Of First Importance

Today marks the 225th anniversary of signing of America's Constitution. On September 17th, 1787, delegates to the convention met for the final time to sign the document they had spent four months crafting. The Constitution is quite possibly the most remarkable secular text ever written despite being a mere 7,200 words-- or perhaps because it is a mere 7,200 words. This blueprint simply and succinctly lays out a system of government providing three branches of government--an executive branch, a bicameral legislature, and a judicial branch. This provided a solid, but not overreaching, federal government that the Articles of Confederation failed to do. Additionally, the Constitution extends powers to the states, provides the process of both amending and ratifying the document, and denotes the Constitution's legal status. All of these functions are outlined in just seven relatively short articles. There's beauty in succinctness and simplicity, yet too often ugliness in obfuscation and complexity.

It is interesting what the Founders chose to mention first in this document and its various sections, as often, what is mentioned first is what writers or speakers deem most important. The preamble to the Constitution begins with three simple words "We the people". It wasn't "we the delegates" or "we the states". It was "we the people". The individuals at the constitutional convention were delegates from their respective states, but they decided to begin the document as we the people. They did not give special credence to themselves as delegates, although they could have.The Founders were all well versed and intelligent. They did not necessarily even say we the states, although those delegates were representing the states. James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution,  thought that the document was of "the people" because it was ratified by the state legislatures which represented the people. This is what separated a constitution from a league of states or a treaty of states.. A constitution of "we the people" is what made the states truly united as opposed to a loose confederation of states.

Additionally, the Founders chose to begin the Constitution by outlining the legislature, not the executive branch. James Madison often referred to the legislature as the "first branch". The legislature is responsible for making laws. However, through abdications over the years, executive branch agencies and bureaucracies have been given powers by the legislature, except they are usually called regulations when implemented by those outside the legislative branch. In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was formed out an executive order from President Nixon and was ratified by Congressional hearings. While its role is to implement laws passed by Congress, the specific regulations themselves--from light bulbs to power plants-- are dictated by the EPA. More recently, with the passage of Obamacare in 2010, Congress again abdicated much of the control of Medicare spending to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) --"death panel". As Independent Women's Foundation policy analyst Hadley Heath notes:

Each year, the CMS director will submit to IPAB the per-capita growth rate in Medicare and the target per-capita growth rate. Undoubtedly, as health care costs continue on their upward spiral (fueled by government regulations), the growth rate will be higher than the target rate. The mission of IPAB will be to make the two rates match, by drafting a proposal for changes to the Medicare program. This proposal will become law unless Congress, by supermajority in both houses, votes to stop the proposal and comes up with its own plan to match IPAB’s savings. 

Through the passage of Obamacare Congress essentially ceded their ability to provide necessary changes to Medicare to an agency director and an unelected panel appointed by the President. Despite these abdications of power, the Constitution provide a blueprint for what part of government was of first importance--Congress-the body given the power to make laws.

When it comes to the executive branch, the Founders saw one role of the executive to be most important--that of commander-in-chief. The second article of the Constitution describes the executive branch. The first section of this article focuses on the election,qualifications, and oath of office for the president. However, the second article, which lays out the role of the president, begins by laying out the president's position as commander-in-chief. This is something that is unfortunately, for the most part,  lost on our current president, as Andrew McCarthy noted at National Review over the weekend:

Defense against foreign enemies is the primary job of the president of the United States. The rationale for the office’s creation is national defense — not green venture capitalism, not rationing medical care, not improving the self-image of the “Muslim world,” not leaving no child behind, not blowing out the Treasury’s credit line. Yet, though we are entering the late innings, foreign policy and national defense have not been factors in the 2012 campaign.

