Fisking Marx

Fisking Marx



No, I am not referring to Karl Marx who wrote Das Kapital in 1867. I am referring to Reinhard Marx who wrote Das Kapital in 2008. Archbishop Marx's book carries the subtitle, A plea for the people



Reinhard Marx is now archbishop of Munich and Freising. Until January 2008, he was bishop of Trier, the birthplace in 1818 of Karl Marx.

Roman Catholic Archbishop Reinhard Marx

Was Marx's critique of capitalism right after all? It lasted longer than you expected back in the 19th century, but could it be that capitalism is just an episode of history that will end at some point because the system will collapse as a result of its internal contradictions? At the end of the 20th century, when the capitalist West defeated the communist East in the battle between systems, were we too quick to dismiss Karl Marx and his economic theories?



Capitalism without an ethic and a legal framework is inhumane. This was my conclusion from the finance and banking crisis. I already believed years ago that wild speculation is a sin. I have been an outspoken critic of the culture of greed in modern capitalism and have repeatedly pleaded with managers to subscribe to the social components of a social market economy. I criticise the audacious salary hikes of top managers. Neither primitive capitalism nor a return to Marxism will help create global justice. We need a structured market economy, not a revolution. The central question of the 21st century will be how to solve global problems like social injustice and poverty.

What a pantload of bull crap! To answer your questions, Reinhard, No! Marx's critique of capitalism was not right after all. No! the capitalist system will not collapse as a result of its internal contradictions. No! we were not too quick to dismiss Karl Marx and his economic theories. We may have been too quick to not hold when the USSR collapsed the same kind of tribunals held after Hitler and the Third Reich were defeated.



I reject your narrative that an inhumane unbridled capitalism has flourished, and that capitalism promotes a culture of greed. I believe that there will always be poor people, there will always be injustice, and there will always be sinners.



Never did John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Ayn Rand, F.A. Hayek, or Milton Friedman advocate unbridled capitalism or freedom. It seems that socialists have badly sullied the reputation of liberty. The socialists have repeatedly alleged that capitalism caters to so-called capitalists and gives them unbridled powers to exploit the weak. But that is totally false. Philosophers of liberty have always insisted that freedom comes with responsibility and justice. Adam Smith opposed mercantilism and monopolistic industrial interests. David Ricardo wanted more competition and free trade. Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill advocated labor unions to face the economic power of the owners of industry.



By repeating lies against liberty long enough, socialists have made it appear that the system of natural liberty encourages corruption and things like the sub-prime crisis. But what are the actual facts? Capitalism begins by looking at human nature. Hobbes and Locke, pointed out that since human nature is far from perfect, some people will always try to cheat, mislead, and misuse their powers. So if anyone cheats, then systems of justice should catch and punish the cheats. Thus everyone must be held equally to account and no one is to be above the law. In this manner, by ensuring all crimes are punished, capitalist societies are today among the most ethical on this planet.



Capitalism is also a system of continuous improvement. Lessons from events like the sub-prime crisis are quickly learned and such events prevented from happening again. Some events are complex and finding their causes can take time; but overall, capitalism is a political and economic system founded on democratic choice, law and order, and continuous improvement. And since the governance of capitalist societies is built on the system of checks and balances advocated by Montesquieu and Thomas Jefferson, the concept of capitalism being unbridled simply does not arise!



Our quarrel must be with socialism. In socialist societies, based as the spurious concept of economic equality, state-sanctioned corruption is the norm.



So who is really unbridled? Who is really immoral? Is it socialist countries ? where the governments are totally corrupt, where industrialists are gifted monopoly powers by the corrupt state, and where lives of workers are treated with disdain ? or is it the capitalist West where governments wage a systematic battle against all forms of corruption and irresponsible behaviour? Clearly, it is not capitalism but socialism we must be afraid of.



Unlike Karl Marx, who was a revolutionary, Adam Smith was a reformer. Where Karl Marx saw class struggle, Adam Smith saw special interests that were often at odds with the public interest. If Adam Smith were alive today, it is unlikely that he would join the chorus of triumphant anticommunists. Instead, he would warn that capitalism is prone to excess. He would observe that vigilance is required to ensure that the political system is not manipulated for the economic benefit of a few to the detriment of the entire society. He would be advocating political reforms to make sure that the system is not corrupted by special interests.



Adam Smith described free markets as an obvious and simple system of natural liberty. He did not favor the landowner, the factory owner, or the worker, but rather all of society. He saw, however, self-defeating forces at work, preventing the full operation of the free market and undermining the wealth of all nations.



The political foundation of Marx's utopia always had a critical structural flaw. He never explained how the members of the transitional dictatorship would be chosen, and why they would voluntarily relinquish their authoritarian power.



That critical structural flaw in the quest you have, Reinhard, to solve global problems like social injustice and poverty is the one you better think long and hard about.

The Obama Administration Is Not Clueless

There are so many pundits and journalists who are willing to carry the water for the Obama Administration. They report to their viewers, listeners, and readers that nobody knows for sure what effect the Obama Stimulus Plan is going to have, and if there is a further downturn that it would just be an unintended consequence of this youthful inexperienced team. I do not buy this narrative. Not one bit of it. This team is composed of the far left fringe of the Democratic Party. The end results they want, and the means they use to get them are not new at all. Karl Marx spoke at length about this in March of 1850 to an audience of members the Communist League in London.



Karl Marx described the political parties in Germany, what is the desired end result, what is not possible to do directly, and what is possible to do.

