A billion here, a billion there, and before you know it . . .

Would you hire President Obama as your financial adviser? Three years ago his administration invested more than $100 billion in taxpayer money to bail out General Motors. On Tuesday, the entire company, not just what the government owns, was worth less than $34 billion. By anyone’s definition, that investment is a glaring failure. Yet over the last few days the Obama campaign, in a $25 million marketing blitz, has flooded the airwaves with ads in battleground states, claiming the bailout should be counted a rousing success.

Unfortunately, assertions that “all loans have been repaid to the federal government,” that the bailout “saved more than one million American jobs,” that “U.S. automakers are hiring hundreds of thousands of new workers,” that GM is again the “number-one automaker” — all are based on creative accounting.

The money the government spent adds up quickly: $50 billion in TARP bailout funds, a special exemption waiving payment of $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits, an exemption for all product liability on cars sold before the bailout, $360 million in stimulus funds, and the $7,500 tax credit for those who buy the Chevy Volt. GM’s share of other programs is harder to quantify but includes, for example, some of the $15.2 billion that went to Cash for Clunkers. Those costs are in addition to the billions taken from GM’s bondholders by the Obama administration.

A look at the accounting shows the trouble with contentions that much of the TARP money is getting paid back. The Obama administration compares the $50 billion in direct bailout funds with the price it will eventually be able to get for selling the GM stock it owns. But that assumes that the stock price won’t reflect government subsidies, including GM’s exemption from paying $45 billion in taxes. By the Obama administration’s logic, if the stimulus grants to TARP recipients were simply large enough, all the TARP money could be paid.

Claims that GM paid back its TARP loan are true but misleading. President Obama clearly wants to create the impression that all the money given to the auto companies has been paid back. But the $6.7 billion loan to GM was just a tiny fraction of the money given to it. As TARP special inspector general Neil Barofsky explained, GM used “other TARP money” to pay off the loan.

So what about President Obama’s boast in a White House speech in late April that the bailout “saved probably a million jobs” and that “GM is now the number-one automaker again in the world”?

The “million jobs” contention is quite a stretch. Before filing for bankruptcy in July 2009, GM had 91,000 employees in the United States. You can reach a 400,000 total by assuming that all of GM’s jobs, as well as all the jobs of its parts suppliers and car dealers, would have been lost. Last year, employment in the entire automotive industry in the U.S. (counting Ford, Toyota, and other companies and their suppliers, in addition to GM and Chrysler) was only 717,000.

Obama’s economic advisers told him during an April 2009 meeting that job losses in the auto industry would be only a fraction — 10 to 20 percent — of these claimed numbers, even for the much weaker Chrysler. The advisers reported the obvious: Bankruptcy would not kill all jobs at GM and, even with cutbacks, suppliers would pick up other work. But Obama keeps using numbers that his own advisers told him were wrong.

Even saving 20 percent of 400,000 comes at quite a cost — at least $780,000 per job. How many workers would have been willing to quit working for GM for a $400,000 severance payment?

The “number-one automaker” assertion is no more accurate. Obama’s sales totals include 1.2 million mostly cheap commercial vehicles built by China’s Wuling, a company in which GM owns a small stake, and it excludes sales by vehicle makers in which Volkswagen owns a majority share. Fortune magazine lists GM’s revenue as smaller than Toyota’s and Volkswagen’s.

The only real winners from the GM bailout were unions, which were protected from pay cuts, from losing their right to overtime pay after less than 40 hours a week, and from cuts to their extremely generous benefits. They faced only minor tweaks in their inefficient union work rules.

As for “hundreds of thousands of new workers,” the truth is closer to a tenth of that.

Having just $34 billion to show after a $100 billion-plus investment would get a chief executive of any private company fired. Unfortunately, Obama does not seem to understand how this money has been wasted.

Editor's Note: We have reprinted the full text of "Obama and GM Cook the Books" by John R. Lott Jr. from the National Review Online. We encourage you to visit the original.

Yes, they're at it again. Or I should say, "still." The Obama media -- the Gatekeeper Media who try to control what people know based on what fits their narrative -- are proving almost daily that they're not in the news business. They are in the business of political activism, aimed solely at getting their guy another four years in the White House.