President Obama has not fulfilled his primary job--commander-in-chief-- as is easily seen by the fact that he has attended less than half of his national security briefings. On the heels of the report of President Obama's lack of attendance at national security briefings came the attacks on US embassies in Egypt and Libya and other areas throughout the Middle East. Attacks that resulted in the death of four Americans including an ambassador and two Marines. Mind you, this consulate that was attacked was in an unstable, Muslim country where there wasn't sufficient security, and the attack occurred on the first September 11th following the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Both parties are guilty of rejecting the ideas of "first importance" espoused by the Founders. Clinging to power, leaders have felt that their role should be "we the government"--that  they know better than us (we the people) how to run our lives and spend our money. At the same time, Congress has too frequently abdicated their role as a legislative body to a power thirsty executive branch. Presidents have acted as if meddling domestically in individuals lives is of first importance than the securing the nation, not in the sense of nation building or military overinvolvement, but of vigilance and deterrence. There is no reason to despair, however, the Founders knew quite well the imperfections of men.

 Of second importance in the Constitution's preamble was to "form a more perfect union"; a perfect or complete union was not possible, but getting closer to completion was indeed possible. They knew that perfection was impossible of a government of men, but they did not succumb to pessimism. Although he was not part of the constitutional convention, Thomas Jefferson once noted (emphasis added):

We owe every other sacrifice to ourselves, to our federal brethren, and to the world at large to pursue with temper and perseverance the great experiment which shall prove that man is capable of living in [a] society governing itself by laws self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and peace; and further, to show that even when the government of its choice shall manifest a tendency to degeneracy, we are not at once to despair, but that the will and the watchfulness of its sounder parts will reform its aberrations, recall it to original and legitimate principles, and restrain it within the rightful limits of self-government.

We have the opportunity--both through our voice and our vote-- to help reform the aberrations of our government and recall it to those original and sound principles--those first principles of self-government. It started with "we the people", and that is how it should continue.

Will 2012 Be a Banner Year for Women Running for the Senate?

What would it mean if a rancher, a former CEO of the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), a director of a synthetic fuels plant, and a Japanese immigrant turned Georgetown educated lawyer were all in the same room together? In January it may simply mean that the Senate is session.  Those four individuals of diverse backgrounds are just a portion of the 18 women  running for 33 Senate seats in this year's election. Deb Fischer, the Republican candidate for Senate in Nebraska, is a rancher running to fill the seat of retiring Senator Ben Nelson. Linda McMahon, the Republican candidate for Senate in Connecticut, is running to fill the seat of retiring Senator Joe Lieberman and once was the CEO of the WWE (formerly WWF). Heidi Heitkamp, the Democratic candidate for Senate in North Dakota, is the director of the Dakota Gasification synfuels plant. Mazie Hirono, Democratic candidate for Senate in Hawaii, emigrated to America from Japan with her mother and brother and later went on to put herself through college at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and law school at Georgetown University.

The 18 women running for Senate are a bipartisan group--twelve Democrats and six Republicans. In three races--Hawaii, California, and New York-- women are running from both parties.In Hawaii, not only is Mazie Hirono running, but former Republican governor Linda Lingle is vying for the seat as well. In California, Elizabeth Emken, former vice president of government relations for Autism Speaks (an autism advocacy group), is challenging incumbent Dianne Feinstein, who was elected first female senator of California in a special election in 1992. In New York, Wendy Long, who worked in the senate for two GOP Senators during the Reagan years before getting her law degree and practicing, is challenging incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand ,who is running for her first full six year term after first being appointed to the seat, vacated by Hillary Clinton, in 2009 before winning a special election in 2010.

In addition to Senators Feinstein and Gillibrand, four other women are running for re-election to the Senate--Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Debbie Stabnow of Michigan, and Maria Cantwell of Washington. According to Real Clear Politics's current analysis, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, and Cantwell look poised to win their races handily while Senators McCaskill's and Stabnow's races are designated "leans Democratic" indicating that the race is more favorable to them.

