This story must be told.  It must be investigated.  The Darell Issa Congress cannpt come soon enough.  This story has been broken by Breitbart at Biggovernment.com.  Here are the details. 

A few months ago Andrew Breitbart published a video of Sherly Sherrod, an employee at the USDA, claiming that when she worked at the USDA that she discriminated against white farmers.  The next day Sherrod was fired.  When it was revealed that Sherrod was being quoted (perfectly in) out of context, she was reinstated.  However, this was only the tip of an iceberg story. 

Sherrord, as it turns out, was awarded a 13.5 million dollar settlement in a discrimination case against the USDA.  She was then given a job at the USDA.  How often does that happen?  Sue someone, win, and then get hired by them?  Only in government …

Former Sanfrisco Mayor Willie Brown provides some details. “This woman has been a thorn in the side of the Agriculture Department for years. She was part of a class-action lawsuit against the department on behalf of black farmers in the South. For years, she has been operating a community activist organization not unlike ACORN.”

This suit is what is known as the Pigford settlement.  From LeftCoast Ledger:

Pigford v. Glickman is one of those stories that reads dry, but at its core is a leviathan of corruption and race-baiting Democratic Party abuse.

Pigford v. Glickman was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), alleging racial discrimination in its allocation of farm loans and assistance between 1983 and 1997. The lawsuit ended with a settlement in which the U.S. government agreed to pay African American farmers $50,000 each if they had attempted to get USDA help but failed.

In essence Pigford, while originally a legitimate grievance by about 400 black Southern farmers against USDA, has become a reparations Ponzi scheme that will cost taxpayers billions when the Obama orchestrated “resettlement” is paid out. It is rife with fraud, corruption and even murder.

In the end, virtually any black person who ever grew a pansy on their windowsill could file a claim as a farmer. There are no more than 33,000 black farmers in the US; 94,000 have filed claims. And Pigford opened a floodgate of lawsuits by other minorities to settle claimed injustices by the USDA. This week Native Americans who jumped on the bandwagon were awarded $4.55 billion, as well.

And now, on the heels of Breitbart’s break on this story, Obama will be signing a bill creating a brand new slush fund.  Essentially, it is Pigford II.  To make matters worse, Senator Kyl slipped in a provision that allows Native Americans to get in on the fraud.  This is bipartisan muckery. 

Read more at biggovernment.com

I kid you not.  Leftwingers who believe that the healthcare bill will actually start saving families money, now want to take that money right back in the form of higher taxes:

Here’s another thing: if we want this not to add to the federal debt, we’ll now be able to do one other thing more easily.  We’ll be able to raise federal taxes.  Why?  Because with better medical care (and, eventually, with more affordable medical care), people will have more money in their pockets .  Furthermore, people will be able to give up some of their money because they won’t have to save as much for disasters .

Incredible.  This is what we will be fighting against.

I am speechless at the prolific horror I have come across at the DailyKos.  See here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/3/842541/-I-wish-she-would-die-%28Update%29

All I am saying here is, I understand what its like to watch an 80+ year old loved one suffer through their last moments, and I am not one to judge what anyone would do in that situation – it is their business.  But this diary is just flat out horrific, disgusting, ignorant of life, and wanting of humanity.  For all those nutcases on the left who bashed Sarah Palin for her “death panels” “rumor”, see the above linked requiem for a sanity check, and then tell me what you think about Gov. Palin’s “rumor.”

The Obama healthcare plan raises taxes on earners under $250,000.  Click here for the specific provision.

The purpose of this new tax is to make up for the lost revenue from the backroom union steal deal which exempts them from the cadillac tax.  This is also referred to as the excise tax.  In the original senate bill, it applied to plans that costs >= $20,000.  However, this would have encompassed the ludicrously over-generous generous union plans.  Now, it has been raised to $27,500, so it only includes the generous plans that CEOs (?) are earning.  See here.

So much for promise-keeping transparency from the White House.

