Ann Coulter has a healthcare plan - and one that would work handsomely.

Not only that, but it would be a reform in the right direction, not the wrong one. After implementing her plan, there would be so little left to do to make the healthcare situation Constitutional, you could almost get away with not bothering to do it, except that it must be done to respect the Constitution and the Founders.

Here's her plan in a nutshell:

1. Amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.

(The constitutional thing to do would be to repeal the thing outright.)

2. Provide that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is.

(Makes perfect Constitutional sense to me - See Amendment X.)

3. Prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies.

(Of course, Constitutionally, the government should divest itself even of those "normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies", unless authorized under the Commerce Clause.)

Ann's plan is far better than anything that either party would even bother considering. Federalists might even approve of this as part of an overall plan to return the country to the people, as long as the Constitutional issues brought forth (and others that were missed) were addressed.

One of the most attractive parts of this proposal is that it will fit on one page - maybe even a single paragraph! Its simplicity is its greatest asset. If you can't understand three sentences, then you can't read!

RWR

This New York Times article totally misses the point. You get these references to how "the wealthy and most businesses" are "unscathed", with the usual bitching and moaning and moaning about how "the middle class, the poor, the elderly, schoolchildren, college students and inner-city residents" are stuck footing the bill.

I guess the NYT has forgotten that "the wealthy and most businesses" have been footing the majority of the bill for New Jersey's out of control government from the get-go, and that "the middle class, the poor, the elderly, schoolchildren, college students and inner-city residents" will all be better off if businesses get a break, which is really what is being complained about. After all, New Jersey's ridiculously high jobless rate is almost exclusively due to out of control government intrusion into these same businesses that would otherwise be better equipped to benefit the poor, etc. After all, if the government is taking the profits, there's less available to hire people or award raises.

Liberals are fools when it comes to the economy, and the New York Times is no exception. They somehow believe that money grows on trees and that the wealthy and businesses are standing under that tree hogging up all of its fruit. They also believe that having their government entities steal their profits is without negative consequence to the very people they pretend to champion. They also think these people are stupid, and they have a point. After all, if they hadn't been buying the lies all this time, the libs would have been long gone long ago.

Now that New Jersey is on the path of recovery and renewal, it's time to make sure Chris stays the course and doesn't start playing the games that the socialists have been playing for so long. Given his establishment Republican status, I'd say we're going to have to watch Chris very closely. Still, this budget is a breath of fresh air if ever Trenton had seen one.

RWR

Apparently, Karzai is "very upset" about the arrest of the Taliban's #2 guy, Mullah Baradar.

Hamid, I've got three words for you:

BOO FUCKING HOO.

'Nuff said.

RWR

I don't know.

I was reading his latest, and that's just the thought I had. Is it biased to have that thought regarding the most prominent person to admit to being a reader of the RWRepublic?

I don't know that, either.

RWR

I've been able now to finally get a few minutes to incorporate the suggestions we got with regard to the platform. There really wasn't much to change, as the thing was really amazing the first time around. Why change something that was done right the first time?

There were some excellent suggestions, though, and they've been put in. Please put any further suggestions in the comment area. Should you wish to email me about the platform, please use americanfederalistparty at gmail dot com.

I wonder if those trying to rescue the Republican Party have considered this platform for their efforts ...

Proposed Platform for the American Federalist Party
2010

Preamble

The members of the American Federalist Party have come together in the spirit of freedom and fellowship to acknowledge several truths about our great Nation as it exists today. These truths have forced us to set aside our differences as patriotic Americans with regard to many issues for which we hold differing yet passionate positions, such as regards abortion, war, vice, and even crime, in order to stand together in defense of the very basic law, designed to protect the unalienable rights with which we are endowed by our Creator, that has been abused and usurped to such an extent that the wise men who gave us such would be embarrassed at what has become of their cherished creation.

Political campaigns are funded by the federal government, and people who wish to publicly support a candidate are often restricted from doing so in violation of the First Amendment.

Congress has passed legislation regulating which kinds of weapons the people may own, and many States require government permission to secure arms and registration thereof, in violation of the Second Amendment.

In violation of the Fourth Amendment, private property has been taken from the people for the sole purpose of increasing tax revenues to local and State governments.

The list goes on, and in many cases the problem is so severe that the people of America often either do not know that their rights are being violated, or do not care. This is the source of the problems that overwhelm our country today. Virtually every major problem that affects Americans nationwide is the result, either directly or indirectly, of some abridgement of Constitutional rights or of some usurpation or abdication of power by those in federal, state, and/or local governments.

It goes without saying that with rights comes responsibility. We will therefore not, as part of our platform, explain how the people of this great Nation should take responsibility for those aspects of life that we expect the government to vacate. Americans are a creative people, and all have the ability to learn for themselves how to succeed in the free world.

It goes without saying that with actions come consequences. We will therefore not, as part of our platform, explain how those who, experiencing negative consequences for their actions, bring themselves most readily into the ranks of the successful. The freedom to overcome adversity and succeed on one’s own has its own natural rewards for success.

It also goes without saying that not everyone will be responsible and/or successful. We reject, however, that it is within the power of government to involve itself in matters of providing for those less fortunate. We further reject that governments are in any way properly equipped to take on responsibilities such as these.

As Federalists, we believe in the separation and delegation of powers as provided in the US Constitution, with the proper delegation of the weakest powers to the federal government, and the strongest powers to the people, as provided in the bill of Rights. We acknowledge that the concerns voiced by the Anti-Federalists in the infancy of our Nation have largely come true, and wish to place restrictions upon government that will protect our unalienable rights from such abuses in future generations.

The Constitution was written in simple language so that any layman could understand it. Its plain language itself makes it a proper platform for a party trying to rescue it from the current abuses, as it stands as a clear statement of the people granting limited authority to the government, not the other way around. Therefore, we believe that every American should read the Constitution thoroughly and come to a clear understanding of its meaning by reading the writings of the Founding Fathers and of those who opposed its initial ratification.