Since the defeat of the German and French revolutionary parties in July 1849, almost all the members of the Central Committee have reassembled in London: they have replenished their numbers with new revolutionary forces and set about reorganizing the League with renewed zeal.



This reorganization can only be achieved by an emissary, and the Central Committee considers it most important to dispatch the emissary at this very moment, when a new revolution is imminent, that is, when the workers' party must go into battle with the maximum degree of organization, unity and independence, so that it is not exploited and taken in tow by the bourgeoisie as in 1848.



This democratic party, which is far more dangerous for the workers than were the liberals earlier, is composed of three elements: 1) The most progressive elements of the big bourgeoisie, who pursue the goal of the immediate and complete overthrow of feudalism and absolutism. 2) The constitutional-democratic petty bourgeois, whose main aim during the previous movement was the formation of a more or less democratic federal state; 3) The republican petty bourgeois, whose ideal is to abolish the pressure exerted by big capital on small capital, by the big bourgeoisie on the petty bourgeoisie. The representatives of this faction were the members of the democratic congresses and committees, the leaders of the democratic associations and the editors of the democratic newspapers.



The relationship of the revolutionary workers' party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it cooperates with them against the party which they aim to overthrow; it opposes them wherever they wish to secure their own position.



As far as the workers are concerned one thing, above all, is definite: they are to remain wage labourers as before. However, the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers, and hope to achieve this by an extension of state employment and by welfare measures; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with a more or less disguised form of alms and to break their revolutionary strength by temporarily rendering their situation tolerable. But these demands can in no way satisfy the party of the proletariat. While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far - not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world - that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers. Our concern cannot simply be to modify private property, but to abolish it, not to hush up class antagonisms but to abolish classes, not to improve the existing society but to found a new one.



We have seen how the next upsurge will bring the democrats to power and how they will be forced to propose more or less socialistic measures. it will be asked what measures the workers are to propose in reply. At the beginning, of course, the workers cannot propose any directly communist measures. But the following courses of action are possible:



1. They can force the democrats to make inroads into as many areas of the existing social order as possible, so as to disturb its regular functioning and so that the petty-bourgeois democrats compromise themselves; furthermore, the workers can force the concentration of as many productive forces as possible - means of transport, factories, railways, etc. - in the hands of the state.



2. They must drive the proposals of the democrats to their logical extreme (the democrats will in any case act in a reformist and not a revolutionary manner) and transform these proposals into direct attacks on private property. If, for instance, the petty bourgeoisie propose the purchase of the railways and factories, the workers must demand that these railways and factories simply be confiscated by the state without compensation as the property of reactionaries. If the democrats propose a proportional tax, then the workers must demand a progressive tax; if the democrats themselves propose a moderate progressive tax, then the workers must insist on a tax whose rates rise so steeply that big capital is ruined by it; if the democrats demand the regulation of the state debt, then the workers must demand national bankruptcy.

The way I see it, the Congress leadership and White House are akin to the revolutionary workers' party. The editors of democratic newspapers, CEOs of green economy small businesses, and rank and file members of the Democratic Party are akin to the petty-bourgeois democrats. They have been useful idiots to help overthrow the GOP, but they will be turned on wherever they wish to secure their position of power.



That speech that Karl Marx gave in London about 159 years ago in London is very similar to speeches today in Washington, DC.

The Needy Get Something - The Greedy Get Nothing

The Needy Get Something - The Greedy Get Nothing



This is basically the slogan of the Obama Stimulus Plan, and this is why no House Republicans voted for this bill. This is basically a choice between the philosophy of Karl Marx, and the philosophy of Adam Smith. Let's look at some points Karl Marx made, and translate them into points made by Obama.



Karl Marx address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

We have seen how the next upsurge will bring the democrats to power and how they will be forced to propose more or less socialistic measures. it will be asked what measures the workers are to propose in reply. At the beginning, of course, the workers cannot propose any directly communist measures. But the following courses of action are possible:



1. They can force the democrats to make inroads into as many areas of the existing social order as possible, so as to disturb its regular functioning and so that the petty-bourgeois democrats compromise themselves; furthermore, the workers can force the concentration of as many productive forces as possible - means of transport, factories, railways, etc. - in the hands of the state.



2. They must drive the proposals of the democrats to their logical extreme (the democrats will in any case act in a reformist and not a revolutionary manner) and transform these proposals into direct attacks on private property. If, for instance, the petty bourgeoisie propose the purchase of the railways and factories, the workers must demand that these railways and factories simply be confiscated by the state without compensation as the property of reactionaries. If the democrats propose a proportional tax, then the workers must demand a progressive tax; if the democrats themselves propose a moderate progressive tax, then the workers must insist on a tax whose rates rise so steeply that big capital is ruined by it; if the democrats demand the regulation of the state debt, then the workers must demand national bankruptcy. The demands of the workers will thus have to be adjusted according to the measures and concessions of the democrats.



Although the German workers cannot come to power and achieve the realization of their class interests without passing through a protracted revolutionary development, this time they can at least be certain that the first act of the approaching revolutionary drama will coincide with the direct victory of their own class in France and will thereby be accelerated. But they themselves must contribute most to their final victory, by informing themselves of their own class interests, by taking up their independent political position as soon as possible, by not allowing themselves to be misled by the hypocritical phrases of the democratic petty bourgeoisie into doubting for one minute the necessity of an independently organized party of the proletariat. Their battle-cry must be: The Permanent Revolution.

Barack Obama's economic speech in Indianapolis

It's time to turn the page on eight years of economic policies that put Wall Street before Main Street but ended up hurting both. We need policies that grow our economy from the bottom-up, so that every American, everywhere, has the chance to get ahead. Not just the person who owns the factory, but the men and women who work on its floor.