It has been rumored that Obama once declared one of his favorite philosophers to be none other than the famous prince of notoriety, Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli. Others have suggested that Obama and his Chicago gang incorporate the tactics of Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, and Saul Alinski directly into their political strategy in order to reap the benefits of excessive control, demanded by chaos. However, if Obama truly did claim to be a scholar of Machiavelli, he would have done himself well to pay closer attention to Machiavelli’s doctrines, because they carefully foretell the ruin that Obama is inevitably headed towards.

For those who are not scholars themselves, in 1505 Machiavelli wrote “The Prince ” in an attempt to persuade the Medici family to wage war upon barbarian invaders who were enabled in part by France’s invasion of Italy. Putting aside all of the stereotypes of Machiavelli, it is sufficient to say the man was far more rationale than “brutal,” and his doctrines need to be measured in the context of perpetual warfare, which was the permanent political nature of the times. However, because a unification of the Italian provinces was antithetical to the political ambitions of the French and English states, and because of Machiavelli’s willingness to argue in a language that was radical in respect to papal notions of morality and civility, he was quickly labeled “the devil” all across Europe, a stereotype which continues today. But I digress.

Machiavelli makes a very clear distinction between obtaining power and keeping it. Since power can be achieved in many ways, such as through skill, fortune, or wickedness, all rulers should not assume that power attained is power that will remain.  Its destiny is closely linked to the circumstance through which it was gained.

Generally speaking, Machiavelli knew that exercise of real power (real politic) was more a matter of animal instinct than nuanced practice of enlightened theory. Thus, for princes who came to control their cities through arms or skill (experience), maintaining power was easy. As ancient examples, Machiavelli cites Moses (leading the people of Israel from their Egyptian Slavery), Romulus (original ruler of the emergent Roman empire), Cyrus (of the great Persian empire), and Thesius (ruler of the Athenians.) As modern examples I will cite such names as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and Ronald Reagan, all of whom faced significant obstacles in their rise to power, and were required to show unordinary skill and talent to win the Presidency.  Additionally, they brought with them large power bases.  

On the other hand, there are those who come to power through fortune and circumstance, who conversely face extraordinary difficulty in maintaining their power. Machiavelli states:

“And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.”

For those of you who can already draw the parallels, mind you this was written 500 years ago, and yet the power principals remain the same. Because of the difficulties that arise when one arises to power through fortune, treacherous tactics are required to quickly build that base once in power. For if one must lay the foundation of their house after it is already built, it must be ripped apart to lay new roots. But if this is not done, the Prince himself will be destroyed for his lack of foundation will not allow him to weather the first storm.

What does this entail? For starters, a prince must utterly destroy any existing power structures and replace them with his own, so his power is not challenged from within. Second, the prince must not allow foreign powers to exercise influence in his own province, since then his people will not be sure of the result in case of invasion. Finally, the prince must eliminate existing institutions and values or mold with them, so that his people’s customs and habits do not themselves spur an uprising. As an example:

“When the duke occupied the Romagna he found it under the rule of weak masters, who rather plundered their subjects than ruled them, and gave them more cause for disunion than for union, so that the country was full of robbery, quarrels, and every kind of violence; and so, wishing to bring back peace and obedience to authority, he considered it necessary to give it a good governor. Thereupon he promoted Messer Ramiro d’Orco a swift and cruel man, to whom he gave the fullest power. This man in a short time restored peace and unity with the greatest success. Afterwards the duke considered that it was not advisable to confer such excessive authority … [a]nd because he knew that the past severity had caused some hatred against himself, so, to clear himself in the minds of the people, and gain them entirely to himself, he desired to show that, if any cruelty had been practiced, it had not originated with him, but in the natural sternness of the minister. And having found the occasion to do this, one morning … he had Messer Ramiro d’Orco [cut in two pieces and laid out publicly in the city square] with a bloody sword laid beside him. The ferocity of the spectacle left the people satisfied and amazed at the same time.”

So what has President Obama done? In short, he has assured himself that he will not weather the storm.