We wish our own platform to be so simple. We, however, claim none of the genius of the Founders in their wisdom; we only seek to follow their example in seeking the best way to secure the unalienable rights of the citizens of this great Nation.

Diversity and Common Ground within the Federalist Party

As a party, we seek only a few simple things. We rally around the concept of "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution, and allow all other issues to be resolved by the individual for himself. Each member or candidate will be free to hold whatever position he wishes, without interference from anyone in the party, for as Federalists we develop these positions with the Constitution in mind and reverence.

However, as Federalists, we cling to several simple concepts, and each of us freely affirms:

• That the unalienable rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights exist to protect the rights of individual Americans.
• That government infringement of those rights should be vigorously opposed.
• That government is by its very nature evil and must be watched closely by the people lest it enter into areas where it should not be allowed.
• That the concept of limited government requires that government officials work within the boundaries set forth in the Constitution, and that these limitations include lateral boundaries within the various levels of government as well as boundaries between the levels themselves.
• That compulsory government service is incompatible with the concept of individual liberty.
• That a government that does not function within its means is worse than an individual who does the same, and that using terms like "balanced budget" and "surplus" in misleading ways merely intensifies the evil under which the people must function.
• That a vibrant and superior military with state-of-the-art weapons systems is necessary to defend the unalienable rights of Americans from those who would do them harm; and American soldiers must never be subservient to non-American commanders or serve under a foreign flag.
• That America is a sovereign nation with no obligations to any international organization.
• That the Right to Keep and Bear Arms includes the right to use deadly force in self-defense, as well as the right to organize into militias for defense against oppressive people and governments.
• That federal domestic and foreign aid programs are both illegal and immoral.
• That parents, not any government, are responsible for the education of their children, including manner, choice of facility, and the bearing of cost.
• That the federal government has no power to influence elections through regulation, finance, or control of the media.
• That the federal government does not possess the power to set forth an "energy policy".
• That government programs aimed at reducing poverty are neither legal nor beneficial to those they are designed to help, and
• That under a properly instituted federalist system, the federal government is at the weakest level, with local governments and the people being at the most powerful.

Policies of the Federalist Party

As Federalists, we seek to return our government to its proper distribution of powers as set forth in our Founding Documents. All policy positions to be advocated by Federalists, ad infinitum, shall be devised and implemented to respect and enforce these limits, thus keeping the government at its proper distance from the people. As federalists we will seek to implement policies requiring:

• That laws, programs, and policies that violate the federalist structure outlined in the Constitution be repealed.
• That laws passed in violation of the Constitutional rights of the States or the people are likewise repealed.
• That laws requiring compulsory government service or the pre-registration for the same be repealed. This includes laws that require registration for compulsory military service.
• That a Constitutional Amendment requiring the real balancing of the federal budget and the retiring of the national debt be ratified.
• That our military's superior training be continued, and development of state-of-the-art weapons systems such as SDI be expedited instead of delayed.
• That no American shall be deprived of the right to arm himself however he wishes, without interference of any kind from any level or branch of government, unless first adjudicated as insane by at least two competent courts of law.
• That membership in international organizations not clearly serving the national interest be dissolved. This includes the United Nations.
• That no group of Americans be penalized for the simple act of choosing to act as part of a militia.
• That all taxpayer-funded federal aid programs be dismantled.
• That all federal involvement in the education of children be phased out, and States rightly transfer all power and authority over education to the parents.
• That all federal laws placing limits of any kind on campaign finance or procedure be repealed.
• That the federal government remove itself from all involvement in the decisions of States and businesses with regard to energy.
• That all federal assistance programs aimed at the poor, sick, or elderly be phased out in favor of private sector entities or, where state constitutions may allow, the States.
• That provisions be made so that the federal government can never again rise to greater power than any state or local government.

Federalist Philosophy

As Federalists, we believe that government is at best a necessary evil that is prone to intolerable acts, and that it is the responsibility of the people to see through the salesmanship, half-truths, and blatant lies that those in government present in their efforts to gain acceptance for the things they advocate. We pledge, as Federalists to honor in all of our decisions the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Legislatively:

• Federalist legislators will demand (and when in the majority, require) that all proposed legislation be accompanied by a Constitutional Authorization Report detailing how the proposed legislation is authorized under the Constitution. This report will then serve as a point of reference throughout debate and voting, as well as for executives, jurists, and the people, to assist in ensuring compliance with constitutional restraints upon government officials.
• Federalist legislators will propose, sponsor, and co-sponsor only legislation that is expressly allowed under the Constitution, and will insist upon appropriations being limited to single-subject bills.
• Federalist legislators will vote against any legislation not expressly authorized by the Constitution, and will stand against any legislation that exempts themselves or any other government entities from laws passed.
• Federalist legislators will refrain from using as examples legislation passed in other countries or international organizations.
• Federalist legislators will endeavor to legislate consistently according to the Founders' original intent.

Judicially:

• Federalist justices will demand (and when in the majority, require) that all cases brought before their courts be accompanied by a Constitutional Authorization Report detailing how the relevant case either violates or is supported by the Constitution, especially in matters of government abuse.
• Federalist justices will defer powers to the States where constitutionally appropriate.
• Federalist judges will assert the powers appropriate to their level of government (state, local, etc.) over those of the federal government.
• Federalist jurists will reference the Constitution in their opinions.
• Federalist jurists will refrain from any reference to the law of any other nation or international organization in determining the course of their decisions.
• Federalist jurists will endeavor to rule consistently according to the original intent of the Founders.