Obama's admission of the obvious fact he'd previously denied -- his support for same-sex marriage -- is now being ballyhooed as proof of his great political courage. Really? As Brit Hume pointed out yesterday on "Fox News Sunday," Obama's position on gay marriage didn't evolve: it revolved. In 1996, Obama said he was for it. In the 2008 campaign, he said he opposed it but also opposed the California referendum banning it. In office, his Department of Justice has refused to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage -- as Obama did in 2008 -- as a union of a man and a woman. Now he says he supports gay marriage.

Instantly, that became the biggest media story of the week, second only to the story about Mitt Romney bullying a presumed homosexual who attended the same exclusive prep school Romney did in the 1960s. The two stories are entirely instructive, as is the media's timing.

In fact, Obama had no choice in announcing his position. Good Ol' Joe Biden, who has never had an unexpressed thought, said on "Meet the Press" eight days ago that he was "comfortable" with gay marriage. Cornered, and under intense pressure by the homosexual lobby to motivate the (insignificant) homosexual voting block that was already with him, Obama endorsed same-sex marriage five days later. To the media, that's proof of his political heroism.

Jay Leno got it right. Obama said his position on same-sex marriage had "evolved." What a coincidence, said Leno, that he had completed his evolution just in time for a multi-million dollar fundraiser in Hollywood. That, to the media, is heroism. We eagerly await the announcements from endangered Senate Democrats such as Missouri's Claire McCaskill supporting their president's position. That would be akin to the heroism of Japanese samurai who committed ritual seppuku.

The media would have us believe that it was another coincidence that in the five-day gap between the Biden and Obama statements, the Washington Post published a story about Romney cutting the hair of a possibly homosexual fellow high school student while others held him down. The incident occurred in 1965 and, we are to believe, is proof of Romney's homophobia and a demonstration of his mean-spirited character.

Romney apologized. "I don't remember that incident," he said. "And I'll tell you I certainly don't believe that I ... thought the fellow was homosexual. That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s, so that was not the case."

Romney's nervously delivered apology could have been a moment of political courage eclipsing Obama's. He could have said that he supports both the Defense of Marriage Act and, more importantly, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. He could have said that his position was much like Obama's 2008 position, and that he was sticking to it. But he didn't. His lack of confidence will goad the media to attack his weakness when, in truth, he isn't weak (at least on that issue).

Two weeks ago, there was a one-day story about what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said was Obama's "compression" of people in his first campaign autobiography, "Dreams from My Father." The New York girlfriend Obama wrote about in that book didn't exist. As Obama wrote in the introduction, "For the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people I've known, and some events appear out of precise chronology." In short, the book is a work of fiction that intentionally conceals Obama's actions, choice of friends, and beliefs.

The Romney high school incident happened 47 years ago. Like everything a presidential candidate has done, whenever he did it, it's fair game for reporters. But where are the stories of Obama's high school and college years? Where are the media investigating Obama's statements in his books?

The people who voted for Obama in 2008 knew virtually nothing about him, and know little more now. Where are his college transcripts, his friends and girlfriends, and whatever he wrote for the Harvard Law Review? No one has seen the transcripts or the writing, no one has sought out and interviewed his high school and college friends and girlfriends. We know almost nothing about Obama's early years except what Obama himself has written. Even his later years -- sitting in Jeremiah Wright's church, listening to the anti-American racist nutcase -- remain uninvestigated and unreported. What did Obama think, listening to Wright for two decades? Why didn't he leave that church for another if he strongly disagreed with Wright?

In the minds of the Gatekeeper Media, we aren't entitled to know about Obama's character, what he said or believed, or what he did before he began his 2008 campaign. The Gatekeepers -- ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and many other newspapers -- don't want to investigate for fear of what they might find. They're intent on re-electing Obama and will, as they have in the past, simply decline to report on those stories.

