24thState

St Louis Tea Party April 15th

The time for wondering what is happening is past. April 15th, you need to show up to the St Louis Tea Party protest.  What is it about?  What does it stand for?  What specific issues do we raise?  What do we expect to happen?

It's simple. We expect to come together and make plans to kick out as many economically illiterate members of Congress as possible.  Republican and Democrat, House member and Senator and state representative and governor, we're mobilizing to show the Washington elite their time is done.

We're not interested in talking.  We're not interested in street theater.  We're organizing a movement to show once again that it is the people, and not the politicians that run this country.  Don't be fooled by Newt Gingrich or Sean Hannity joining - this isn't for or about them.

This is about us.  Our future.  Our children's future.  Either we live in a free country that respects the rights of the individual or we create a new one.  You can no longer sit on the sidelines and show up to November to vote.  It's time to get involved now, before the country is bankrupted by illiterates you wouldn't trust to run a children's lemonade stand.

Citizens of Missouri!  Who determines your future?  Stand with us April 15th, and send the first message that we are not to be trifled with.  Join the Tea Party.  We have no time for sunshine patriots and summer soldiers.

Why Is Claire McCaskill Angry About AIG?

Senator McCaskill is on high dudgeon over on Twitter, saying she is beyond mad, and is sending a letter to the AIG CEO. As is usual, when Obama needs someone leading the charge, Claire is out in front. She's posting a note that she and the other Democratic Senators are fed up and want to do something about it. While the media (new and old) praises her for using Twitter and Tumblr, the rest of us are left scratching our heads at her statements. Claire McCaskill and her Senate colleagues (all Democrats and 3 Republicans) voted for the stimulus package, which had language in it guaranteeing these bonuses. If she's going to get angry, shouldn't she be getting angry at Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, who wrote the stimulus and rushed it through? Shouldn't she be complaining that she didn't have time enough to read it? She was on Twitter the night before bragging that she and her staff had a full 14 hours to read the full bill before voting on it the next day. Did she not know what she was voting for? At the very least, shouldn't she be out complaining about her fellow senator Chris Dodd, who inserted the language in the bill? This whole thing stinks of manufactured outrage. From Obama's cringeworthy performance on the Tonight Show to Claire's faux letter campaign, the Democrats are looking to demonize Wall Street execs yet again to give them more leeway to pass more statist legislation. The truth is the Democrats bought their way into the White House and the Congress on the backs of companies like AIG, and now they're pretending to be outraged. Don't buy it. The Democrats and "Tax Cheat Tim," knew about the AIG bonuses weeks ago. Hot Air uncovered this juicy bit of C-Span video showing Joseph Crowley, (D-NY) asking Geithner about the $163 million in bonuses to be paid March 3rd. In other words, the Democrats knew about it, did nothing to stop it, and only now are acting outraged as a bit of political theater. I tell you, at some point, this administration and their enables are going to have to get serious about the financial crisis. Attacking AIG when they need AIG to stay afloat is a bit like a doctor yelling at a patient while operating on them. The Democrats made this mess - used legislation to power it, and now are acting shocked because they fear the public won't like just how cozy they are with financial donors. And while they focus on Rush Limbaugh, bowling, and AIG - the $350 billion in TARP II money goes unmonitored, with not a single meeting about it since January 15th. Geithner doesn't have anyone running the shop at Treasury. The British can't even get Treasury on the phone when they need to. And Senator McCaskill thinks a letter is the way to go about it? How about she actually stand up for good governance, instead of lamely tweeting that she has a moderate record?

I have been in the Senate for 2 years. I have a moderate record, which reflects my principals, positions I campaigned on, and my state.7:33 AM Mar 19th from web

First, it's principles. Second, Claire has yet to make a moderate vote without the tacit approval of Harry Reid. And third, if AIG goes under, losing executives who fear for their safety, failing to attract or retain employees, and leading to yet another round of bailouts, will Senator McCaskill stand up and admit her populist street theater contributed to the problem? Or will she meekly vote to print and borrow another trillion dollars? I could care less at this point about moderate or liberal or conservative. I'd settle for barely competent from this bunch of jokers.

Claire McCaskill Doesn't Care About Tea Parties

I'm proud of the Kansas City Tea Parties and their weekly gatherings to protest the fiscal insanity coming out of Washington, but their claim to have influenced Claire McCaskill's vote on the Omnibus bill, echoed here at Instapundit, is not helping.