The aforementioned Mazie Hirono is currently a Congresswoman from Hawaii, and two other current Congresswomen are running for seats in the Senate. Tammy Baldwin, Democrat from Wisconsin, is running for the seat held by the retiring Herb Kohl. She was elected the first female Congresswoman from Wisconsin in 1998 and would be the first female Senator from Wisconsin if she is elected. Nevada Congresswoman Shelley Berkley is running for Senate in Nevada. She was the first woman to serve her district in Congress and, if elected, would be the first woman to serve in the Senate from Nevada.

In a very high profile race, Elizabeth Warren is challenging Scott Brown for Massachusetts Senate. Warren has twice been named to Time's 100 Most Influential People list and has spent two decades as a law professor at Harvard. In Maine, Democrat Cynthia Dill is running for the seat held by retiring Republican Olympia Snowe. Dill is a civil rights lawyer who has served in Maine's state legislature for six years. Heather Wilson is the Republican Senate nominee in New Mexico. Wilson, a former Congresswoman, was part of only the third Air Force class to include women and was the only female veteran in Congress during her six terms in the House.

2012 is proving to be a banner year for women running for the Senate as this year's race shows a marked increase in general election Senatorial candidates over the record high of 14 candidates in 2010.There were also 18 other women  from  13 states who ran in the Senatorial primaries but did not win their party's nomination. While there still is a long way to go for the gender gap in American politics to shrink and eventually disappear, this group of diverse and experienced women provide a lot of optimism for female voices in the US Senate.

Crossposted from The New Agenda. 

President Obama Funds a Government with an "Epidemic" of Sexual Harassment

As the Democratic National Convention got under way today, the Democrats trotted out in their vagina and "Pillomena"birth control costumes to denounce the so-called Republican war on women. Meanwhile the national debt passed $16 trillion today, with $5.4 trillion of that coming during President Obama's three and a  half years in office.

Nevermind all of that social and domestic economic policy stuff though, the Obama administration has foreign policy issues to attend to. As the New York Times reports:

 Nearly 16 months after first pledging to help Egypt’s failing economy, the Obama administration is nearing an agreement with the country’s new government to relieve $1 billion of its debt as part of an American and international assistance package intended to bolster its transition to democracy, administration officials said. 

 [...] 

 In addition to the debt assistance, the administration has thrown its support behind a $4.8 billion loan being negotiated between Egypt and the International Monetary Fund. Last week, it dispatched the first of two delegations to work out details of the proposed debt assistance, as well as $375 million in financing and loan guarantees for American financiers who invest in Egypt and a $60 million investment fund for Egyptian businesses.

Rather than focusing on reducing America's burgeoning debt, President Obama is extending debt assistance to a country who already owes us more $3 billion, as the Times article later states. But what's a billion dollars when one's administration has added $5.4 trillion already, right? President Obama had already bypassed Congress to give Egypt $1.5 billion in March when the then unelected Muslim Brotherhood already held power. Additionally, as noted above the Obama administration has been instrumental in facilitating an large IMF loan to Egypt.

Furthermore, despite the supposed war on women in America, President Obama is extending loan support to a country that recently elected a Muslim Brotherhood candidate to the presidency in June. This president, Mohammed Morsi, promised to select a female VP, but did not, only choosing women for aide and advisory roles. More appalling though, the election of the Muslim Brotherhood three months ago has lead to what the BBC calls an "epidemic" of sexual harassment (emphasis added):

 Campaigners in Egypt say the problem of sexual harassment is reaching epidemic proportions, with a rise in such incidents over the past three months. For many Egyptian women, sexual harassment - which sometimes turns into violent mob-style attacks - is a daily fact of life, reports the BBC's Bethany Bell in Cairo. 

 [...]  

 The day I met Marwa, she was wearing a long headscarf pinned like a wimple under her chin, and a loose flowing dress with long sleeves over baggy trousers.  

 But dressing conservatively is no longer a protection, according to Dina Farid of the campaign group Egypt's Girls are a Red Line.  

 She says even women who wear the full-face veil - the niqab - are being targeted.  