When Newt Gingrich railed against the Gatekeeper Media in two primary debates, he struck a deep chord with Americans. According to a Rasmussen Poll released on June 15, 2010, "Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters describe themselves as at least somewhat angry at the media, including 33% who are Very Angry." Romney needs to reach deep down and find the courage to take on the Gatekeeper Media. They're going to do everything in their power to defeat him, so there's no reason to play their game.

Romney should begin at the long-promised event in which Gingrich will enthusiastically endorse him. Gingrich will say nothing new, but Romney should take the opportunity to praise Gingrich's courage in taking on the media. Romney should say that the media's bias is a matter of culture, not conspiracy.

He should quote the statement about five years ago by Washington Post editor Marie Arana who said, "The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness.... If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings at the Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democratic candidates." And he should challenge them to report the stories they now bury, especially about Obama's past.

It's an opportunity for Romney to make the media a campaign issue. If he did, he could significantly boost his chances, and those of other Republicans, in November. It would take a courage that no Republican other than Gingrich has had. The anger at the press measured by that old Rasmussen poll hasn't diminished; it's grown and will continue to grow in the coming months as the Gatekeeper Media splash every real or imagined Romney misstep across the airwaves and front pages, ignoring whatever could hurt their candidate.

Make no mistake, Gov. Romney: Obama is their guy and you are their enemy. They will act accordingly. Will you?

Editor's Note: We have reproduced here in full "Obama's Media-Contrived Courage" by Jed Babbin from the American Spectator. We encourage you to visit the original.

by Heather Denigan

The slogan for the upcoming Rio+20 summit in Rio de Janeiro is “the Future we want.” However the UN preparatory committee has failed to reach a global plan of action in the weeks leading up to Rio. The committee will reconvene at the end of this month. Evidently everyone wanted different things. Maybe “the future we can decide on” would make a more realistic slogan--if it could be decided on.

In the meantime, Justmeans---styling itself "the world's leading source of information and connections for the sustainable business industry”---reports that a Kenyan representative for Transparency International has raised a rather critical question: What about corruption? Why isn’t corruption on the agenda?

To be fair, the “zero draft” going into the preparatory committee’s New York meeting ran to 6,000 pages. Getting it down to 100-200 pages was likely no small undertaking. One can only do so much. But corrupt governments are serious obstacles--history has shown us that, by and large, corruption hates change.

The UN places responsibility upon developed countries to pick up the tab for developing countries. But by overlooking corruption, it only redistributes money to tyrants and dictators rather than feeding children starving in drought-stricken Africa. It would appear that the UN depends upon corrupt governments (who gild their palaces with aid money) in order to accomplish its agenda.

To be sure, the first of the UN’s Rio principles states: "Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature."

But the next 26 principles make clear that issues such as eliminating poverty, supposedly an urgent piece of its vision, are really for the sake of environmentally “sustainable development,” not actual human beings.

Principle 5 declares:

All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.

Note that eradicating poverty is important, not because of intrinsic value of the suffering and hungry, but because those poor people get in the way. "Decrease the disparities" and "better meet the needs of the majority" is just code for redistribution.

Principle 24 states that “warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development.” The denunciation does not arise over any concern or value for human life but because war impedes progress. You may have once slapped your little brother for getting in the way of  your finger painting in much the same way.

The green movement praises indigenous wisdom. What does that mean? It's hard to tell. But when environmental groups block implementation of infrastructure or denounce industry while overlooking the fumes from burning trash piles in the streets of Dehli or from the bodies burning on the edge of the Ganges, their love of evolution is suspect. Cannibalism could count as indigenous wisdom. So could public defecation--actually it does, as the Occupy movement demonstrates.

But Agenda 21 has really just been Marxist utopianism from the beginning. It is all about creating a state-enforced agrarian paradise, rather than cultivating free societies. The Rio principles state a commitment to class warfare, focusing on groups of women, youth, and people groups--rather than empowering bread-winners, households, fathers and mothers. (Indigenous wisdom must be dispensable with regards to cultures that value out-dated institutions such as families.) But this is a particularly nefarious kind of war, for it pits the people against the land and the land against the people.