Let's not fool ourselves.  Claire McCaskill is a reliable liberal vote for anything that Obama wants.  Her self-identified "brand" is earmarks, and when her vote isn't needed, she spends her days talking to Missouri media about how brave she is for standing up against the present system of earmark reform. Her latest vote against the omnibus only happened because Missouri's lame duck Senator, Kit Bond, is a huge porker who voted for the bill.  This was the perfect opening for Senator McCaskill, who got to rail against the earmarks by Missouri Republicans without having to actually be a deciding vote.

Why should you believe me?  Why take a look at the stimulus bill, where her vote would have allowed the Republicans to filibuster.  Were there earmarks in the stimulus? Sure there were.  They weren't called earmarks, but the only difference was the cover of stimulus spending, and Senator McCaskill was out front defending the bill without ever reading it.  Her office laughed at the idea of reading it when it was 600 pages, and yet she was pushing for it's vote that afternoon.

Don't worry citizens of Missouri - the good Senator kept her staff up all night reading the thousand or so pages, or so she claimed on Twitter.

Bill text now on line. We will go through the whole thing before noon tomorrow.

 8:45 PM Feb 12th from web

Maybe she was tired when she wrote that, but 15 hours to read the bill seems, a little tight. Man I wouldn't want to work in that office!

So by all means, please keep up the tea party protests.  Let's hold the feet of both Republicans and Democrats and even Challengers to the fire, but let's not declare victory just because one of Missouri's senators saw a chance to burnish her "brand" with a faux-principled stand against earmarks.

If so many Republicans hadn't voted pro, she never would have had the courage to vote yes.

And while we're at it, let's go ahead and blow up a couple other things about McCaskill's stances.

1) EFCA and FOCA.  When confronted about possible support for the radically pro-abortion FOCA or the card check EFCA, McCaskill is constantly trying to defend herself by saying the bills haven't been brought up yet.  This is the same tack she used for the stimulus.  She claimed it hadn't been released yet, and thus she didn't have a clear understanding of the bill. When the bill is shoved through the Congress with limited opportunity to debate, she suddenly is out in front defending whatever the White House asks her to defend.  A Senator who has no opinion on highly controversial pieces of legislation is one you have to watch. Don't let her slide away from this when the votes do come up.  (my prediction is she'll wait to see if they have over 60 votes before siding one way or another (remember Immigration?).

2) Senator McCaskill, on the Allman in the Morning radio show, defended FOCA by saying Republicans only hated big government when it was convenient.  Her example was the D.C. school board, which just voted to stop bright young District children from keeping their vouchers.  Senator McCaskill wanted to know why Republicans wanted to interfere with local control.

Senator, it's because Congress is required by the Constitution to set the laws for the District of Columbia.  I can send you a copy of the document, or you can add it to your iPhone, if you've misplaced yours.  

Cap And Trade Can't Work

Remember when Barack Obama bragged that his election would cause the oceans to recede?  That little bit of hubris should have warned you this was not a serious man, but the global charge towards reducing greenhouse gases is a complete farce.  Note this doesn't mean that climate change isn't an issue, but this document ought to raise the hackles of anyone with an ounce of sense. 

I'm going to urge you to read a document in a moment.  This document conclusively proves that all programs designed to reduce greenhouse gases in the West, specifically in the United States, are fundamentally unsound, wreaking economic damage on our economy and doing absolutely nothing to prevent global warming.  Regardless of the actual danger of anthropogenic global warming, the programs put into place to stop it are not only ineffectual - they are an undisguised attack on American economic growth. That would mean C02 regulation by the EPA and cap-and-trade policies are deliberate policies of sabotage to the US economy.

That's quite a charge, isn't it?  Read for yourself.

The pdf at this link is called the National Action Plan. It was put out by the Indian prime minister in June of 2008, and you can find a summary at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.  Pay careful attention to page 6 of document, which outlines India's commitment to restricting greenhouse gases.  Keep in mind that India is already the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, behind only China and the US.  India also has over a billion people and it's growing each year. 

The Indian prime minister proudly states his commitment to climate change is second only to his desire for economic growth.