Executively:

• Federalist executives will demand that all bills passed by legislators and received for approval be accompanied by a Constitutional Authorization Report detailing how the bill in question is authorized under the Constitution.
• Federalist executives will defer to state or local governments where constitutionally appropriate.
• Federalist executives will sign into law only legislation that is expressly allowed under the Constitution.
• Federalist executives will proudly veto any legislation that is not expressly authorized under the Constitution, including legislation that contains multiple provisions, only some of which may be in violation.
• Federalist executives will respect as relevant only the laws and customs of the United States of America in their decision-making processes.
• Federalist executives will endeavor to govern consistently according to the Founders' original intent.

Summary

Not all Federalists agree on all issues. Our positions on various issues are based in our individual interpretations of the Constitution. However, we reject the progressive expansion of socialism that has plagued this country for so long as legal under the Constitution and believe that returning to our Constitutional roots will solve the majority of the problems that this evil has created and encouraged. Socialism begets hate, jealousy, and economic mediocrity in is subjects. The free people of America should stand firmly against it. The Founders made no provisions for such things in the Constitution, and we Federalists believe this to be by design.

Thanks!

RWR

Michelle Malkin today asks us to do something very different on the Census form.

And it's legal!

We should ALL do this!

RWR

I haven't made it a secret that I'm a huge fan of Glenn Beck.

That doesn't make him perfect. After all, it didn't take me very long to build a case for "birtherism" that Beck would likely not be able to beat. Today, Michelle Malkin points out that Eric Massa, the Democrat that Beck is currently touting as the latest victim of Chicago-style mob tactics in Washington, is a fraud.

So, last year he’s the pol willing to go kamikaze to pass nationalized health care.

And now, tainted by scandal, he’s running to Fox News to cast himself as a warrior against Obamcare and its left-wing overlords?

A radical backer of the Big Labor card check bill, he’s now trashing union corruption.

C-r-a-p-w-e-a-s-e-l.

Will Glenn have Michelle on his show Wednesday to speak her piece in opposition to Massa? I don't know. It would, however, make perfect sense, and it might give Glenn a little bit more insight into the situation. It does seem that Beck has a tendency to act in haste, and that's usually when he's wrong. Patriot Act, bailouts, birth certificate, and now this. Will he see the error of his ways like he did with the bailouts and Patriot Act, or will he stand firm with this nutjob like he's doing with Obama vis a vis his birth documents? Only time will tell.

Here's a thought for ya: What are the chances this Massa character is a plant from the White House and/or the radicals in Congress to divert our attention from something else that's going on? Maybe this is one of those times that we should be "watching the other hand", as Glenn loves to put it. He's doing a far better job than most in the media, but I do have to agree with Michelle on this one. He has most likely jumped the gun ... again.

RWR

Update: OK. Michelle was on Glenn's radio program today, and she really gave it to him regarding the above. Glenn says watch the show, and that to judge his decision now before seeing it is premature. He did make a good case, so there's nothing to do but actually watch the show and see what happens. I will not be posting, however, because of the post that's due to hit the RWRepublic tonight at 8, and I will want that one at the top for a while. Look for any comments from me over at Michelle's blog instead.

Update: Look for the updated Federalist Platform tonight (3/9) around 8 or 9 pm. - RWR

Judge Andrew Napolitano is one of the greatest Americans alive today. Not only does he revere the Founders and their vision for this country, but he also stands firm in supporting both - with experience as a judge to back it up.

I'm looking forward to reading his new book. Hopefully I can afford it soon. Check it out if you can.

RWR

For doing the right thing, Jim Bunning (R-KY) has been excoriated by Democrats and the press, some even calling for his removal from the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

How stupid can you get? Someone actually takes a stand against stupidity, and they have to be banned from honors earned in a previous career??? You have to be fucking kidding me.

In case you didn't know, Bunning pitched his way into the hearts of Philadelphians and baseball fans on Fathers Day, 1964, when he pitched a perfect game at Shea Stadium against the New York Mets. When the Beatles put in their stellar performance in that great ballpark, Bunning said, "Been there, done that." The Phillies retired his jersey number 14 in his honor, despite the great Pete Rose also wearing it in the 70s and 80s.

I have news for the Left. Bunning ain't the guy you have to worry about. He really only opposes you about 65% of the time, which is nowhere near enough, and he's not even consistent at that. Jim Bunning will nonetheless remain one of the greatest pitchers ever to play professional baseball, and his name will always grace the walls of Cooperstown's museum. The number 14 will forever hang in the outfield at Citizens Bank Park and all of its descendants, whether you like it or not.

Here at the RWRepublic, we don't discriminate. If someone does the right thing, they get praise. If they screw up, they get a shit sandwich. You won't excoriate Jim Bunning, or anyone else for that matter, for doing right thing with our blessing. You should try it (doing the right thing) sometime. It's liberating, to be sure. To Mr. Bunning I say (Phillies cap proudly seated upon my crown), keep it up, and check what you've done against what you should do. Make changes where appropriate. Screw Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Huffington. The more you are like them, the more you are the enemy.

Hey, how about we all wear Phillies caps one day this week to support Mr. Bunning?

RWR

Apparently for committing election fraud.

If this turns out to be true, I would support impeachment.

RWR

Below, I submit quotes from legal precedent regarding my position on "birtherism". I do believe there is ample information here to make the case that the Vattel definition of the term "natural born citizen" applies to the current occupant of the White House, and that he is ineligible to serve as President of the United States. Unfortunately, many Americans (including Glenn Beck, with whom I agree on almost all other matters) not only disagree with those who believe as I do, but call us "kooks" and "extremists", claiming that we have no credibility. I would like to see similar information that supports this position for my perusal. Show me your evidence and make your case.

Searching the Internet via Google for "the case against birthers", this is the only page that is returned with any sort of relevance in the first ten hits (click next a few times and you get hits with similar claims). It establishes Obama's COLB as evidence of birth in Hawaii to Barack Obama, Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham, and referenced two birth announcements in two local newspapers, along with testimony from people who say they have seen the vault birth certificate.