The cumbersome bureaucracy of the UN and its governing by committee is ineffective against tyrants who are shameless in their corruption, wily in their exploiting their people and protecting their power. If the UN  has already demonstrated that it’s ineffectiveness at decision-making, why should it be anymore effective at executing its vision and how much more will it fail when confronted by corruption?

One of the first lessons of leadership is love your people. By refusing to stand up for freedom, by caring for the claims of Mother Earth over the welfare of the world's people, the UN has embraced eco-terrorism. Clearly, we must reject its modus operandi. This is a future we do not want.

Editor's Note: Heather Denigan is a staff writer for the NFRA.

Critics of the Lacey Act say it is being used to enforce laws of foreign governments that most Americans are not aware of, and that it is too broad and too vague to carry harsh criminal penalties.

“That really smacks at our sovereignty,” Sen. Rand Paul (R –Ky.) told the House Resources subcommittee on fisheries, wildlife, oceans and insular affairs. “How can this possibly be constitutional?” asked Paul, who is sponsoring the Senate version of the Freedom from Over-Criminalization and Unjust Seizures Act (FOCUS) with Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.). The measure would strip language requiring Americans to comply with foreign laws and repeal criminal penalties.

Relief Act also under scrutiny



A second bill under examination is the Retailers and Entertainers Lacey Implementation and Enforcement Fairness Act (RELIEF) authored by Rep. Jim Cooper (R-Tenn.). The full committee has not set a date to mark up either piece of legislation, which received mixed reviews during it’s first Capitol Hill hearing last week.

Jeffrey “Skunk” Baxter, a guitarist for Steely Dan and the Doobie Brothers, among other bands, testified in favor of Cooper’s bill and said the Lacey Act carries “unintended consequences” that will have a negative impact on the music industry and “could harm our cultural heritage.”

However, Adam Gardner, Frontman of the musical group Guster, opposed both bills and said supporters are using “misleading claims.”

“The rationale that RELIEF advocates put forth for these sweeping changes is that Lacey poses a threat to musicians. This is simply not the truth,” Gardner said. “No individual has ever been investigated or had their instrument taken under the Lacey Act.”

Republicans on the panel told Gardner that under the current law, the seller as well as the buyer are liable and that federal agents do have the authority to seize a musicians’ personal instrument.

“All I know is that I’m not concerned about it,” Gardner said. “There is a clear history of this not happening. It’s not the practice to go after (musicians) with the limited resources (the government) has.”

Federal agents confiscated a half-million dollars worth of property from Gibson Guitar in the August raid, including guitars and computers. The company did not import banned wood products, but is accused of violating a law in India that requires the wood product be finished by workers in that country before it can be exported. The Department of Justice has yet to file any charges. In a civil case, Gibson is attempting to get its wood back.

Six years in federal prison

Additionally, Abner Schoenwetter and David McNab spent six years in federal prison, accused of violating Honduran fishing regulations. The lobsters they received should have been shipped in plastic, rather than cardboard, boxes.

Republicans said that as currently written, the Lacey Act is a frightening example of over-criminalization. “I’m very disturbed by the whole idea that citizens or companies must know the laws of another country and must also comply with those laws,” said Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), subcommittee chairman. “I find that amazing and question whether it is even constitutional.”

The Lacey Act was signed into law in 1900 to make poaching a federal law, and carried a fine rather than imprisonment if violated. The act was amended by Congress in 1981 and again in 2008, and has since become the “poster child for how the federal government abuses its power and has developed a system of sweeping criminalization,” Broun said.

Today, the Lacey Act makes it a crime to import or take any wildlife, fish or plant in violation of a foreign law. “The Lacey Act is no longer about conservation. American citizens now face prosecution based upon foreign laws and regulations that are concerned only with labor-management relations, with minimum wage rules, or with tax laws, and that can be ambiguous in nature. U.S. importers have been turned into policemen, who are responsible for knowing a myriad of foreign laws that are simply impossible to keep track of,” Broun said.

Democrats said they opposed amending the law for fear that it would also lift a ban on importing wood that was illegally cut. A spokeswoman for big furniture retailer IKEA, Laurie Everill, told the panel that the only way the proposed bills will carry any credibility is with the endorsement of environmental groups, which is unlikely at this point.