 "It does not make a difference at all. Most of Egyptian ladies are veiled [with a headscarf] and most of them have experienced sexual harassment.

President Obama adds to our debt to help ease the debt of a country that has a massive and real, sustained war on women. Meanwhile, this week, the Democratic National Convention will have women like Sandra Fluke, a 30 year free birth control proponent, speak on a faux war on women and pay homage to former Senator Ted Kennedy who was notorious for leaving a female companion, Mary Jo Kopechne, to drown after a drunk driving crash and for sexual harassing waitresses. Such blatant and out-of-touch hypocrisy.

However, none of this is any surprise to Governor Palin--often the target of the Democrats' misogyny herself. In February of 2011, she warned of the threats to women's rights (as well as religious rights) should the Muslim Brotherhood take control:

 

 While the Obama administration claims that such funding and diplomatic support to Egypt is aimed to assist the formation a new democracy, they do nothing of the sort when they aid an ideological group based on harassment of women and religious persecution. Crossposted here and here.

Re-visiting Benjamin Franklin's Discussion of a Chair

On the last day of Republican National Convention, actor Clint Eastwood gave part of his speech in conversation with an empty chair, which represented the empty leadership of President Obama. In his "dialogue" Mr. Eastwood noted that we, as Americans, own this country, and politicians work for us:

 

 Nonetheless, following that speech President Obama tweeted the following from his campaign Twitter account:

This seat's taken. OFA.BO/c2gbfi, twitter.com/BarackObama/st…
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) August 31, 2012

Yes, the seat may currently be occupied by Barack Obama, but it belongs to the people of America. One of the great things about our constitutional Republic is that we are afforded the opportunity every four years to vote on who occupies that seat--it's not a throne. Our leaders are accountable to us.

Nearly two hundred and twenty-five years ago, in the city of Philadelphia, another octagenerian--Benjamin Franklin-- had his own discussion about a president's chair. Even at the age of 81, Franklin was one of the Pennsylvania delegates at the Constitutional convention. George Washington presided over this convention and sat at in a chair at the front of the hall. The chair had the a gold painted piece on the back fashioned in the shape of a sun (seen below):

Franklin had some remarks about this chair that George Washington sat in for the duration of the convention:

As the representatives signed the Constitution, Franklin watched. The president's chair was at the front of the hall, and a sun was painted on the back of the chair. Franklin told some of the members near him that it was always difficult for painters to show the difference between the rising sun and the setting sun. He said that during the convention he had often looked at the painted sun and wondered "...whether it was rising or setting. But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun."

It was a rising sun--rising on the greatest nation on earth following the crafting of the best political document ever to be written. This document starts with "We the people"; the power of the government that this document outlined was with the people. During the convention, the Founders thought there were seats that deserved to be discussed prior to that of the presidency--the legislative branch. The first article of the Constitution is devoted to the elections, requirements, and functions of a bicameral congress. (Don't let Joe Biden's 2008 vice presidential debate performance confuse you--the executive branch is discussed in the second article of the Constitution, not the first).This means that with our current Congressional system there are 535 seats (435 House and 100 Senate seats)--representing the individual states-- that our Founders thought were of first priority to mention. Unfortunately, the promise of that rising sun has been eclipsed over the last two centuries by unconstitutional power grabs from presidents and misguided abdication by the legislative branch itself. Nevertheless, the power to write laws, develop budgets, and other tasks lie constitutionally with this branch. Their role is extremely important.

In this year's election there are 435 House seats, 33 Senate seats, and 1 president's seat up for a vote. While executive power within in the United States and a representation of leadership worldwide lie with the president, we cannot forget not only that this seat belongs to the people of America, and that there are 468 other seats up for a vote this year that are of extreme importance. Our constitution states that all bills for raising revenue must begin in the House of Representatives. Because of a lack of leadership, our Senate has not passed a budget in three years, despite the work of the House to present them with a budget. This lack of leadership and dire need for fiscal responsibility is just one of the many reasons I wrote a few months ago about the importance of the Senate races in this year's election. Regardless of who is elected to the presidency in November, a conservative, reform minded  House and Senate is necessary to help ensure that proverbial sun is neither eclipsed, nor sets. All of this is not to diminish the important role of the presidency, but to put it in constitutional perspective.