Both of these documents are questionable, first because the COLB was frequently issued to people born abroad, and therefore cannot be used as a substitute when a court has subpoenaed the original, and second because Obama and Dunham are known to have been communist progressive extremists who would have had an interest in concealing the fact that they had been abroad if their having been abroad were in violation of some applicable law or for reasons they would have wanted to conceal. Don't forget that 1961 America wasn't exactly the most pro-communist place in the world. As for the testimony of those who have seen the birth certificate, they have only testified that they have seen it, and apparently not to its contents. Americans deserve to see the original.

However, even if it can be conclusively demonstrated that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in Hawaii and is a native born citizen of the United States of America, which is quite possible - even likely - given that there is a vault birth certificate on record there, this does not in and of itself make him natural born. Upon learning that officers on US naval vessels during the War of 1812, fought not only under a Founding Father president but under James Madison himself, were required to be natural born citizens, I sought the definition used in that conflict, as it was fought during the lifetime of the Founding Fathers. Surely there should be some reference with regard to how it was applied then.

What I found was that not only was the Vattel definition applied in this case, but it was applied in ALL of the four relevant cases that have come before the US Supreme Court in the history of this great country. John Charlton posted his research here this past October, and included all four cases in his post. In each case, Vattel (shown first) is supported.

Vattel: The Law of Nations

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

(Note that the word "natives" as included here has been determined to be a mis-translation. The correct word here should be "naturals".)

The Venus (1814)

On page 12 of the ruling, Justice Henry Brockholst Livingston quoted the Vattel text verbatim in his own translation. Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Revolutionary War, and served under the direct command of pre-treason General Arnold.

Shanks vs. DuPont (1830)

children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. - Justice Joseph Story

Very similar to Vattel, indeed. Justice Story's father was a participant in the Boston Tea Party.

Minor v. Happersett (1875)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens - Chief Justice Salmon Portland Chase

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. - Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray (citing Happersett)

This stuff seems pretty compelling. The only thing I could find that even tried to make a case against "birthers" was the post cited above (and a couple of similar ones), which doesn't even address the issue of natural born citizenship with regard to parentage.

Therefore, Mr. Beck, Mr. Hawkins, and the rest of you who disagree with us on this matter, please present your case or at least respect the fact that we have a legitimate position here. At a minimum, stop portraying us as extremist kooks. This is the United States Constitution we are defending here, and doing so is not only the right, but the responsibility of every citizen of the United States of America - including those not sworn an oath to it. There is more than ample evidence that we are right here. Let's see yours.

RWR

New Jersey governor Chris Christie took some questions from CNBC yesterday and, I must say, was very impressive. I would have preferred he have said a few things differently, such as accepting illegal "stimulus" money from DC, but you can understand why he would say what he said in that situation. I also don't think he handled the Bush tax cut question as well as he could have.

What was impressive was the way he stood his ground when obviously clueless hardcore progressives grilled him and tried to toe the liberal line. He wasn't my first choice for governor, but so far it seems my vote may have done some good. See for yourself (no idea why the big space before the video - sorry).

This is a breath of fresh air for New Jersey, methinks. Hopefully he can make it happen.

RWR

Governor Christie has set forth an agenda that is very aggressive for New Jersey, and on the surface, it looks great if he can get it past the liberals in the legislatures.

Mr. President, Madame Speaker, members of the Senate and Assembly, fellow citizens of New Jersey.

Twenty three days ago, I was honored to take the oath of office as your governor and promised you and the people of New Jersey a new direction.

The old ways of doing business have not served the people well, I said, and I asked for your help in bringing about change.

Today, I have called you together because it is time to take the first major – and urgent -- step in delivering the change we promised, in the critically important area of the state budget.

New Jersey is in a state of financial crisis. Our state’s budget has been left in a shambles and requires immediate action to achieve balance. For the current fiscal year 2010, which has only four and one-half months left to go, the budget we have inherited has a two billion dollar gap. The budget passed less than eight months ago, in June of last year, contained all of the same worn out tricks of the trade that have become common place in Trenton, that have driven our citizens to anger and frustration and our wonderful state to the edge of bankruptcy.

What do I mean exactly? This year’s budget projected 5.1 % growth in sales tax revenue and flat growth in corporate business tax revenues. In June of 2009, was there anyone in New Jersey, other than in the department of treasury, who actually believed any revenues would grow in 2009-2010? With spiraling unemployment heading over 10%, with a financial system in crisis and with consumers petrified to spend, only Trenton treasury officials could certify that kind of growth. In fact, sales tax revenue is not up 5%, it is down 5.5 %; and corporate business tax revenue is not flat, it is down 8%. Any wonder why we are in such big trouble? Any question why the people don’t trust their government anymore and demanded change in November? Today, we must make a pact with each other to end this reckless conduct with the people’s government. Today, we come to terms with the fact that we cannot spend money on everything we want. Today, the days of Alice in Wonderland budgeting in Trenton end.

The facts are that revenues are coming in $1.2 billion below what was projected last year, and over $800 million in additional spending was done by the previous administration on their way out the door.

Our Constitution requires a balanced budget. Our commitment requires us to begin the next fiscal year with a prudent opening balance. Our conscience and common sense require us to fix the problem in a way that does not raise taxes on the most overtaxed citizens in America. Our love for our children requires that we do not shove today’s problems under the rug only to be discovered again tomorrow. Our sense of decency must require that we stop using tricks that will make next year’s budget problem even worse.

So today, I am beginning the process of fiscal reform and discipline. Today, we are going to act swiftly to fix problems long ignored. Today, I begin to do what I promised the people of New Jersey I would do. Today, I begin to give them the change they voted for in November.