Well, the working families who've been hard hit by this economic crisis - folks who can't pay their mortgages or their medical bills or send their kids to college - they can't afford to go to the back of the line behind CEOs and Wall Street banks. They need help right here, right now - and that's why I'm running for President of the United States.



Few have been harder hit by our credit crisis than the workers who make our cars and the companies that supply their parts. Now, when it came to rescuing Wall Street, Washington didn't waste a minute. But now that auto-workers are suffering, Washington's put on the brakes.



For the last eight years, we've given more and more to those with the most and hoped that prosperity would trickle down to everyone else. And guess what? It didn't. So it's time to try something new. It's time to grow this economy from the bottom-up.



Now, make no mistake: the change we need won't come easy or without cost. We will all need to tighten our belts, we will all need to sacrifice and we will all need to pull our weight because now more than ever, we are all in this together.

For those readers from Rio Lindo, Karl Marx phrase "petty bourgeoisie" equals Barack Obama phrase "person who owns the factory." Karl Marx phrase "organized party of the proletariat" equals Barack Obama phrase "unionized men and women who work on the factory floor."



Adam Smith had some things to say about this topic. Let's look at some of the points Adam Smith made, and unfortunately there are no translations of his ideas in Barack Obama.



Adam Smith

To enhance the wealth of a nation, every man, consistent with the law, should be free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of other men. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. The individual is driven by private gain but is led by an invisible hand to promote the public good, which was no part of his intention.



The skill, dexterity, and judgment with which labor is generally applied is one of the essential determinants of a nation's standard of living. Whatever be the soil, climate, or extent of territory of any particular nation, the abundance or scantiness of its annual supply must in that particular situation, depend upon the productive powers of labor.



No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.



In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest. The proposition is so very manifest that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question had not the interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind. Their interest is, in this respect, directly opposite to that of the great body of the people. As it is the interest of the freemen of a corporation to hinder the rest of the inhabitants from employing any workmen but themselves, so it is the interest of the merchants and manufacturers of every country to secure to themselves the monopoly of the home market.

Adam Smith promoted free trade, good conditions for workers, progressive taxation and competition to benefit the public. The men and women who work on the factory floor could well ensure their relevance in a globalised world by embracing Adam Smith rather than Karl Marx.



I could not care less about parts of the Obama Stimulus Plan where condoms are distributed and pamphlets encouraging people to stop smoking. But I do deeply care about the parts of the plan that declare a war on capping individual achievements and limit who we can buy from, and how much we have to pay for what we buy. Increasing the size, scope, power, and central planning for life's basic necessities by the Federal Government bothers me a lot.

The USA Has Its Own Fidel - YIPPEE!

The USA Has Its Own Fidel - YIPPEE!



This past Tuesday night Tavis Smiley interviewed Carlos Moore on the Tavis Smiley Show on PBS. A transcript of this interview can be read here.



What I find especially disturbing and vile is this comment by Tavis:

There are a couple of things you said in this conversation, Dr. Moore, that I found - at least I heard as interesting parallels between your experience back in the day and the experience that many young African Americans, 17, like you were at one point, are having today - 17, 18, and beyond. And that is, one, this notion of feeling that now that we have a guy named Obama in the White House, we have President Obama now, there are many young people who are as ecstatic and as excited and as enthused about President Obama as you were about your new president, Fidel Castro.

Say what, Tavis? You hear this as interesting parallels? How about hearing this as disturbing parallels or horrific parallels? I would have expected the left to deny, debunk, and refute to the listening public any parallels between Fidel and Barack.



This is just another example of a sickness within the hearts and minds of many Americans that needs to be challenged, and there is no conservative cavalry riding in from our nation's capitol to save us. For too long too many heads are being filled with mush extolling the wondrous possibilities of a workers' paradise if we just follow the philosophy of Karl Marx.



We need to work at the local level with new educators, unions, community organizations, and journalists to inform people about the philosophy of Adam Smith. History needs to be taught revealing how misery and failure have borne out everywhere that Karl Marx's ideas have been tried, and prosperity have borne out everywhere that Adam Smith's ideas have been tried.



Since this is Valentine's Day, I do not want a write a diary that only talks about sickness. There is another event recently that provides an example of wellness. Charles Krauthammer writes about it here. The article is about good news from Iraq's elections that is not being widely reported. I encouraage everyone to read the entire article. These are some of the points from the article:

All the parties that had the words 'Islamic' or 'Arab' in their names lost, noted Middle East expert Amir Taheri. By contrast, all those that had the words 'Iraq' or 'Iraqi' gained.



Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki went from leader of a small Islamic party to leader of the "State of the Law Party," campaigning on security and secular nationalism. He won a smashing victory. His chief rival, a more sectarian and pro-Iranian Shiite religious party, was devastated. Another major Islamic party, the pro-Iranian Sadr faction, went from 11 percent of the vote to 3 percent, losing badly in its stronghold of Baghdad. The Islamic Fadhila party that had dominated Basra was almost wiped out.



The once-dominant Sunni party affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and the erstwhile insurgency was badly set back. New grass-roots tribal ("Awakening") and secular Sunni leaders emerged.



But in the intervening years, while the critics washed their hands of Iraq, it began developing the sinews of civil society: a vibrant free press, a plethora of parties, the habits of negotiation and coalition-building. Reflecting these new realities, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani this time purposely and publicly backed no party, strongly signaling a return -- contra Iran -- to the Iraqi tradition of secular governance.