Editor's Note: We have reproduced "Congress Looks to Rewrite Act that Led to the Gibson Guitar Raid" by Audrey Hudson from Human Events. We encourage you to visit the original.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

Publius

Editor's Note: We have reproduced here in full Federalist Paper #10 from Constitution.org. We encourage you to visit the original.

They are the publishers, editors, journalists, and commentators of the Liberal Media:  Associated Press-New York Times-WaPo-ABC-NBC-CBS-CNN-MSNBC et al.

You could add the Moonbat Media like Daily Kos and HuffPo, but they're parasitic upon Big Lib Media, without whom no one would pay much attention to them.

We'll abbreviate Big Liberal Media to simply "BM" - appropriately enough for their product is the same as what those initials usually stand for.  One of the more astounding things about BM is that its slavish boot-licking of American Commiecrats is indistinguishable from that of Pravda's or Izvestiya's over Soviet rulers during the Cold War - yet with no gun at their heads nor threat of the Gulag.

Winston Smith, in George Orwell's 1984, ended up genuinely loving Big Brother after his will was broken through torture.  BM loves Big Brother of their own free will.  This is so perverse it's almost anti-human, for it is normally against human nature to willingly be a slave.

A stunningly perfect example of BM perfidy appeared in headlines in newspapers all over the country this past weekend.  It was the lead story on Drudge:  US Should Return Stolen Land To Indian Tribes, Says United Nations.  The Associated Press report's headline was:  Mt. Rushmore Should Be Returned to Indigenous Native American Tribes, UN Official Says.

Every one of these stories - in hundreds of news outlets in papers local and national, and in countless websites and blogs - mentions the "official visit to the United States" by James Anaya, the "UN Special Rapporteur," who, after his "official visit," was quoted in a statement "issued by the U.N. human rights office in Geneva."

And in every one of these news stories, James Anaya's only - only - identification is that he is a "UN official," "the Special Rapporteur" (note the pretentious puffed-up Frenchie rapporteur title, instead of "reporter" in English).  That's it.  Nothing else.  You'd think Anaya is a European international bureaucrat, Swiss maybe, as it's made to look like he has a big office in Geneva.

Folks, the guy is an Indian from Albuquerque. He lives in Tucson, where, as an Affirmative Action Baby, he lectures on "International Human Rights" at the University of Arizona Law School.  Here's his faculty profile.

Somehow - I'm going out on a limb here - I don't think the headline, Mt. Rushmore Should Be Returned to Native Americans, Native American Teacher in Arizona Says, would generate quite the same media frenzy as one with the UN pretense.  That's why every single story on Anaya, without exception, refuses to disclose who he really is.  It took me approximately 30 seconds on Google to disclose it for myself.

The guy is a professional anti-American race grievance agitator.  His expertise, on which he has written extensively, is the rights of "indigenous peoples" all over the world - yet his focus is exclusively on those in the US, plus Canada and Central America.  Here is the full list of his academic publications.

He's an Indian from the Southwest, which once belonged to Mexico, that got it from Spain, that stole it from the "indigenous peoples" who first lived there and in what is now northern Mexico.  Is there a single analysis or study of his regarding the rights of Indian tribes in Mexico?  Not one.

Further afield, you'd think that anyone with a passion for indigenous rights world-wide would be interested in, say, the largest oppressed indigenous people on earth - the Kurds - or the most oppressed indigenous people on earth - the Tibetans.  Nope, on them, Anaya is silent and indifferent.

He'd much rather demagogue Americans, using his "Special Rapporteur" con to demand Mt. Rushmore and the Black Hills be "returned" to the Sioux from whom we "stole" it. And of course, the BM is happy to help with the con.

You'll look in vain throughout the myriad of stories to learn that the Sioux Indians, who claim the Black Hills are "sacred" to them, stole the Black Hills in the early 1800s from the region's real indigenous people, the Arikara, who had lived there for many centuries.

Perhaps Anaya should argue that the Sioux thieves should turn over their claim to the Arikara - who are flourishing now, by the way, as they settled in North Dakota where underneath their land lies the Bakken oil formation.  The Bakken Oil & Gas Expo is taking place today (5/09) on Arikara land.