Emphasizing the overriding priority of maintaining high economic growth rates to raise living standards, the plan “identifies measures that promote our development objectives while also yielding co-benefits for addressing climate change effectively.”  It says these national measures would be more successful with assistance from developed countries, and pledges that India’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions “will at no point exceed that of developed countries even as we pursue our development objectives.”, and promises not to raise Indian greenhouse gases “will at no point exceed that of developed countries even as we pursue our development objectives.”

He fairly points out that each human being should have an equal share in atmospheric gases, and thus India will continue to build coal-fired plants and seek economic growth, but no more than the developed nations in the Global North (it's their version of the West).  What does that mean for the world's third largest emitter of greenhouse gases?

Since the United States is second, India pledges to emit no more per capita than we do.  If we hold to our current level of emissions, India will only triple its emissions. If in fact we cut back severely, to a point where we cut 20-30% of our emissions (ruining the economy pretty much for good), India would still have the right to double their emissions, wiping out any progress we made.

Read the report yourself, and then check out what the head of the IPCC, says about it. 

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, said in 2005 that we had to act by 2012 to prevent permanent change.  He said the very survival of humanity is at stake. 

He told delegates: "Climate change is for real. We have just a small window of opportunity and it is closing rather rapidly. There is not a moment to lose."

In December of 2008, he says we now have until 2015 before it's permanent.  Which is it?  Is it already too late to take action before permanent damage, or do we have time? 

This week, Dr. Pachauri says Obama will face revolution if he cuts too much by 2020, so it has to be done in baby steps. 

Speaking on the fringes of a high-level scientific conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Pachauri told the Guardian: "He [Obama] is not going to say by 2020 I'm going to reduce emissions by 30%. He'll have a revolution on his hands. He has to do it step by step."

Excuse me for taking him at his word, but is the good doctor saying that the danger from global warming is so great that we have no time to waste before permanent damage, and then turning around and saying that political circumstances give us more time? 

Isn't he saying that the conclusions of his science are not clear, and that politics can make him change the "drop dead" dates?  This is the top UN scientist?  He bows to political necessity?  His statements are now proving that his earlier apocalyptic warmings were exaggerated.  Or lies.  Or exaggerated lies.  His statements this week show he is not scientist, but yet another tired political hack who coincidentally stands to benefit a great deal from the attention, the money, and oh yeah, Indian economic growth at the expense of US economic growth. 

Dr. Pachauri's country has declared its right to match the West in per capita greenhouse gas emissions. One would think that for a man convinced we have to take action to prevent global failure, he would be honest enough to admit that all of the reductions by developed nations would be wiped out by growth in the developing nations.  Developing nations now count for over 50% of emissions, and thus targeting only developed nations is a fools errand. 

In very clear terms - the stated policy of the Indian government is growth, not environmental concerns. All attempts to cut Western emissions will be dwarfed by Indian, Chinese, and other emission growth (and not counting anyone else).  In other words, cap-and-trade will do nothing to prevent global warming catastrophe because it won't have a real effect on the total global emissions. The crock of lies we were sold about the US leading the way on emissions cuts will have no effect based on the IPCC's own projections.  India will simply become the bad guy, at the price of US economic competitiveness.  We emit 18 times per capita what India does, and they have also have 3.5 times our population.   

In order to work, US emissions cuts would have to convince India to completely their economic expansion, leaving them in permanent poverty so the West could continue its economic dominance.  They have no plans to do so.

The prime minister [Dr Manmohan Singh] has said that while pursuing our policies of development and poverty alleviation, we will ensure that our per capita emissions will never exceed developing countries," Mr Ghosh added.

"This is our challenge to the West. 'You do the best you can, and we'll match it'. If the West thinks that India will subscribe to any long-term solution that is not based on per capita emissions then it is very misguided."

They're still sounding that note. Cap and Trade is a dagger aimed right at the heart of the US economy.  In addition to wrecking our economy, it will have no long-term affect on total amount of global emissions, certainly not in any timeframe envisioned by the IPCC.  The leading UN scientist has shown himself more interested in politics than science.  As I said before - when this all shakes out, the scientists who backed this fraud will have done more to hurt the reputation of science than anything they accused the Bush Adminstration of doing.

And we'll all suffer for it.  