I take no joy in having to make these decisions. I know these judgments will affect fellow New Jerseyans and will hurt. This is not a happy moment. However, what choices do we have left? The defenders of the status quo will start chattering as soon as I leave this chamber. They’ll say the problems are not that bad; listen to me, I can spare you the pain and sacrifice. We know this is simply not true. New Jersey has been steaming toward financial disaster for years due to that kind of attitude. The people elected us to end the talk and to act decisively. Today is the day for the complaining to end and for statesmanship to begin.

Today, I am taking action to cut state spending to balance the budget this year.

This is the immediate action I am taking:

This morning, I signed an executive order freezing the necessary state spending to balance our budget.

We will freeze the spending of unspent technical balances across a wide array of state programs. This includes everything from unspent funds to upgrade energy systems in state facilities to those aimed at assisting local governments in their consolidation plans.

Not everything is painless. Some projects will be delayed or terminated, some services will be reduced. But in total, we can reduce spending by over $550 million this year by lapsing these unspent balances – by not spending these funds and applying them now towards our multi-billion dollar budget gap.

For example, our state’s special municipal aid program includes a balance of $3.2 million, mostly for overhead costs. This spending is not appropriate, not necessary and will not be done.

The “InvestNJ” program has a large unspent balance and a failed record in actually creating new jobs. We can save taxpayers $50 million by terminating this program now. Instead, I believe we should create, without significant public expense, a one stop shop to clear away obstacles and speed the path to job creation – the New Jersey partnership for action.

I will also take action to terminate or suspend programs to save another $70 million this year.

Some projects we can afford to delay until the state has the resources to pay for them. This list would include capital improvements to state buildings, correctional facilities, and state parks.

It includes items like the main street program which has both current and long term funds which have not been spent yet and will not realistically be spent this year. These funds should be returned to the general fund to help balance the budget.

In total, deferral of these long term projects and items to a less rainy day in New Jersey can reduce spending by $90 million in this fiscal year.

We can improve certain practices in the ways we use and collect revenues.

Two examples: we can accelerate our dispute resolution processes on taxation settlements and save $20 million.

And we can appropriately ask the urban enterprise zones to repay the general fund for its subsidy of the required contribution of these zones to property tax relief in years past.

By far the biggest category of spending we will need to cut, however, is that for programs which actually have merit, and in most cases make sense, but which we simply cannot afford at this time. Like any family, and like forty two other states with constitutionally required balanced budgets, we must live within our means. New Jersey does not have a revenue problem—we already have higher taxes than any other state in the union. We have gone down the road of ever higher taxes to pay for Trenton’s addiction to spending. What has it given us? 10.1 percent unemployment, a dormant economy and a failure of hope for growth in our future. Higher taxes is the road to ruin. We must, and we will, shrink our government.

That means making some tough choices. It means tightening our belts. It means making do with the resources we have. And it means charting the course to reform now so that our spending will be more effective in the future.

So today I am implementing over a billion dollars in reductions and reforms to programs that we simply cannot afford in the current economic environment and in our current fiscal state.

For example, the state cannot continue to subsidize New Jersey transit to the extent it does. So I am cutting that subsidy. New Jersey transit will have to improve the efficiency of its operations, revisit its rich union contracts, end the patronage hiring that has typified its past, and may also have to consider service reductions or fare increases. But the system needs to be made more efficient and effective.

The state cannot this year spend another $100 million contributing to a pension system that is desperately in need of reform. I am encouraged by the bi-partisan bills filed in the Senate this week to begin pension and benefit reform. I commend President Sweeney and Senator Kean for leading the way to begin this long overdue set of reforms. I am sure our Assembly colleagues will follow suit with the same kind of bi-partisan effort.

These bills must just mark the beginning, not the end, of our conversation and actions on pension and benefit reform. Because make no mistake about it, pensions and benefits are the major driver of our spending increases at all levels of government—state, county, municipal and school board. Also, don’t believe our citizens don’t know it and demand, finally, from their government real action and meaningful reform. The special interests have already begun to scream their favorite word, which, coincidentally, is my nine year old son’s favorite word when we are making him do something he knows is right but does not want to do—“unfair.”

Let’s tell our citizens the truth—today—right now—about what failing to do strong reforms costs them.

One state retiree, 49 years old, paid, over the course of his entire career, a total of $124,000 towards his retirement pension and health benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments over his life and nearly $500,000 for health care benefits -- a total of $3.8m on a $120,000 investment. Is that fair?

A retired teacher paid $62,000 towards her pension and nothing, yes nothing, for full family medical, dental and vision coverage over her entire career. What will we pay her? $1.4 million in pension benefits and another $215,000 in health care benefit premiums over her lifetime. Is it “fair” for all of us and our children to have to pay for this excess?

The total unfunded pension and medical benefit costs are $90 billion. We would have to pay $7 billion per year to make them current. We don’t have that money—you know it and I know it. What has been done to our citizens by offering a pension system we cannot afford and health benefits that are 41% more expensive than the average fortune 500 company’s costs is the truly unfair part of this equation.

The only principled path in light of these mountainous challenges is this—take these reform bills, make them even stronger and put them on my desk before I return here on March sixteenth for my budget address. And on this you have my pledge—unlike in the past, when you stood up and did what was right, this governor will not pull the rug out from underneath you—I will sign strong reform bills.

But until that reform is enacted, we cannot in good conscience fund a system that is out of control, bankrupting our state and its people, and making promises it cannot meet in the long term.

The biggest category of reductions will likely be the most controversial.

School aid is a large proportion of New Jersey’s budget – especially of the amount which has not yet been spent in FY 2010. So we cannot put our budget in balance without putting some school aid in reserve.

We are not alone in this; other states have been required to do the same.

The previous administration severely underestimated our budget gap, and it proposed to reserve some $230 million in school aid – yet it did not offer a legislative solution to achieve this number, and once again, left important business unfinished.

I am implementing a solution which insures that every school district has the resources to provide a thorough and efficient education to its students.