For starters, when then Senator Obama came into power, he turned over the keys of the kingdom to “weak masters,” who rather plundered the Americans than governed. This includes crooks in Congress like Charlie Rangel, and pseudo crooks like Pelosi and Reed who each alone had the power to destroy Obama if they decided. He turned over the banks to none other than Timothy Geithner, the squirrel/puppet boy of the same crooks who bankrupted our Treasury through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He went around the world bowing to foreign directors in Asia and the Middle East, while making absurd proclamations (that even foreigners do not believe) such as “American is one of the world’s largest Islamic nations” and pointing out that America has been “cruel and arrogant” in its past ways. He has been personally handed anti-American propaganda in photo ops with murdering dictators like Hugo Chavez, and has been punked by real power players like Vladimir Putin who convinced Obama to backstab our allies Poland and the Czech Republic in return for … nothing. Furthermore, he has attempted to entirely redefine our country’s values, morals, and laws rather than molding to them, drawing significant opposition from within his own country, and even his own political party.

What did Obama expect the result to be? I’m not sure. But everyone, both in this country and around the world, know that he is weak . He came to power not through his own skill, accomplishment, or achievements, but mainly through fortune and circumstance. Even Machiavelli knew there was a difference between popular politics and real politics – for public speaking skills are no substitute for the real skill of building powerful, enduring power coalitions. Unfortunately for Obama and his neophyte, inexperienced advisers, he wasn’t paying attention when he read The Prince . For he should have known that his power center would be weak when he came into office, and handing over his domestic agenda to Reed and Pelosi, along with allowing our nation’s biggest crooks to gain even more power, and letting every human around the globe to know that America’s leader is a weakling who will capitulate to foreign power, he has not only compromised our nation’s power and standing, but he has all but guaranteed the utter destruction of his own.

The last leader to behave this way, and come to power through similar circumstance was Jimmy Carter.  Unless President Obama can mimic the actions of other presidents who also came to power through fortune rather than skill (George W. Bush, John F. Kennedy), but were able to do what it takes to maintain their power, he will, in fact, end up just like his friend Jimmy.  

Im just waiting patiently for the left-wing media to begin labeling the sick nutcase who flew his plane into the IRS building today as a “right-wing” extremist.  Remarkably, this guy left his manifesto, for all of us to read online.  At the end he cites the communist creed, and mocks capitalism.  Do you think maybe he was a left-wing extremist?  I wonder how this will be spun.

Senator Evan Bayh’s (D-IN) announced retirement yesterday has sent the calls for bipartisanship into a fever pitch. In general, pundits and critics, including “moderate” senators like Senator Bayh and the Obama White House, like to deride the Congress for various shortcomings such as their inability to “do the people’s business”, cooperate to solve today’s crises, and being too ideological. The general import of these criticisms is that ideology is poisonous, and that our legislatures should “rise above” such partisanship for the good of the country. But bipartisanship itself is an ideology.

For in order for these attitudes to be justified, it must be assumed that there is some kind of new, enlightened form of non-ideological (practical) approach to lawmaking that is only apparent to the great independent middle of the American political spectrum. However, those who call for bipartisanship are deeply misguided for three reasons: (1) they seek to achieve a romanticized legislative approach that perpetuates the myth of America’s lost “great deliberative body”; (2) is based on a false understanding of the constitutional role of the legislature that is antithetical to popular government; and (3) draws false inferences from current political trends which purportedly justify these themes. Most importantly, they fail to realize that “bipartisanship” is a partisan ideology in itself, albeit one that is intellectual hollow and shockingly unenlightened.

Perhaps the sole driving force of the bipartisan movement is a desire for a long lost form of statecraft, that America’s great legislators of yesterday did not bestow upon today’s generation of political hagglers. But this is a distorted view of our legislative history, further perpetuated by a myopic media narrative. There may have been many bipartisan legislative accomplishments throughout the whole of the 20th century (Social Security, Civil Rights Act, Medicare/Medicaid). However it’s a far leap to say these achievements were a result of meritorious lawmakers who were willing to sacrifice for their country. One needs only to watch the popular “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” to see the legislative process was not much different in the 1930s than it is today, or to be precise, the Hollywood portrayal of legislative process. The reason for these bipartisan achievements was bipartisan consensus in the electorate, plain and simple. This is why legislation that does not receive large bipartisan support does not remain in force – because if the people don’t consent to it, they elect representative to repeal it. It has nothing to do with the nobility of the legislators who enacted it. See prohibition, or nearly the entire 19th century legislative history, if you are one of those who believe that once legislation is enacted it is destined to remain, simply because enough legislators supported it.