We've Been Here Before, And Will Be Here Again

Fabius Maximus asks if our elites are fiddling while Rome burns.  He makes the point that Democrats are being irresponsible and Republicans are being irrelevant.  It's hard to argue that as the $410B omnibus passes and yet another stimulus is considered (along with Card Check, Universal Health Care, and the Freedom of Choice Act).  In following his rules, I left only a 250 word comment, but wanted to flesh it out further here.  I'm not the voice for the Tea Party folks Fabius sees as less than helpful, but I am a voice, simply by virtue of knowing why I went, and will continue to go.  I'm a voice with a very good grounding in the history of the West, and I say this has happened before.  

I know a lot of people look at the tea parties and see listless conservatives or anti-spending libertarians, but there's something else brewing (no pun intended).  Those at the tea parties are self-reliant. That's the ethos.  The nature of these protests may change, but right now, it's finding like minds and values.  If government burns down Western Civilization, or if our excesses have already set that in motion, it's going to be people like those at the tea party who are best prepared to rise from the ashes.  Sure some people and groups are trying to add themselves to the movement and speak for it, but right now, it's just an outpouring of emotion.  If this is just a blip in economic growth, the tea parties will fade out, with perhaps a minor cleansing of the pols similar to 1994. 

Look deeper.  These gatherings are about gaining a voice and organization.  Anyone who has built an online community knows building the community is a first step.  Connections are made, leaders are discovered and uncovered, arguments settled on, and when the opportunity is ripe, the community acts, gaining adherents and eventually labeled a mass movement.  Can you point to anything in the last 100 years similar to this?  Nationwide protests from the productive, and growing larger each time?  What are the tea party protestors asking for?  Fiscal sanity.  Less intervention.  That's a pretty unique protest.  Not many people in world history bother to get together to demand to be left alone.  Pundits like to see the Obama victory as a fundamental change. Hogwash.  This is very different than the election of Obama, which was still a close victory in a divided nation. The mushy middle is not Leftist, and as the facts become apparent in the next two years, the American people will either vote for more freedom or more (perceived) security in 2010 and beyond.   

What we are seeing is not that uncommon in world history.  Bureaucratic elites and their enablers are seeking to wrest power from economic elites.  Using the power of currency and regulation, they are succeeding in creating a large number of citizens on the dole (some by necessity, some by choice).

In reaction, the self-reliant (think yeoman farmers, kulaks, southern rebels, rural nobles, merchants) stand up and say no more.  The methods to get there may be masked by words like tea party and tools like Facebook, but the end result is the same.  A showdown between the groups occurs - first by ballot, and then by violence (either by revolution or repression).  If the self-reliant fail, the economic elites will fall in line behind the bureaucrats to save their fortunes, and the result will either be a succession of crises (marked by greater authoritarian control and the death of the republic) until the civilization falls, or a perceived rebirth of "values," which lasts a generation until the entrenched interests once again seek to take control.  And the dance goes on.

The real question is whether the real wealth (as opposed to the money wealth) we've built up as a society is great enough to alter the track past civilizations have followed.  Civil war doesn't occur from 3% rises in the marginal rate and a death tax.  It occurs when an entire generation is robbed of the opportunity to create wealth and enough of the young see no future.  It's difficult to say from where we stand that the long ride of the republic is over.  Certainly no one at shopping malls on the weekends is saying that, but maybe that's the last gasp of the credit bubble and we're all fooling ourselves.

And if we are doomed, we could still get lucky.  Maybe we find a cheap and plentiful source of energy.  Maybe we develop a cheap source of labor through robotics that alters our notions of work and the economy.  Maybe we have so much already stored up that the nation can't really conceive of revolution when we're living better than any other human, ever - and that includes most of our poor.   It could be that the burden of a technical civilization is an entrenched bureaucracy, and the need for new political systems will change our definitions of liberal and conservative.

We're going to find out.  One thing's for sure.  The type of person showing up at the tea party I attended knows all of this, and doesn't have much use for chattering classes in Washington eager to hold onto their titles in the minor nobility.  We've heard that story, and we're not impressed.