Whether it is the seat of the presidency or of Congress or any other seat at any level of government, those who occupy those seats  must remember to whom that seat ultimately belongs--the people who elected them.  Is the sun that Franklin spoke of continuing to rise on America? Is it morning in a America? Or is it a time where the clouds of a presidential fiats, Congressional abdications, and arrogant leadership darken the promise of the Founding Fathers? Thankfully, the answer lies with us--with our vote--with our desire to truly make this a nation of  "We the People".

Crossposted here and here.

Dan Bongino: Principles Manner

On Thursday, Governor Palin encouraged supporters to donate to Maryland Senatorial candidate Dan Bongino, noting that he could be the Senate candidate to help put Republicans over the top in the Senate. Bongino has the support of Governor Palin and Senator DeMint, the two leaders who are putting forth the strongest effort to ensure that Republicans regain a majority in the Senate. Following that tweet from Governor Palin, Bongino tweeted a thank you:

@sarahpalinusa thank you & Senator DeMint for your continued support. #Realchange is coming in 2012. Principles matter.
— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) August 30, 2012

Principles matter. This is something that Bongino understands very well. When Governor Palin endorsed Bongino, she noted, "Dan is not a politician, but he's spent his career protecting them". Bongino was a Secret Service agent serving under three presidents, while his opponent has been in political office since before Bongino was born. He touts his lack of political experience as a "badge of honor" and is glad he hasn't "made  any deals" like a politician. He got into the race in 2011 with the backing of businessman and 2010 Maryland  gubernatorial candidate, Brian Murphy (whom Governor Palin endorsed in the 2010 primary).

Bongino puts principles over party, and notes, "I'm a conservative first, and a Republican as a method to get on a ballot". He understands that crony capitalism is a major issue through all aspects of our government. When the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, Bognino released a statement noting not only the massive bureaucracy in Obamacare, but also its crony capitalism. This is something he also notes in  his stance on other key issues--such as energy policy and tax reform. He does not support energy subsidies, and he is in favor of simplifying the tax code because it's "been riddled with 'crony capitalist' deductions for favored industries" and supports removing loopholes.

Principles matter, and Bongino realizes that. He won the GOP primary because of those principles, not because he kowtowed to the Republican establishment. One conservative Maryland blogger called Bongino a "defibrillator for a party in cardiac arrest":

It wasn’t too long ago that Delegate Pat McDonough–who was also running for the Senate nomination,then wasn’t running, then was running again, then wasn’t running again but was still handing out campaign literature saying he was–accused Bongino’s campaign of being a “novelty act.”

“He’s done absolutely nothing for the Republican Party or for his community,” McDonough said. “You have these unknown people who come out of the woodwork who want to run for high office. It’s like joining the Catholic religion and wanting to be pope.”

This sort of petty narcissism seems endemic to the Republican Party nationally but seems particularly virulent in Maryland. Given that the so called “Free State” is being run over rough-shod by a Democrat Party monopoly, I’m not sure what these party insiders claim to have done for the party themselves. Dan Bongino has made it exciting to be a Republican in the state of Maryland, which is far more than some of his detractors have done. Dan is like a defibrillator for a state party in cardiac arrest.

He aims to win this Senate seat in deep blue Maryland because principles matters. Please take check out his latest web ad below, and visit his website here.

 

Crossposted here and here.