I think it will be a great idea for us Americans to renew our beliefs in free market capitalism and a vibrant free press. Where this is tried it is successful.

Where Have All the Tough Guys Gone?

Graham Amdt. No. 501 As Modified



This amendment transfers the STD prevention and smoking cessation program money to an FDIC mortgage foreclosure prevention program.



rejected by a vote of 57-39



the 57 nay votes included 3 Rs



Sen. Bunning

Sen. Collins

Sen. Snowe



the 39 yea votes included 3 Ds



Sen. Conrad

Sen. Dorgan

Sen. Feingold



Sen. Baucus says passage of the amendment would affect some chunk of money that would complicate the later passage of the compromise package.



pilgrim's translation-The US taxpayers are getting screwed, and so they need the condoms. They need to stop smoking because after the screwing they are getting they can't afford a cigarette afterward.



Vitter Amdt. No. 107



Prohibiting direct or indirect use of funds to fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).



rejected by a vote of 51-45

all 51 nay votes were Ds



the "bipartisan" yea votes included

Sen. Baucus

Sen. Bayh

Sen. Byrd

Sen. Hagan

Sen. Nelson of Nebraska

Sen. Tester



Sen. Durban says that passage of the amendment will be a slap in the face to some true American patriots in ACORN. They did community organizing work in Louisiana in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, and this is the thanks they get.



pilgrim's translation-ACORN plays a major role in getting Ds elected so defeat this amendment and give our guys their political payback.



This bill is vile to the core, and whittling around the edges with these amendments by Vitter and Graham is a silly kabuki dance that diverts from the main point. The main point is that this bill grows the size and scope of the government like we have not seen since FDR. FDR did not have a historical record to show the fallacies in his approach, and still Obama and the Ds do have a historical record that they don't care about.



Dan Kennedy has an excellent column over at TownHall with the title Where Have All the Tough Guys Gone?



In an interview in the January issue of Esquire, super tough guy and Cleveland Brown of all Cleveland Browns, Jim Brown said:

A liberal is arrogant enough to think he can do you a half-***ed favor. He is superior enough to think he can give you something that you don't deserve. A liberal will cut off your leg so he can hand you a crutch.

Jim Brown never missed a game in his nine record-breaking seasons with the Browns. He also rarely stepped out of bounds to avoid a high speed hit or bruising tackle. Instead he lowered a shoulder and knocked everyone else on their ***es. In the interview he says that the biggest crutch is thinking you're a victim. I imagine if a liberal handed Jim a crutch, he'd beat him over the head with it. Even if he had to hop on one good leg while doing it.

Quotations from Chairman Barack

There are some recent developments this month that really creep me out, and they do not receive the attention and scrutiny they deserve. One has to do with a new product, Pocket Obama, that is being sold at The History Company. When I first read this I thought it was some kind of cruel joke. Here is an excerpt -

Printed in a size that easily fits into pocket or purse, this book is an anthology of quotations borrowed from Barack Obama's speeches and writings. It is an unofficial requirement for every citizen to own, to read, and to carry this book at all times.

At a price of $49.50 per book only 10 copies have been sold so far. What is really creepy is how close the sales pitch for "Pocket Obama" matches these words about Quotations from Chairman Mao. Here is an excerpt -

As its title implies, it is a collection of quotations excerpted from Mao Zedong's past speeches and publications. The book's phenomenal popularity may be due to the fact that it was essentially an unofficial requirement for every Chinese citizen to own, to read, and to carry it at all times...

The second troubling development is the announcement that Obama sets up national network to help policy agenda. An excerpt from this LA Times news story -

Organizing for America, the new group, will be a tool to press for policy. It reportedly will have an annual budget of $75 million, making it an unprecedented standing political army for a president.

There is absolutely no truth to any rumor that this new unprecedented standing political army will be issued brown shirts with black armbands. Perhaps the shirts they will be wearing are going to be royal blue.



Blogger Ken Robinson at the Signs of the Times website suggests an optimistic possibility for Organizing for America.

On one hand, he could utilize the technology to organize and encourage Americans to simply push the Obama agenda. This could prove to be a little Orwellian. Many ultra conservatives such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have characterized Obama supporters as blindly following any edicts handed down by the Obama camp, and this new initiative won't silence any arguments to the contrary.



Another avenue, which might seem more in line with the tone Obama's press office has sought to portray is one of education and involvement. This would necessarily involve a two-way flow of information. Not only would information be sent by the Obama administration, but it would require individuals to organize, debate and funnel information back up the governmental chain.

When I envision a blue shirt Organizing for America member reaching into his pocket for his Pocket Obama copy when he encounters me I don't get the impression of a two-way flow of information about to take place.

My Fellow Citizens - and so it begins

On January 20, 2009 Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America. Following the swearing in ceremony President Obama began his inaugural address with the phrase "My fellow citizens". Hearing these words was like hearing chalk scratching a blackboard. Every President in my lifetime has always used the phrase "my fellow Americans", and I do believe Obama had a reason for not using this phrase. He intended his address toward a wider audience - the citizens of the world.



President Obama is the first American President ever whose brothers, sister, aunts, uncles, and grandmother are not citizens of the United States. They are citizens of Kenya. Nobody reporting on the inauguration of President Obama bothers to point out this first based on nationality of blood relatives. I don't think they really care, but I suspect that national security issues from this fact may cause agents in the NSA to care about it a lot. Instead of nationality they focus on race, and they ignore a very important fact about race. They ignore how it was the American side of Barack's parents who cared for him, raised and nurtured him, and gave him the opportunity to one day become President of the United States. These were white Americans who did the right thing. The African side of Barack's parents abandoned him as a baby. This was a black African. This fact especially made Rev. Lowry's prayer to God that the whites will do right especially offensive to me.