Our solution does not take one penny from an approved school instructional budget. Not one dime out of the classroom. Not one text book left unbought. Not one teacher laid off. Not one child’s education compromised for one minute. Not one dollar of new property taxes will be needed. The union protectors of the status quo will claim otherwise—once again, they will be proven to be self-interested and wrong.

Many school districts in New Jersey have surpluses that were not a part of their fiscal year 2010 budgets. This is because they were either not anticipated – so called excess surpluses – or were placed in a reserve account – so called reserve surpluses.

I am reducing school aid in a way that ensures that no district will have aid withheld in an amount that is greater than its surpluses.

To some, an across the board reduction of a fixed percentage of school aid may seem more fair. But because some districts rely so heavily on state aid, this may affect their ability to provide the required thorough and efficient education to their students. And this approach would likely throw some districts into a deficit situation. We have not reduced school aid with an axe—we have done it with a scalpel and with great care.

The total amount of aid to be withheld is $475 million. I know this solution will not be popular. More than 500 school districts will be affected, and more than 100 districts will lose all state aid for the remainder of the year.

But action is required. It is late in the fiscal year. The irresponsible budgeting of the past, coupled with failed tax policies which lie like a heavy, wet blanket suffocating tax revenues and job growth, have required these extraordinary steps. Despite this bold action, remember, we have not taken one dime from classroom instruction, not forced one penny of increase in our property taxes.

Let me repeat. Every dollar in every school budget approved in every school district across the state remains intact.

Suburban districts will sacrifice. Urban districts will sacrifice. Rural districts will sacrifice. Some, both inside and outside this chamber, will urge you to retreat to the corner and protect your own piece of turf. Our state is in crisis. Our people are hurting. Now is the time when we all must resist the traditional, selfish call to protect your own turf at the cost of our state. It is time to leave the corner, join the sacrifice, come to the center of the room and be part of the solution. I urge all of us to come to the center of the room voluntarily, to stand up to the special interests, to fix our broken state – together. For those who continue to defend the old ways of selfishly protecting turf, who stay in the corner defending parochial interests, please be on notice – people of good will who want a better, stronger New Jersey will band together to come into those corners and drag you to the center of the room to make our state the place we know it can be.

In total, I am cutting spending in 375 different state programs, from every corner of state government.

I doubt that many will be popular. I will use my executive authority to implement them now, because I must.

Taken as a package, they will achieve the required savings and eliminate our $2 billion budget gap.

I am not happy, but I am not afraid to make these decisions, either. It is what the people sent me here to do.

I ask of you in the legislature to show the same frankness and commitment. For inaction is not an option. That was the path taken for far too long.

The cuts I have outlined may sound dramatic. And they are. Some sound painful. And they will be.

But let me give you some context. As of the first of this month, about half of the budget was already spent. The state at January 31 had about $14 billion of unspent monies for the current fiscal year. Of that amount, $8 billion cannot be touched – by contract, as in the case of state employees or maintenance of effort for federal stimulus money; by constitutional requirement; by the terms of our bonds; or by law.

So upon arrival, my administration had $6 billion of balances to work with -- $6 billion of balances from which to find $2 billion of savings. We had to cut 1/3 of our available funds with only 4 ½ months to go in the fiscal year.

We all were taught when we were young that it is not always easy to do the right thing.

We chose not to use gimmicks or band aids to hide the budget gap or defer it until next year, when it would be even worse. We refused to repeat the failures of the past.

We chose to confront the problem head on by reforming our spending habits, and laying the groundwork for reform so that we can repair a structural deficit that will be even larger – many times larger – in the next fiscal year, 2011.

So the cuts I am making today are not easy -- but they are necessary.

And make no mistake: our priorities are to reduce and reform New Jersey’s habit of excessive government spending, to reduce taxes, to encourage job creation, to shrink our bloated government, and to fund our responsibilities on a pay-as-you-go basis and not leave them for future generations. In short, to make new jersey a home for growth instead of a fiscal basket case.

We have set out in a new direction – a direction dictated by the votes of the people of New Jersey – and I do not intend to turn back. I will not break faith with them or the mandate they have given me.

A great president, Ronald Reagan, once said that: “a leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets tough.”

In just over a month, I will come before you to lay out my plan for fiscal year 2011 and beyond. The challenge next year will be even greater. The cuts likely will be even deeper. The reforms will, of necessity, be even more dramatic.

But let us not make that problem even worse.

Let us begin the process of reform today.

Let us listen to the will of the people and proceed in a new, more responsible direction.

Let us live within the means the people are already providing us and not take more of their hard-earned wages and savings from their pockets.

Let us have the courage to make change; the fortitude to see it through; and the vision not only to craft a more sound and sustainable budget, but to build a better state that can grow once again.

Thank you very much. God bless America and may God continue to bless the great state of New Jersey.

There's definitely a long road ahead here, but at least it's in the right direction.

RWR

If you've ever stayed up late to watch (or rolled tape on) Greg Gutfeld's Red Eye, you've surely come to love Greg's nightly "Greg-alogue". He also posts this nightly monologue on his website. Friday night, he hit one all the way to Moscow on socialism. Here it is in its entirety:

FRIDAY'S GREGALOGUE: SOCIALISM AND STUFF
So a new Gallup poll just came out, reporting that socialism was viewed positively by more than one-third of Americans. That's a lot of people, if you could call them that.

But I'm not surprised.

Think about it for a second. Since when has socialism ever been accurately portrayed in American pop culture or academia? I've never seen it covered in "Facts of Life," and I've watched every episode. And Rage Against the Machine, one of the most successful leftwing buckets of noise on the planet, never really explained how they spent their millions. Although I'm guessing it's not just on Rogaine and trucker hats.

Fact is, because socialism is a lie, people have to keep pushing the lie. When someone says, "Hey, my brother is a socialist," they never follow it with, "you know, that ideology based on envy that's responsible for the deaths of millions." No instead it's, "He sells Che shirts out of hemp, when he isn't recycling sex toys for the homeless. God he's so caring."