President Obama's Convenient Lie Provides Free Advertising for His Donors

Earlier today President Obama tweeted the following about women's "health":

Make sure the women in your life know: twitter.com/BarackObama/st…
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) August 26, 2012

It's intriguing that the President decided to tweet a quote from a women's health magazine to make a policy point. The quote Obama used was from a scare tactic campaign from Women's Health magazine that indicates that women's reproductive "rights" may go the way of the dodo bird. A little closer look shows that President Obama may be giving Women's Health magazine the Solyndra treatment. The CEO of Rodale Inc, Maria Rodale, which publishes the magazine, has given the President $5,000 to his campaign and and another other $5,000 to the DNC. Rodale Inc mostly focuses on health and wellness related magazines and books, but interestingly also published Al Gore's "global warming" fictional book, An Inconvenient Truth--indicating their aim may be more political than solely "health and wellness". It sure was nice of the President to give some advertising to one of his donors and ideological peers, huh?

Of course, Women's Health Magazine , in addition to campaign funding, also gave First Lady Michelle Obama the platform to promote the President's health care reform bill this past May. Mrs. Obama writing in part about contraception (emphasis added): 

 It used to be that even many women with health insurance would skip these check-ups because of the cost. In fact, before the health reform law that my husband signed back in 2010, some insurance companies would routinely charge women 50 percent more than men for the same coverage because they needed more frequent access to preventive services like mammograms and cervical screenings. Fortunately, the new health care bill makes that discrimination against women illegal starting in 2014, and today, insurance companies are required to cover life-saving cancer screenings and other preventive services like contraception and immunizations without a co-pay. 

While the First Lady wrote this piece for Women's Health and provided them with her workout play list,  interestingly, she turned down an interview and cover with the Heart & Soul, a  health magazine for African American women.

Beyond the cronyism of free advertising, the tweet is blatantly false. President Obama implies that the Republican Party is trying to limit or ban birth control. Those claims are only true in liberal newspeak where "ban" is synonymous with "not forcing employers to pay for". However, this is the kind of fight the Obama administration brought upon themselves when they sacrificed the first amendment to expand government, and it's a problem easily solved if the free market is brought into health care, a concept I describe in a post at Breitbart.com in February:

Beyond the economic benefits, a free market based health care system provides the best vehicle for religious liberty. When health insurance is detached from employment, it means that employers—be they religious institutions or religious business owners-- have no requirement to violate their conscience by providing insurance that covers contraception and abortion causing drugs. 

The same is true for individual health care consumers and insurance companies themselves. Individual health care consumers would have the option to purchase plans from insurers that either do or do not cover contraceptives. While individuals opposed to contraception would not desire contraception for themselves anyway, choosing a plan that does not cover contraception means the money they used to purchase health insurance does not have the potential to “cross subsidize” contraception or abortion causing drugs. 

“Cross subsidization” occurs when insurance premiums are pooled by the insurer and then dispersed to pay medical bills for those they insure, meaning that the money one pays in insurance premiums beyond what care they need may ultimately cover another individual’s care . Market based healthcare also provides health insurers with the freedom to abide by their conscience in what they will cover. Insurers who oppose contraceptives would not be obligated to provide coverage, and those who approve contraceptives would be free to do so. There is a market for both, and it would provide employers, individuals, and insurers the freedom to exercise their religious liberty.

President Obama is again trying to scare women into believing that the only way to protect their so called reproductive freedoms is to grow government and quash religious freedom--and in the process, he's providing free advertising for his donors. In reality, the free market providers the greatest platform for both individual and religious freedom.

Crossposted here and here.

Hope and Change Re-visited

Recently,when Governor Palin released a statement indicating that she wouldn't be speaking that RNC, she noted:

Everything I said at the 2008 convention about then-candidate Obama still stands today, and in fact the predictions made about the very unqualified and inexperienced Community Organizer’s plans to “fundamentally transform” our country are unfortunately coming true.

She is right. What Governor Palin predicted in her speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention has unfortunately come to fruition. In September of 2010, Stacy Drake and I  put together a post highlighting the prescience of just a three minute portion of her speech. Stacy put together the following video with that segment of the speech:



Nearly, two years have passed since we put together that post, and President Obama has fundamentally transformed our country even further. I've re-visited that portion of Governor Palin's speech below to indicate what Governor Palin predicted that has actually come to pass over the past more than three and a half years. The text of her speech is in italics; President Obama's "achievements" are in bold:

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign

·          When President Obama has gave a major speech on the war strategy in Afghanistan at West Point in December 2009 without mentioning the word “victory” once.