After beginning with "my fellow citizens" President Obama obliquely spoke to his wider audience about his assessment of the situation what he wants to see done.

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age...each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

I disagree that the blame lies with greedy irresponsible capitalists for our weakened economy. The blame lies with politicians in Congress who interfered in the market by picking out "too big to fail" government sponsored entities. I also disagree that our use of energy threatens our planet. Pres. Obama is telling his wider office that his administration will meddle more with the market and coerce US citizens to use less energy.

The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

Mr. President, you did not include the first and most important God-given right to life written into the Declaration of independence.

We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.

Soil-powered factories??? WTF? Mr. President, you did not include coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy that are currently providing our country with 99% of the fuel for our cars and our factories.

...this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

I disagree that markets spin out of control. Markets will punish folks who get too greedy and take too many risks, and it will reward folks who best provide a good or a service to their customers. Things begin to spin out of control when the government meddles with the market and tries to pick and choose folks as too big to fail.

And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect.

Speaking to his wider audience of fellow citizens Pres. Obama is telling them that his administration is going to make the US behave by not being so productive that it consumes so much of the world's resources. I strongly oppose Pres. Obama's vision of remaking a new United States of America, and I hope that he fails to get what he wants done.



I disagree with the meme that it is just wrong for anyone to hope that our US President fails because this meme does not define what success is. As with every President in my lifetime I hope that President Obama will succeed in fulfilling his oath to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." I would especially like for the President to preserve, protect and defend the 10th amendment -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Post-Modern Baalism-Just a very old book with a shiny new cover

Matt Barber has written an excellent article at TownHall, The Gods of Liberalism, I recommend that you read it in its entirety. It inspired me to write this blog.



A new Congress with a larger number of Ds will convene in the first week of January, and a new President, Barack Hussein Obama (D) will be sworn into office on January 20th, 2009. This new Congress wants to move quickly with new legislation ready for the new President to sign on day one. Let me list the issues and their Baalist counterpart.



planned parenthood reproductive freedom=Baalist fertility worship

providing funding and clinics for abortions=Baalist child sacrifice via burnt offering

gay rights and comprehensive sex education=Baalist ritualistic promotion, practice, and celebration of both heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity

radical environmentalism for controlling climate change=Baalist pantheistic worship of "mother earth" (reverence of creation over the Creator).



Matt opines

In fact, today's liberalism is largely a sanitized retread of an antiquated mythology – one that significantly predates the only truly progressive movement: biblical Christianity.



Both Obama's social agenda and that of the 111th Congress are rife with unfettered pro-abortion, freedom-chilling, pro-homosexual and power-grabbing environmentalist objectives. The same kind of "hope, action and change," I suppose, that was swallowed up by the Baalist Canaanites of old.



So, today's liberalism is really just a very old book with a shiny new cover. A philosophy rooted in ancient pagan traditions, of which there is naught to be proud.

I agree with this opinion, but I would expand the net to include to include some radical libertarian anarchists who do not want to have any enforcement or laws. Yes I believe in small government, but not anarchy.

The First Christmas Tells Us When Life Begins

Andrew Tallman wrote an excellent column at TownHall, A Christmas View of Abortion. I encourage everyone to read it in its entirety. In one respect the title is misleading because the medical practice of abortion is not directly addressed anywhere in the Holy Bible. What the Gospel According to Luke does address directly in Chapter one is the recognition of life less than a week after conception.





Luke 1:3-4

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,




4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Unlike the other Gospel writers, Luke will tell us his story in the form we modern readers best comprehend: chronologically. This means we can rely heavily on the order of things in any of our conclusions.

Luke 1:5-7


5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.





6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.





7 And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.





Luke 1:13


13 But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.





Luke 1:24-27


24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,





25 Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.





26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,





27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.





Luke 1:30-31


30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.





31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.





Luke 1:35-44


35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.





36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.





37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.





38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.





39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;





40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.





41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:





42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.





43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?





44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.





Luke 1:56-57

56 And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.





57 Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.

Working solely with the calendar of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, Luke has told us that Jesus was a person with sufficient individual identity that His cousin could recognize him through the assistance of the Holy Spirit. He was only a few days old (perhaps not even implanted yet) when John recognizes Him. Mary certainly wouldn’t have even been able to know by ordinary means that she was pregnant yet.





So the pressing point of all this analysis is not that John (in his third trimester) was a person in the womb when he leapt for joy. The unavoidable and much more forceful point is that Jesus was in the very earliest portion of His first trimester when He was recognized by John as a person.



Andrew Tallman concludes his column with this final paragraph-

So as we prepare to celebrate Christmas and the birth of our Savior this year, I have a simple question. Since we now know that Jesus was somewhere between a few days and a few weeks gestation when he was recognized in scripture as a person, then who or what is it in the young woman’s womb today if not a person—and somebody’s grandchild?

I expect sometime in the afternoon of January 20th 2009 for President Obama to issue executive orders that will undo every obstacle and delay that are currently in place to reduce the number of abortions that are performed. This will all be legal, however in my reading again the account by St Luke of the First Christmas this will be morally wrong.