Fact is, socialism is the easiest thing you can romanticize, because it's a big fat exaggeration of "sharing." As kids, we were always told to share, because sharing is good. If you had twenty Playboys under your bed, surely you could hand one off to Billy, who has none. Socialism has always piggybacked on this notion: that it's just not right for you to have so much, when others have so little. Never mind that you've earned what you've got, while the others sit around watching Judge Judy in their underpants (sorry Bill). Socialism is government forcing you to share your stuff with jerks.

So the only way to teach American adults that socialism is evil, is to get them when they're young. The next time your son mows the lawn, instead of paying him directly - tell him you're going to "spread it around," to quote our President. Yep, even though you did all the work, Tommy, there are kids down the block who deserve that money just as much.

Now, if your kid finds this idea appealing, you have full permission to send him to Venezuela. He can mow for Hugo!

And if you disagree with me, you probably masturbate to Noam Chomsky.

Greg always puts it right there for you, and always in that entertaining manner.

RWR

Sadly, a wonderful poem that came to mind the other night has been forgotten.

It wasn't about liberals.

It wasn't about Barack the Schlock.

It wasn't political in the least.

It was a poem about coming into the world from the perspective of the baby and the love that exists between that baby and her mother.

What a wonderful thing to be thinking about on the day people set aside to celebrate love!

GRRR!! Maybe it will come back to me sometime around Mothers' Day!

RWR

In Hawk's latest poll, I submitted the following answers. Included are explanations.

Would you favor or oppose giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and learn English?
Oppose. There are no "illegal immigrants". The term "immigrant" means one who has come to a country legally with the intention of learning its customs and becoming a citizen. The people we are talking about are not "illegal immigrants", but illegal aliens.



Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?
Yes. However, only in the sense that he belives that white people control the wealth in this country, a "fact" that he hates with every ounce of his being.



Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?
Yes. Not because of any particular evidence, but because of the nature of organizations like ACORN and those for which Obama once worked. They are evil to the core, and I wouldn't put ANYTHING past them.



Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?
Yes. However, I also believe that they should be segregated from the rest of the military due to the close quarters required of those in military service.



Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?
No. We don't need to be redefining marriage to accomodate people who wish they fit the description of maritable people. The definition of marriage was dictated to us by God, and people do not have the power to change that. I do believe, however, that these people have legitimate concerns that actually affect all of us, such as hospital visitation and inheritance/insurance. These concerns must be addressed, as addressing them will ease the need for these people to be trying to gain unneeded additional acceptance of their lifestyle.



Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?
No. Impeachment is not intended for those not legitimately in office. Should Mr. Obama find himself losing the current lawsuits against him and the various attorneys-general regarding his citizenship status, he should immediately be removed from office without impeachment proceedings, along with Mr. Biden (an illegitimate contender for office cannot legitimately choose a running mate). From there, a new campaign and election should take place.

As to whether he should be impeached because of his seemingly deliberate sabotage of the American economy, I say no to that as well. If he is legitimate, which is remotely possible, then he was legitimately elected (though procedure should be addressed for future elections), and the people must sleep in the bed they have made unless fraud can be established regarding election procedures under the current rules.



Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
No. This is not really the main crux of the "birther" issue anyway. It's only important because if it can be established that his Kenyan birth certificate currently being analyzed in California turns out to be the real deal, it saves us the hassle of having to deal with his dual citizenship, which must be evaluated by the courts against the Founders' original intent. With so many anti-Federalists on the courts, it is questionable whether the Founders' original intent (consistent with the Vattel definition) would be observed.



Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?
Yes. At best. He is clearly a radical progressive in the socialist/communist/fascist model. There's just no denying that.



Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?
No. My state has been part of the problem, and must repair itself in extremely short order, or face the fate that is now imminent in Califormia.



Do you think the Democrats are going to pass a health care bill?
Yes, they'll get it through. Constitution be damned, they'll get it through.

RWR

The Saints have won the Super Bowl.

Beating one of the greatest quarterbacks in the game, the New Orleans Saints have given their city something special to celebrate this year.

Looks like Mardi Gras came a little early this year!

RWR

Philly voters have a conservative choice for Congress. If she does well, based on what I've seen, I say run her for POTUS (well, not really, but for reasons that you would expect ...).

GO PIA!

RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com

In his latest at the Second American Revolution, Sage brings forth some amazing information about Continental Congress 2009, which took place in November in Illinois. This appears to have been a pretty amazing event, which resulted in the publication of a document that takes modern federalism to a whole new level. It's called The Articles of Freedom.

It's 68 pages in all, and I'm still reading it, but so far I'm VERY IMPRESSED.

Thanks, Sage. This is cause for much optimism.

RWR

I've had about as much of your bullshit as I can take.

You and your party chose an inappropriate candidate for office - in fact, the ONLY candidate from that party that I vowed in advance never to support under any circumstances. You have no business bitching about my vote going to someone else.

You knew John McCain was a liberal progressive shitbag, and that by choosing him you were going to lose a lot of votes. You chose him anyway, deciding that you neither needed nor wanted those votes. You lost. Now you are suffering the consequences of your decision, and wish to blame those whose votes you decided you didn't want. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Phht.

In this last election, a vote for the Republican was the same as a vote for the Democrat. Party loyalty was the only reason to support McCain. Never mind loyalty to the Constitution or to the Founding Fathers, just vote for this progressive liberal prick who has no loyalty to either, and it won't be nearly as bad as voting for the "other" progressive liberal prick who likewise has no loyalty to either.

Yeah, ok Skippy.

Look. Things have ways of working out. Had McCain taken the Oath of Office on January 20, 2009, he wouldn't have taken it any more seriously than Barack Obama has. Similarly, you'd have had the same bailouts, environmental ripoffs, attempts at government healthcare, and budgetary madness that you got from Obama. What you wouldn't have had is the Tea Party movement. So I guess that's what's got your panties in a wad - people learning/thinking for themselves and standing up for the America the Founders envisioned?

