs, and the reduction of carbon emissions. And did I mention that the Apollo Alliance is funded by the progressive George Soros?

So what’s the big deal you might say? Even if a special interest group writes a bill, it still has to go through a committee, a floor vote by both houses, and be signed by the President. This provides ample opportunity for senators and congressmen to read and debate the bill before it is sent to the President, and the President can always veto the bill. Right?

Well… the problem is this. While in committee, the bill is shaped with the help of special interest groups, like the Apollo Alliance, Acorn and SEIU, rather than by those most affected by the proposed bill. Next, when the bill comes to the house floor, Congress is voting on the bill without ever having read it. Don’t believe me? Ask Rep. John Conyers who recently said “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”. And as for the President, he has stated that when considering subjects like the environment and health care, he seeks the help of special interest groups like Acorn, SEIU, and the Apollo Alliance.

So again I pose the question, exactly who is writing the health care legislation? The answer is, outside of a tight circle of legislators and the Obama administration, no one is really sure. Thus we are left to rely upon the Presidents promise that it is the Apollo Alliance, SEIU and the like who are directing the work, and this should cause you and me concern.

The legislative process as we understood it has been usurped by narrow minded organizations whose political objective is to consolidate power. Perhaps it is time that the School House Rock Classic is updated. Except in this version, the vocal little bill will be led hand-in-hand by baseball bat wielding union thugs who shepherd the defenseless little bill from house to house until it reaches the Presidents desk. What do you think?