There Oughta Be A Law

from left: brother-in-law Konrad, half-sister Maya, niece Suhaila, Barack Obama, daughter Malia, wife Michelle, daughter Sasha




back row from left: Unknown, Barack Obama, half-brother Malik, unknown, half-brother Abo, half-brother Bernard. Front: Half-sister Auma, stepmother Kezia, stepgrandmother Sarah, unknown

On December 15th 2008 the formality of state electoral college voting occurred, and history was made in the USA. For the very first time the US voters have elected someone whose father WAS NEVER a US citizen. Barack H. Obama Sr. was a British subject at the time of the birth of Barack H. Obama Jr. He later became a citizen of Kenya when the British colony became an independent country, but he never became a US citizen. His mother remarried an Indonesian, Lolo Soetoro where she gave birth to a daughter, Maya. The only living relatives of Barack Obama who are US citizens are ones he either married or gave birth to.



An excellent blog has been written that makes a sound legal case for not taking up this question of Presidential eligibility by the Supremes. I agree that there is no definite law on the books to challenge the eligibility, but there oughta be a law.



The Sons of Liberty who fought and shed their blood for the creation of these United States of America have been slapped in the face. They never wanted the opportunity to exist for someone with foreign ties to be a US President. They did not anticipate a 'citizen of the world' being the American President.



I would like to see a U.S. law that clearly defines that anyone who at the time they announce their candidacy to become POTUS must have both a father and a mother at that time who are United States citizens. I am not a lawyer and certainly I am not an expert on U.S. Constitutional law, but I truly believe that a law such as I have described should be written.

Hey Barry, Think 'Aloha' NOT 'The Chicago Way'

Well Barack Obama has certainly moved with great speed to get a White House Staff and a Cabinet together as soon as possible. Definitely better management than Bill Clinton at this task, and the general opinion is the selections are pragmatists instead of idealogues. That is the good news for him.


Now for the bad news... When the human excrement hit the air circulator last week with the arrest of Illinois Gov. Blagojevich some of the selected Cabinet and Staff are now going to be not targets but subjects of interest in the case that Fitzgerald will be developing against the Illinois Governor. Those folks will be distracted from working for the President while they lawyer up and appear for special testimonies and appearances before a Grand Jury.


Let me name some names for you:


Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff


David Axelrod White House Senior Political Advisor


Valerie Jarrett Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liaison


Desirée Rogers, Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary


Michael Strautmanis Chief of Staff to the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liaison


Christina M. Tchen White House Director of Public Liaison


That is six of the thirty-four folks who have been officially announced as nominees. I think Barack is a cautious guy who could use this situation to pivot away from his political cronies in Illinois to the kinder gentler Island folks of Hawaii. On one hand this could be seen as political betrayal for Barack to turn his back on the people who nurtured him politically and got him into the Office of President. On the other hand Rush posits another idea about Barack and 'the Chicago Way.'

Now, Richard Daley somehow is magically escaping any discussion about anything that happened here, and anybody who knows Chicago politics knows that it all runs through Mayor Daley, and Mayor Daley and Blagojevich were not close. They were not good buddies. They have had their contretemps over the years. In fact, I actually think that one of the reasons that Barack Obama is president is that Richard Daley wanted him outta Illinois, because Richard Daley didn't want him staying there running for governor. Richard Daley didn't want to have to do battle with a messiah as governor of Illinois. So, they arrange for him to run for president. Lo and behold, he stuns everybody and wins!

A President needs to get away far away from Washington DC. We have had Presidents who took time away at their political base. JFK went to the Kennedy compound near Martha's Vineyard, MA, LBJ went to LBJ Ranch near Johnson City, TX, Nixon went to San Clemente, CA, Carter went to Plains, GA, Reagan went to Rancho Del Cielo near Santa Barbara, CA, and George W. Bush went to his ranch near Crawford, TX. There are also Presidents who did not have a political base that they would retire to such as George H.W. Bush going to Keenebunkport, ME, and Bill Clinton going to guest with whatever celebrity would put him up.


If I were Barry instead of going back to Chicago to hang out with Bill Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, and Emil Jones I'd enjoy a vacation in Hawaii. It will be interesting to see where he will go to get away from DC.

Henry Thoreau and Priming the Slump

Back in the 60s I thoroughly enjoyed reading Walden. I especially liked the way that he talked about marching to the beat of a different drum. I liked the idea about an individual being left alone. Young people love this kind of stuff.



As I grew older I have seen the growth of a fanatic environmental movement and Garry Trudeau cartoon strips about Walden that just seemed wrong to my memory of what Thoreau was all about. Thoreau was not about creating a political movement. Everything that he lived was about the individual instead of the country.



Here are some Henry Thoreau quotes:

There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted. It is human, it is divine, carrion. If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life, as from that dry and parching wind of the African deserts called the simoom, which fills the mouth and nose and ears and eyes with dust till you are suffocated, for fear that I should get some of his good done to me some of its virus mingled with my blood. No in this case I would rather suffer evil the natural way. A man is not a good man to me because he will feed me if I should be starving, or warm me if I should be freezing, or pull me out of a ditch if I should ever fall into one. I can find you a Newfoundland dog that will do as much. Philanthropy is not love for one's fellow-man in the broadest sense.



There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.



The fact which the politician faces is merely that there is less honor among thieves than was supposed, and not the fact that they are thieves.



I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.



The necessaries of life for man in this climate may, accurately enough, be distributed under the several heads of Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel; for not till we have secured these are we prepared to entertain the true problems of life with freedom and a prospect of success.

I agree with the conclusions Ken Kifer reached about Henry Thoreau.