·         In 2011, when he talked about ending US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, he mentioned the word victory only once in each speech—to reference the killing of Osama bin Laden during his administration which has been a key talking point of his campaign.  

But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the roar of the crowd fades away … when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot — what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger:

·         The Obama administration has taken far greater regulatory and inhibitory control over:

o    The auto industry

o    The health care industry

o    The finance industry

o    The student loan industry

·         Government growth

o    Under President Obama, government spending has been 24% of GDP, which is higher than the last 40 year average of 20.7%.

o    The number of federal employees has increased 6.2%.

take more of your money … give you more orders from Washington … and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world:

·         The ineptness of the Department of Homeland Security and the corruption of Department of Justice has left the border insecure, border control personnel dead, and American guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels under “Fast and Furious”.

·         During the Obama administration our debt has increased 50%, with about third of that debt held by foreign countries.

·         President Obama signed the START treaty which called for reduction of our nuclear arsenal. 

·          He also made cuts to our missile defense program. 

·         Under looming budget sequestration, the Defense budget would be cut by $500 billion over the next decade.

America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it. 

·         President Obama has doubled down on a jobs killing drilling moratorium  in the Gulf in spite of court rejection.

·         He has reduced drilling permitting 36%.

·         Energy development on federal land has decreased to its lowest levels since 2003.

·          While development on private lands has increased, even the LATimes concedes this is due to “decisions energy companies made during the Bush administration to develop key reservoirs”.

·         He opposed legislation to increase energy development in Alaska.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight … he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America. He’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights? 

·         Both the Christmas day bomber in 2009 and Time Square bomber in 2010 while both thankfully unsuccessful, had ties to al-Qaeda, and both men were read Miranda Rights.

Government is too big … he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much … he promises more. 

·         In February 2009, President Obama signed a nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill.

·         An additional $17 billion stimulus bill in March 2010.

·         In July, President Obama signed a $105 billion transportation bill.

·         Continuing in the footsteps of President Bush, all three years of the Obama administration to date have included more than a trillion dollar deficits.

Taxes are too high … he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes … raise payroll taxes … raise investment income taxes … raise the death tax … raise business taxes … and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.

·         President Obama has raised taxes or instituted new taxes 21 times since taking office, namely through cigarette tax hikes and Obamacare.

·         Additionally, his budgets, which haven’t gotten Congressional support, have called for tax increases:

o    In FY 2010, nearly a trillion in tax increases over a ten year period.

o    In FY2011, as Governor Palin predicted, Obama proposed to increase the death tax and investment taxes.

o    In FY 2012, President Obama proposed $1.5 trillion in tax increases over the next decade and 43 tax hikes.

o    InFY 2013, President Obama proposed $1.8 trillion in tax increases over the next decade.

·         Obamacare includes 18 new tax hikes, and  75% of  the “mandate” tax will fall on families earning less than $120,000, meaning President Obama broke his promise to not increase taxes on those making less than $250,000. 

My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that’s now opened for business — like millions of others who run small businesses.

How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you’re trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio … or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia … or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota. How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?

Those two questions were rhetorical questions in her speech, but they are questions that were facing today as well. She may have asked "how are you going to be better off", but today, the question has expanded to include what are we going to do about it?  Governor Palin gave us her answer in the aforementioned RNC statement:

 I support Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in their efforts to replace President Obama at the ballot box, and I intend to focus on grassroots efforts to rally Independents and the GOP base to elect Senate and House members so a wise Congress is ready to work with our new President to get our country back on the right path. This is imperative.

Let's get to work, grassroots!

Crossposted here and here.