So, why would the BM engage in the Fraud of Anaya? Why would they participate in a media scam to purposefully insult their country? Because the BM is composed of self-hating liberals.  But that begs the question, why are they this way?  Why can't those in the BM enjoy being American, rather than be embarrassed?  Why do they want to hurt their own country?

This is a mystery to many conservatives, but not to TTPers who know the answer:  because of the fear that all liberals have, the fear that makes them liberals, the fear that if they cast it aside would be liberals no more - the Fear of the Evil Eye of Envy.

This is most succinctly explained in Why Democrats Cannot Defend America (March 2008).

The key point is that:  Liberalism, the mind-set that dominates today's Democrat Party and the BM, is not a political ideology or set of beliefs. It is a psychological strategy to avoid being envied. Liberalism is the politicalization of envy-appeasement.

This is why all Liberal/Democrat passions are frenzies of masochism.  It is why the BM is bottomlessly masochistic, why it will sell out all its journalistic integrity, why it is impervious to moral decency and patriotism.

Thankfully, patriots still outnumber masochists in America, while the power of the latter is diminishing.  How's this for a thrilling headline?  Washington Post Faces Circulation and Revenue Collapse.  Or this?  CNN Ratings Decline Stirs Worries (at least at the New York Times).

Yet BM remain horrifically and criminally destructive.  The rape/murder of 85 year-old Nancy Strait and murder of her 90 year-old husband Bob (who died on May 4) can be laid directly at the feet of NBC, who doctored the Zimmerman tape to maliciously portray him as a racist.

When the black racist monster, Tyrone Woodfork, is tried for his crimes, those at NBC responsible for the tape doctoring should be tried as accessories to murder.  They cannot hide behind the First Amendment on this.  Theirs was a willfully criminal act.

Yet putting members of the BM in jail will not stop their self-hating dishonesty.  The only cure is laughter - our laughing and ignoring them.  Our refusing to pander to them or take them seriously.  Our exposing their lies and scams for all the world to see - like you can do now regarding the Arizona Race Hustler, James Anaya.

Editor's Note: We have reprinted here in full "The Self-Hating Dishonesty of the Media" by Dr. Jack Wheeler from To the Point News. We encourage you to visit the original.

The study found the Great Recession a boon when it comes to preventing global warming. The scientists hypothesized that the worldwide economic collapse contributed to a drop in atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels in 2009. For devotees of climate change, CO2 isn't the gas that animals exhale and plants convert into energy, preserving life on this planet. They believe instead that carbon dioxide is sometimes an enemy that heats the globe, kills polar bears and provokes disaster on an apocalyptic scale.

Alarmists insist only the carbon-dioxide molecules that are the byproduct of capitalism can cause environmental damage. As this new research claims, natural cycles, such as the El Nino climate pattern, are not responsible for elevating bad carbon-dioxide levels. "The major conclusion of our study is that the annual growth of atmospheric CO2 levels is strongly dependent on the absolute growth of the world economy, so that the annual absolute increase of (world gross domestic product) is a key variable to capture the annual increase in atmospheric CO2," the report found.

This finding highlights how the global-warming movement has always been about reversing the industrial revolution, making the world a better place. Al Gore's seminal 1992 work "Earth in the Balance" declared the internal-combustion engine a "mortal threat" to the future of the planet.

Mr. Gore chose his target well. Internal combustion multiplied the effectiveness of mass production, allowing the industrial revolution to better the lives of everyone. Socialists hate the idea that individuals acting through the free market would be allowed to improve their living conditions as a result of a process lacking centralized direction. The leftist impulse is to entrust government with the responsibility of making decisions and imposing order.

That's why today's liberals remain enthralled with green technologies like wind and solar. Though these are promoted as if they were forward-looking alternatives to fossil fuels, they're really throwbacks to pre-industrial times. Humanity has moved past these quaint energy sources. Once upon a time, a wind-powered ship was called a sailboat. A solar-powered clock was called a sundial. Now retrograde "achievements" like powering homes with 15th century windmills is something celebrated with lavish taxpayer grant funding.