The purpose of Walden is to argue for, explain, and demonstrate Thoreau's philosophy of life, a philosophy that is practical and poetic, personal and universal. Thoreau developed his own sense of economics, an understanding that differs greatly from that of Karl Marx (communism) or that of Adam Smith (capitalism), an understanding that can free an individual from a life of toil and worry. But in addition, he developed a purpose for life, something that the communists and capitalists overlooked, a purpose more important than economics. Rather than seeing the acquisition of wealth as the goal for human existence, Thoreau saw the goal of life to be an exploration of the mind and of the magnificent world around us.



Ralph Waldo Emerson could shake his head at Thoreau's funeral and say, "I so much regret the loss of his rare powers of action, that I cannot help counting it a fault in him that he had no ambition. Wanting this [that is, lacking ambition] instead of engineering for all America, he was the captain of a huckleberry party. Pounding beans is good to the end of pounding empires one of these days; but if, at the end of years, it is still only beans!"



Emerson, considered the most brilliant thinker of his day, overestimated Thoreau's natural abilities, greatly underestimated Thoreau's accomplishments, and failed to see Thoreau's purpose. Thoreau was not interested in "engineering for all America." Instead of looking at just the problems of the 1850's, Thoreau based his philosophy on ageless truths from the past and looked into the future.

In today's world Henry Thoreau would not be able to live in a cabin at Walden Pond because he would violate rules and regulations and requirements from a big Federal government Dept. of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and Energy Dept.



Last night I listened to Pat Buchanan rant about how the Toyota Republicans are killing the manufacturing base of the US economy. He said there are only four productive bases in an economy, (manufacturing, mining, agriculture, and factories), and killing off the Big 3 by not bailing them out is akin to destroying a large part of the manufacturing base. I agree with Pat on the four productive bases which closely resemble Thoreau's breakdown of the basic necessaries, but I disagree that heavy intervention by the US Federal Government is the right thing to do. I believe if the Government can get out of interfering so much with these productive bases to appease the powerful environmental lobby, then people are going to find a way to produce the products for an existing market.

Boris and Ivan Again

Thomas Sowell wrote this article about the human condition of using envy, hate, and fear to grab power.

An excerpt -

There is an old Russian fable, with different versions in other countries, about two poor peasants, Ivan and Boris. The only difference between them was that Boris had a goat and Ivan didn't. One day, Ivan came upon a strange-looking lamp and, when he rubbed it, a genie appeared. She told him that she could grant him just one wish, but it could be anything in the world.



Ivan said, "I want Boris's goat to die."

Thomas Sowell went on to explain how this old Russian fable tells us something painful about many Americans today, when so many people are preoccupied with the pay of corporate CEOs. It is not the general public that singles out corporate CEOs for so much attention. Politicians and the media have focused on business leaders, and the public has been led along, like sheep.



Those who want more power have known for centuries that giving the people somebody to hate and fear is the key.



This article jarred my memory about a book written by Henry Thoreau, Walden Pond.



Walden's original title page...The drawing is by Henry's sister, Sophia Thoreau. The text under the drawing is:

I do not propose to write an ode to dejection, but to brag as lustily as chanticleer in the morning, standing on his roost, if only to wake my neighbors up.

In this book Thoreau spells out the basics that are necessary. an excerpt -

The necessaries of life for man in this climate may, accurately enough, be distributed under the several heads of Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel; for not till we have secured these are we prepared to entertain the true problems of life with freedom and a prospect of success.

Each individual is going to secure these necessaries of life in differing amounts, and we have got to let go of envy for those who have more than others. The envy and the hate that follows will not get you any more of the necessaries. All that hate can do is spread the misery.



Let's expand on this fable from the economy to entertaining the problems of life with freedom and a prospect of success. Why was so much effort made to ban a ballot initiative in California that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman? It had nothing to do with the necessaries of life, and it would not add any additional legal rights that citizens of California already have.



There are some in the gay community who want everyone to applaud and approve of their sexual activity. It is not enough for them to be legally protected from harassment. They want everyone to approve and appreciate their sexual activity.



They see the traditional family respected and admired in the community, and this brings them envy followed by hate. When they can't have what they want they become Ivan wanting Boris's goat to die.

Frederick Douglass's First Meeting With President Lincoln

Frederick Douglass escaped from slavery in 1838 after a harsh life of servitude in Maryland. He was later hired by William Lloyd Garrison as a speaker for the Anti-Slavery Society. He founded and edited the North Star, an abolitionist newspaper.



Frederick Douglass had impatiently snapped at Lincoln on the pages of his newspaper for sloth and indifference to the issue of slavery. He came away from his first meeting with Lincoln in August 1863 surprised.

I find the president the first great man that I talked with in the United States freely who, in no single instance, reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color. The reason is because of the similarity with which I had fought my way up, we both starting at the lowest rung of the ladder.

Based upon the writings of Frederick Douglas, if I were a fly on the wall listening to the conversation of this first meeting between these two, I would have heard the following:



President Lincoln: I am alarmed by the increasing opposition to the war, in the North, and the mad cry against it, because it is being made an abolition war. I am apprehensive that a peace might be forced upon me which would leave still in slavery all who had not come within our lines. I want to make my Proclamation as effective as possible in the event of such a peace. The slaves are not coming so rapidly and so numerously to us as I had hoped.



Frederick Douglass: The slaveholders know how to keep such things from their slaves, and probably very few know of your Proclamation.