In fact, there is no reason to presume that lawmakers could, or even should, put aside their personal interests and compromise their votes for the pure sake of compromise. It violates human nature, and perpetuates a false, aristocratic idealism of the noble statesman. History of popular government proves there is no such thing. Rather, power structures, whether democratic or autocratic, are always fought for and controlled by one type of individual: power seekers. Thus, the legislature is expected to be a partisan body, and its function is to be a civil alternative to arms. In a vibrant and free republic, the populace is expected to be in a constant state of agitation, and political uprisings are normal. The purpose of the legislature is to facilitate this never-ending battle for power, and finds social stability through simple majority rule.

In face of this reality, our founders did not try to find ways to increase Congressional efficiency or facilitate compromise, because it is ludicrous (and ignorant of history) to ever think that such a political body could ever be expected to behave that way. Rather, the constitution’s authors sought every manner possible to slow the legislature down, and make it more difficult for them to shape the law. This is partly why they created two bodies, and established the filibuster (which contrary to popular liberal myth, is not a new invention.) These barriers prevent every newly elected legislature from constantly overturning its predecessor, and forces the stability and respect for the minority which legislatures are utterly incapable of on their own. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Papers 26-28 explains this concept in fine detail.

Our founders were not ignorant. Fully aware of the shortcomings of popular governments, they created the executive branch to act with speed and decisiveness when our nation required it. Thus, if “the nation’s business” is not getting done, it should be understood that lawmaking and governing are two different things. Contrary to the media’s strange narratives, we don’t live under a parliamentary system either, and it is a great danger to pretend the White House and the majority party in Congress are separated in their duties by merely a grey fog.

Finally, the bipartisanship ideology draws upon incorrect inferences about our nation’s electorate to assume that the growing body of “independents” are bipartisan, or even want bipartisanship. In essence, there are only two reasons one might decide not to associate with the parties: (1) the voter is non-ideological, and don’t like the party system itself; (2) they are ideological, but don’t believe the parties represent their beliefs. The leaders of the bipartisan movement would like the assume most independent voters are members of the first, but it is equally likely to be the latter. Considering the second rationale, one might actually abandon the party system because the parties are too similar, and don’t offer the voter a clear difference. Thus, too much bipartisanship is a real danger. Taken to an extreme, this becomes a covert form of one-party rule, and in fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest Washington has found its way into such a form. Lawrence Lessig recently published an article in the Nation, making the argument that no matter who you elect, republican or democrat, you are going to get the same thing – protection of the status quo. He cites as examples both the inability of the Obama White House and democratic congress to enact virtually anything its supporters want, and also the fact that after nearly 30 years of republican rule of Washington, they managed to decrease the size of government by a factor of zero. The government is actually bigger today than it was in 1980 at the start of the conservative ascendency.

Therefore, bipartisanship is far more likely to be a cause of Washington’s perception as “broken” rather than an ailment. The truth is that Washington is not broken, but operating precisely in the slow-moving, partisan, “corrupt” way that our founders envisioned it would. Those who call for more bipartisanship are proceeding without a mature sense of the deep history and purposeful construction of democratic governments. Rather, they operate with the same aristocratic assumption that government has certain things it “must” do, and thus distract and deflect the important debate over what exactly that is. To simply assume that lawmakers should compromise for the sake of comprise presupposes the validity of the solution, and subverts popular will more than it promotes it. As such, politicians who incessantly harp about “bipartisanship” should be viewed even more skeptically than the pundits, because chances are they are merely deflecting away from the real debate on substance.

Lessig gets it. Those mourning for a loss of bipartisanship do not.

Anybody check out Obama’s recovery.gov site?  This is the site that allegedly is supposed to “[let] you, the taxpayer, figure out where the money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is going.”

HA!  I urge everyone to go to the site, and also go here to send them a message to let them know what you think about the generational theft recovery act.