Forcing adoption of expensive and inefficient sources of power only drags down the economy, which is exactly what global warming's believers want. In that respect, Mr. Obama's stimulus policy wasn't a colossal failure after all. The massive unemployment and lackluster growth that followed his $831 billion spending spree were a smashing success, so long as one is more worried about carbon-dioxide levels than the number of lasting jobs.

Editor's Note: We have reprinted here in full "Destroy the Economy, Save the Planet" from the Washington Times. We encourage you to visit the original.

SIX FEATURED SPEAKERS AT MAY 10th KRA MEETING--PUBLIC INVITED!

The May 10th KRA meeting is going to be one of the most important meetings ever sponsored by the KRA, because there are three 18th Judicial District Positions at stake.

The general public and the media are invited to attend this KRA Meeting on Thursday, May 10th at 7:00 p.m., at Mike’s Steakhouse, 2131 South Broadway in Wichita.  A social “meet and greet” starts at 6:30 p.m. prior to the meeting.  Dinner may be ordered from the menu, but there is no requirement to place an order.

Division-1:    Hon. Judge Phil Journey (Incumbent) vs. Attorney Linda Kirby (Challenger) – Both are confirmed speakers.

Division-2:    Attorney Dave Dahl vs. Attorney Faith Maughan in a race to fill the open seat resulting from the retirement of Hon. Judge James Burgess.  Dave is a confirmed speaker; however Faith is currently listed as “maybe-attending”.

Division-20: Attorney Stephen J. Ternes vs. Attorney David Calvert is also a race to fill an open seat resulting from the retirement of Hon. Judge Clark Owens.  Steve is a confirmed speaker, but David is currently listed as “maybe-attending”.

The format for this meeting is a “forum” not a “debate”, in that the candidates will first speak, and then take questions from the floor, but they will not question each other in a direct exchange.

Members of the media are given the first opportunity to ask questions of the candidates.  This is a long-held KRA tradition for all political forums.

Questions from the floor will be written on cards, and sorted by KRA officers who will arrange the questions into topics of interest to insure the most efficient use of everyone’s time.  All attendees are welcome to submit questions.

The up and coming KRA endorsement vote for these judicial positions will be held AFTER the June 1st or June 10th Candidate Filing Deadline.  Although the public is invited to attend this meeting, only members of the KRA may vote on the KRA endorsement of candidates.  Membership applications will be available at the meeting.

All KRA meetings are political events.  Therefore, any candidate for any political office is welcome to attend this meeting, and to distribute hand-outs, signs, and other information about their campaigns.

###

For more information about the Kansas Republican Assembly, please contact KRA President Mark S. Gietzen by calling (316) 552-8866 or faxing (316) 522-8833.

NFRA ENDORSES MOURDOCK, MINIEAR, MCINTOSH IN INDIANA

DESTIN, FLORIDA, May 3, 2012—The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), one of America’s oldest and largest conservative groups, today announced its endorsement of Richard Mourdock for U.S. Senate over incumbent GOP Senator Richard Lugar; and also of J. D. Miniear and David McIntosh for U.S. House of Representatives.

“Our grassroots membership endorsed these outstanding conservatives by a more than 2/3 margin because they’re the best: they’re a team who will stand for Indiana and for principle,” said NFRA President Rod D. Martin. “2010 showed that Americans are fed up with “me-too” Republicans like Dick Lugar who promise conservatism at home and deliver for Barack Obama in Washington.

“If Indiana Republicans wanted Democrats, they’d vote for real ones. In Richard Mourdock, J. D. Miniear and David McIntosh, you’re voting for tested conservative leaders of genuine conviction and leaders who can win.”

NFRA Endorses Mourdock, Miniear, McIntosh In Indiana

The National Federation of Republican Assemblies, dubbed "the Republican Wing of the Republican Party", is a 76-year old grassroots organization dedicated to electing real conservatives to lead the Republican Party. The NFRA proudly endorses candidates in contested primaries, through a rigorous process requiring a two-thirds vote of its grassroots membership, ensuring that Republicans know who the true conservative candidates are in every election. Prominent past and present members include President Ronald Reagan, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, Ambassador Kenneth Blackwell, Presidential candidates Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, 2010 Senate nominee Sharron Angle, and pro-gun anti-tax leader Grover Norquist.