My thoughts on the Tea Party are coalescing into an action plan.  We need to organize and educate and toss 100 or so Congressman out on their rumps in the 2010 election.  That's a lot of folks, but anything less is really just cosmetic.  In Missouri, more Kit Bond porkers, Claire McCaskill tax dodgers and incumbent Congressman winning with over 60% of the vote every year isn't representative democracy.  We start in this state clearing out the cache by refreshing Congress.  Democrat and Republican, we need new blood in Washington, and we need it in large enough numbers to shake up the old socialist bulls, the corrupt Appropriations piglets, and the gerrymandered power of the least solvent of our states.

It won't be won with social conservatism, but it's not worth winning without a commitment to rolling back the power of the federal government in all areas.  If we can't achieve that, then we ought to quit calling ourselves free citizens, and accept our chains.  That is what is before us.  Do we want freedom as a nation?  Are we willing to engage in the political process to safeguard that freedom?  Are you, individually, willing to do what it takes to persuade your friends and family?  Will you educate yourself?  Will you engage in a meaningful manner? 

Understanding John Galt

The beauty of symbols is they can be appropriated for your ends.  That's the power of John Galt.  There are a lot of fools on the left and right who don't understand the symbol of John Galt. When they hear us at the tea party protests, they go back to the Cliff Notes of Atlas Shrugged and laugh at the idea of creating a Galt's Gulch, where the productive go to escape the confiscation of their labor.  They dare us to withdraw our talents.  They have the luxury of doing so because they've never had to carry the weight of a small business on their back.

ABC News is writing about some people talking about cutting back on their work to get below $250K.  Some professionals, like doctors and others may do so, crimping supply of critical talents.  Some business owners may take longer vacations.  Those are just news stories, fun but probably not impactful enough.

The real damage is done when those who run small and microbusinesses shut down their companies and layoff their employees to take a more relaxed lifestyle.  Being in business is dangerous (bankruptcy is always around the corner), but it is also rewarding.  That's a work ethic few people have the stomach for. Once you've built a successful company, you have enough money to live comfortably.  Staying in business is a choice - one society needs to reward.  Off the top of my head, I can give you 8 names of business owners who sold their business and now live off consulting fees and their capital.  They "net" the same amount as when running the business, with a lot less work.  I can name another dozen who have layed off in the economy and are only keeping vital employees.  That's normal policy in a recession, but understand something - the decision to lay someone is not an easy one.  Business owners, especially small business owners, understand that it's real families we are impacting here. Layoffs are about protecting the company, but there is usually room for average and suboptimal performers.  When we lay someone off, we have to weigh the health of their family against our own.  Most owners are willing to work with less than perfect workers - it's the right thing to do.  But when our business is threatened by too many outside forces, charity is a another word for turning off the lights one bulb at a time.  

The problem is not just current employment regulations, higher expected taxes, and a soft business climate.  Those are irritants, but they can be dealt with.  Add those burdens to a culture and a president who look down on wealth creators as evil rich businessman, and you have a real problem. 

More Bailout Video For The Stimulus

Missouri's Bridge To Nowhere

Well that was money well spent. The first, critical infrastructure project to get funds from the stimulus bill has broken ground, and it's the great state of Missouri.

The Missourian has the details.

The nation's first stimulus-triggered project is the replacement of a 1933 bridge that had to be closed to large trucks in 2007 because of structural concerns. A badly deteriorating steel beam was identified during inspections conducted after the deadly Minnesota bridge collapse.

The 1,000-foot long bridge is part of a state highway route that crosses the Osage River — a tributary of the Missouri River — about 30 miles southwest of the state capital in Jefferson City. The project is expected to cost $8.5 million.

But it's not exactly on a well-worn path. Only a couple hundred people live in Tuscumbia, the county seat of sparsely populated Miller County. It's so remote that Missouri transportation officials brought a special satellite truck to allow highway commissioners to meet and award the bridge construction contract.

Now some people might be shocked and angered that Barack Obama campaigned against the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere, and then signs into law a whole new raft of bridges to nowhere so he can reward union buddies who gave $100 million to elect Democrats, but those people would be wrong.

Both Obama and Biden voted for the original Bridge to Nowhere.  Obama even voted against Tom Coburn's amendment to shift funds from the Alaskan bridge to Katrina funding.

So if you're angry, it's because you were misinformed prior to the election.  Obama likes bridges to nowhere, and this Missouri stimulus project is an excellent example of what he wanted.  Don't worry though - you won't have to pay for it. Governor Nixon has made is clear it's our children and grandchildren who will be picking up that tab.