Go ahead and be pissed at us who stood up for freedom if you wish. Your party is dead. So is your so-called "opposition". Americans are finally educating themselves about things that are far more important than who is sitting in the Oval Office, and are finally thinking for themselves. America's salvation is closer than you think, and she has us to thank for it (and you to thank for standing in its way). The Revolution has already begun.

Since you chose not to lead, you now have two choices: follow or get out of the way.

RWR

While we often refer to Glenn Beck as part of the "controlled opposition", we do like him and recognize that he is more like us than anyone else out there. He recently made a pretty profound statement in response to a caller, "Steve", who said that Beck had inspired him to learn about the Founders and the Constitution, then going on to say that Glenn was "not radical enough" (which most of us here would agree with as well). There are three very important things Glenn said in this quote, which I have highlighted:

Steve, what you do with your history, what you do with the things that you, you know, that you learn is up to you because there shouldn't be a giant control. I'm not a leader. I'm not a guy who's out here saying, hey, vote for me or anything like that. I'm a guy who is just like you. I just happened to start earlier than two weeks ago. I'm discovering a lot of this stuff for the first time as well. And what I learned last year, what I really came when I figured it out and I knew what was happening in Washington, that's when I knew you'll never beat this. If you try to beat it through politicians and through parties. You will only beat this if you educate the American people. Because then these things become self evident.

Glenn basically closed the hour with this, and his plan for restoration of the Founders' vision was left for the next hour. However, Glenn makes three very important points here:

1. Each of us must decide for ourselves what we do with what we learn about history. I choose to reinforce it here on my blog and in my life. I stand up to liberals and others who have no idea what history teaches us, and do my best to show them the light. Should they have hard heads and hearts, I show them the wrath. Glenn educates people through his radio and television programs.

2. Many if us, including Glenn, are learning this stuff for the first time. I remember Sage once saying that the difference between reasonable people and unreasonable people was the willingness to listen and think - and listen again and think again. He also got on Glenn's case once for not exposing the Federal Reserve - which Glenn did later that week on his TV show, as if he were responding to Sage's words. Glenn does listen, read, and think - and then listen, read, and think again. We are all evolving in our knowledge. It's just that guys like Sage got a head start on us.

3. The only way to beat this is to educate the American people, thus making these truths again self-evident. This is what Glenn endeavors to do every day. Sadly, he only has limited time to do it, but that does give him time to spend learning. We do the same here, sometimes having to make fun of the very people we are trying to teach. Sometimes because they just walk right into it, and sometimes because they ask for it.

Glenn Beck is evolving, and he's evolving into quite the Constitutionalist. There is much we will learn from him, and much he will learn from us. Hopefully he will eventually evolve into someone even the likes of Sage wouldn't mind having next to him in the trench. As America moves to the right, it's his voice that seems to be taking over as the voice of the conservative movement. Hopefully his boss won't get in the way.

RWR

Here's an idea for having some fun with the State of the Union speech - especially with the current speaker. Get a case of your favorite brew and watch tonight's speech.

Every time Barack Obama lies or attempts to deceive (or for good measure proposes something illegal), take a healthy swig.

You'll be long gone and passed out by the time the thing is over!

HAHAHAHA

RWR

So Hawk posts today that the Donks are going to try to save their asses by getting Tea Party voters to abandon Republicans. Further, he gives us the answers he wants us to give when Donks and others start asking questions:

Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen? Yes, he was born in Hawaii.

Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards? Yes, forcing people to buy health insurance is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment. If my opponent thinks it should be legal to force people to buy their own health insurance, then what other products does he believe Congress can force people to buy?

Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place? Both programs were well intentioned attempts to take care of the American people when they're at their most vulnerable. It's too bad that mismanagement in Washington has put both programs at risk and is threatening our country's financial future.

Do you think President Obama is a socialist? He's taking over banks, taking over car companies, trying to take over health care, spending money we can't afford -- if that's not socialism, it's a pretty good imitation of it.

Do you think America should return to a gold standard? No, but I think we need to get a handle on this out-of-control spending in Washington to protect our children's futures.

First of all, while a lot of Tea Partiers are currently supporting Republicans (including me when I supported Chris Christie), to assume that the Tea Party movement has a home in the Republican party as both the Donks and Hawk seem to be assuming is a fool's game.

The Tea Party movement is a movement of FREE AMERICANS who make political decisions based upon their individual perspectives and new-found understanding of the Constitution. It is currently not associated with any political party, and despite some pretty good options, it's not likely to do so any day soon.

Furthermore, I'm offended that anyone would suggest that Democrat-style talking points are needed in order for me (or anyone else) to answer any questions. I'll answer them however I damned well please, thank you. If John Hawkins doesn't like my answers, he can go fuck himself.

For the record, here they are:

Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen? Whether he is a US citizen is not being contested. As to whether he is natural born, I seriously doubt it. There is evidence in the courts that he was born abroad, but even if it can be demonstrated that he was, as he currently claims, born in Hawaii, he is still the son of a foreign national (a British subject no less), and as such is ineligible under the Natural Born Citizen Clause.

Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards? Yes, the federal government being involved in such matters as healthcare is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment.

Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place? Yes I do.

Do you think President Obama is a socialist? At best. He is definitely a radical progressive with radical socialist/communist/fascist tendencies.

Do you think America should return to a gold standard? Absolutely. Currency must be backed by something of value, and many economic problems today are easily attributable to the mismanagement that inevitably comes with moving away from a backed currency. Be it gold, silver, or some other tangibly valuable metal, this is something that may not happen soon, but will be of huge benefit to all once it does happen.

If the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or John Hawkins has any problem at all with my answers, they can all just go whine to the UN. I honestly don't give a flying fuck.

RWR