“Republicans win when they’re true to their principles,” Martin said. “That’s why we’re excited about Indiana’s winning team of Mourdock, Miniear, and McIntosh. We’re proud to stand with them, in the primary and all the way to Washington.”

###

For more information about the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, please email Jennifer Wortham at JenniferWortham@RepublicanAssemblies.com or call (850) 629-9002.

Broken Solar Panel

In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court allows ObamaCare’s individual mandate to survive, be prepared for an onslaught of new rules and regulations that force products upon us in order to advance the liberal agenda . . .

 1. Broccoli

Justice Antonin Scalia advanced the prospect of government-mandated broccoli during the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare oral arguments. “Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli,” Scalia said. The left has long been obsessed with what we put into our bodies—from transfat and salt, to tobacco and red meat. Be prepared for a Department of Eating Healthily, with Michelle Obama in charge.

 2. Chevy Volt

General Motors’ Chevy Volt was doomed to fail as consumers did not exactly flock to the showrooms for the overpriced, underperforming vehicle. Production of the Volt has been suspended and the dream of an electric car is endangered. According to the left, oil is evil, therefore the internal combustion engine must go. So be prepared to plug in your government-mandated electric car in order to save the world from global warming.

 3. $5 gallon of gas

With Obama placing a good part of America’s energy resources off-limits for development, the price of gas at the pump continues to rise. The higher the better, in order to wean us from our dependence on oil. It shouldn’t be a surprise to see prices rise under this President, as he essentially promised higher energy costs when he was running for office.

 4. Contraceptives

Under ObamaCare, everyone will be paying for contraceptives whether they need them or not. The misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandated that contraception be fully covered by health care exchanges, not even costing the recipient a co-pay. That means you will be subsidizing the sexual activity of your neighbors, co-workers, and prostitutes.

 5. Inconvenient Truth movie

The left still wants us all to believe that global warming is imperiling the world and would rather not have us dwell on inconvenient inconsistencies in the theory. What with Climategate e-mails, flat temperatures, and scientists speaking out against global warming alarmism, the left is seeing their pet issue peter out. How better to reignite the cause than to require everyone to watch Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth?

6. MSNBC

The Obama administration has virtually declared war on Fox News, taking issue with its hard-hitting coverage. In the past, liberals have flirted with reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, hoping to silence right-wing critics. If emboldened by an Obama re-election victory, attempts to limit Fox and beam MSNBC into everyone’s home could be in the works.

 7. Solar panels

President Obama is trying his hardest develop a viable green-energy industry in the United States, funneling billions of dollars to solar-panel makers. The problem is that there isn’t much of a market for the devices and the companies that the president has chosen haven’t done too well—witness the bankruptcy of Solyndra. Get ready for a new push to install the panels in residences throughout America.

 8. Union-label goods

Big Labor has Obama in their pocket, witness the GM bailout that was a sweetheart deal for the United Auto Workers and the National Labor Relations Board’s ruling against Boeing building a plant in South Carolina. Expect more of the same with union-made goods getting a leg up over their non-union rivals.

 9. Algae

Here is yet another ill-fated idea meant to put an end to U.S. oil dependence: Algae is the fuel of the future. According to President Obama, pond-scum can be harvested and turned into energy to power America. Soon, everyone will be scraping the green algae from the bottom of their fish tanks.

10. Hoodies

As the Trayvon Martin shooting reached a boiling point, the civil rights lobby has turned the hoodie into the latest symbol of resistance to white oppression. One might expect the President to try to rise above the fray and seek to heal the nation. Instead, Obama’s re-election campaign sent a Twitter message reminding supporters that they could buy an Obama hoodie. The tweet said, “Let everyone know whose team you’re on for 2012 with today’s merchandise steal: the college-style hooded sweatshirt.”

Editor's Note: We have reproduced here in full "Top 10 Products Obama Will Force Us to Buy" from Human Events. We encourage you to visit the original.