President Lincoln: Well, I want you to set about devising some means of making them acquainted with it, and for bringing them into our lines. I am troubled by the attitude of Mr. Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, and the growing impatience there is being manifested through the North at the war. I am being accused of protracting the war beyond its legitimate object, and of failing to make peace, when I might have done so to advantage. I am afraid of what might come of all these complaints, but am persuaded that no solid and lasting peace could come short of absolute submission on the part of the rebels, and I am not for giving them rest by futile conferences at Niagara Falls, or elsewhere, with unauthorized persons. I see the danger of premature peace, and I wish to provide means of rendering such consummation as harmless as possible.



Frederick Douglass: I am the more impressed by your benevolent consideration because you previously said, in answer to the peace clamor, that your object was to save the Union, and to do so with or without slavery. What you are now saying shows a deeper moral conviction against slavery than I had even seen before in anything spoken or written by you. I agree to undertake the organizing of a band of scouts, composed of colored men, whose business should be somewhat after the original plan of John Brown, to go into the rebel states, beyond the lines of our armies, and carry the news of emancipation, and urge the slaves to come within our boundaries.



President Lincoln: Douglass, I hate slavery as much as you do, and I want to see it abolished altogether.



A few days later, Douglass wrote the President:

All with whom I have thus far spoken on the subject, concur in the wisdom and benevolence of the idea, and some of them think it is practicable. That every slave who escapes from the Rebel States is a loss to the Rebellion and a gain to the Loyal Cause I need not stop to argue the proposition is self evident. The negro is the stomach of the rebellion.

The reasons for my posting this short little history lesson is to refute a couple of ideas being projected about what the Republican Party needs to do.



One idea is that we cannot spend any time, money, and resources on outreach to folks who have a track record of criticizing and voting against Republicans.



We are assuring the prospects of always being in the minority if we only spend time, money, and resources on folks who compliment and vote for Republicans. Folks who fall into this category are in the minority, and we need to stop being in denial about it.



A second idea is that we need to stop protracting the "culture war" with regards to overturning Roe v Wade, and prematurely surrender for the sake of achieving election victories. There is no middle ground on an issue like Roe v Wade.

There Is No Middle Ground

In Hartford on March 5, 1860, Mr. Lincoln said:

If abortion is right, it ought to be extended; if not, it ought to be restricted -- there is no middle ground. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality -- its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension -- its enlargement. All they ask we could readily grant, if we thought abortion right; all we ask they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition as being right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this? Wrong as we think abortion is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation.

Mr. Lincoln's philosophy was often revealed in letters designed for publication. One such letter was to Kentucky editor Albert G. Hodges in April 1864. President Lincoln began:

I am naturally antiabortion. If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think and feel, and yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.

James R. (Ron) Weddington, one of the co-counsels for Roe v. Wade, wrote to president elect Bill Clinton in 1992, advocating elimination of the lower class through birth control and abortion:

But you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I'm, not advocating some, sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies.

There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and...well...so Republican...

Condoms alone won't do it. Depo-Provera, Norplant and the new birth control injection being developed in India are not a complete answer...

No, government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions...RU 486 and conventional abortions. Even if we make birth control as ubiquitous as sneakers and junk food, there will still be unplanned pregnancies. There have been about 30 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. Think of all the poverty, crime and misery ...and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario...

We don't need more cannon fodder. We don't need more parishioners, We don't need more cheap labor. We don't need more poor babies.

So, Weddington's solution to the "problem" of the poor is to convince them to use birth control, and when that fails, provide them with government-funded abortions. Planned Parenthood has taken this strategy to heart, putting the vast majority of their abortion clinics in inner city neighborhoods, resulting in a disproportionate number of abortions among African Americans and Hispanics. So, even though African Americans makeup only 12% of the U.S. population, they account for 35% of all abortions.



Ok, Ok, so I took the liberty to replace the word slavery with the word abortion in the speech and letter of Abraham Lincoln. I did not replace any word that Ron Weddington used in his letter to Bill Clinton. I believe that there has not been a change of heart and attitude by the donkey party from the time of Abraham Lincoln with respect to the barely educated poor segments of our country. There has been a change of strategy. The strategy then was to make good use of them in the same way good use was made of livestock. In our more modern urban world the strategy is for them to just die out by not reproducing.

More Faces Of The Future GOP

This is a list of photos of CongressCritters™ who have been elected to serve in the House or the Senate of their state. source



I pray that these folks are rising stars in the GOP because this will smash to smithereens the narrative framed by the left about who the Republican Party represents.











Rep. Donald A. Blakey DE-34











Rep. Jennifer Carroll FL-13









Rep. Melvin Everson GA-106







Rep. Willie Talton GA-145






Sen. Bill Hardiman MI-29

















Rep. Jane Powdrell-Culbert NM-44















Sen. Maurice Washington NV-2


Rep. T.W.Shannon OK-62







Sen. Jackie Winters OR-10









Rep. Paul Scott MI-51

Faces Of The Future GOP

Sen Jim Risch ID

Sen Mike Johanns NE

Rep Bill Posey FL-5

Rep Tom Rooney FL-16

Rep Duncan Hunter CA-52

Rep Mike Coffman CO-6

Rep Aaron Schock IL-18

Rep Lynn Jenkins KS-2

Rep Brett Guthrie KY-2

Rep Phil Roe TN-1

Rep Bill Cassidy LA-6

Rep Erik Paulsen MN-3

Rep Gregg Harper MS-3

Rep Blaine Luetkemeyer MO-9

Rep Leonard Lance NJ-7

Rep Steve Austria OH-7

Rep Glenn Thompson PA-5

Rep Cynthia Lummis WY-AL

Rep Jason Chaffetz UT-3

Rep Pete Olson TX-22

Rep Chris Lee NY-26