Congresswoman and Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz continues to publicly maintain her support for the controversial construction of a new immigration jail in her South Florida district, even as her liberal colleagues claim that such facilities contribute to family break-ups and the mistreatment of suspected illegal aliens.

Citizen groups have collected more than 11,000 signatures, but claim she has refused to meet with them.

In 2011, Wasserman Schultz and Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson signed a letter in support of the construction of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Southwest Ranches, a swanky town 20 miles west of Ft. Lauderdale. Since then, assorted liberal groups have opposed the project along with a similar facility in Crete, Ill., a working class town 30 miles south of Chicago.

While the two parallel projects provide identical reasons for liberals to object, activists in the two communities have different political realities to contend with. In Illinois, Democratic Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Luis Gutierrez lead a coalition of groups in opposition to the ICE facility. Florida, however, is a different story.

CONTINUED at The Daily Caller.

A team of rock hounds is in chilly pursuit of meteorites, scouring their snowy surroundings as part of the 2010-11 field season of theAntarctic Search for Meteorites (ANSMET) program.

In a recent blog post fromAntarctica’s LaPaz ice sheet, members of the search team reported the hunting is good.

“We’ve been camping on the icehere for two weeks and they have gone by fast,” wrote Melissa Lane of the Planetary Science Institute, which is based in Tucson, Ariz. “In all, we found 170 meteorites here and the most interesting one,petrologically, seems to be the last one found!”

Lane is a planetary geologist on the Reconnaissance Team, which also includes John Schutt, an ANSMET veteran of 30 years serving as the science lead and safety officer, Serena Aunon, astronaut and physician from NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, and geologist StephenBallou of Beloit College in Wisconsin.

“We’ve all grown accustomed to the stark beauty here,” Lane wrote. “The flatness, the wind, the snow, and even (sort of) the cold are all special here. The team is going to miss this place, but we are excited for new scenery, too. We are moving our camp to the Patuxent Range that is over 100 miles to our NE. We’ll describe it once we see it.”

Better suited for Houdini

The Recon Team arrived at the LaPaz ice sheet Dec. 16, delivered along with its tents, sleeping gear and cooking stoves aboard a Twin Otter aircraft. Two other aircraft delivered snowmobiles the next day, allowing the eager scientists to begin their first meteorite hunt.

“The beauty of the area and sheer fun of navigating our snow machines over endless frozen oceanwaves? was a thrill for all,” said Ballou. “Spirits are high and we are all thrilled to be here, but every facet of our lives here is work. It is challenging to do normal everyday things like dress, eat — and just leaving the tent is often an act better suited for Houdini.”

The Reconnaissance Team is gearing up for 25 more days of camping in Antarctica, coupled with the change of scenery in the Patuxent Range, ”where we can continue our new passions ofmeteorite hunters and huntresses extraordinaire,” Ballou noted.

NASA’s Aunon described in a recent blog what the team faces.

“Winds, winds…and more winds,” Aunon wrote. “In Antarctica the winds are relentless and forced the Recon Team to spend yesterday and this morning inside the tent.

“We did manage to get out in the afternoon, however, and found an additional four meteorites in the field.”

Aunon said preparing to go out on the ice takes the better part of an hour. Team members put on multiple layers of thermal clothing, apply sunscreen, gather equipment and warm up the snowmobiles.

“The Ski-Doos are our best friend out in the field as they carry a survival kit for four people, meteorite gathering equipment, multiple liters of water, food, medical kits, iridium phones and GPSdevices,” Aunon said. “We take extra care in the mornings examining the Ski-Doo engines to ensure peak performance.”

Collection process

ANSMET field work has been supported since 1976 by grants from the Office of Polar Programs of the National Science Foundation and NASA’s Planetary Science Division.

Meteorites have been found in Antarctica since the continent was first explored. The first one was found in 1912, by a member of an expedition from Australia.

So what happens when a team member spots a meteorite?

The collection process starts by using the meteorite hunter’s toolkit, a relatively simple collection of gear: sterile bags to contain the rocks, numbered tags to label them, tape to close and seal the bags, a notebook to take down any distinguishing features of the sample, and scissors to cut the tape or the bags open.

Great care is taken not to touch the meteorite or even breathe on it. Above all, a dripping nose hovering over a specimen is a no-no!

The meteorite is placed in a sterile bag as quickly as possible, usually by putting the bag over it. The meteorite is measured and sometimes photographed, and its size and color and possible classification are noted.

A small aluminum tag with an ID number is also inserted into the bag, and the whole thing is then sealed up tight.

At the end of a good day, a hunter’s backpack can be full of these meteorite samples.

Collected meteorites are shipped still frozen to the Antarctic Meteorite Curation labs at Johnson Space Center. There the samples are carefully dried and cracked open, and small pieces are broken off for study as thin sections.

A day of rest

With the team ready to be transported to its new location, it was informed by briefers at South Pole Station Dec. 29 that weather over the Patuxent Range was not good and that the Twin Otters would be unable to fly out.

“Could it be true? A day off? As much as we would like to continue the search for meteorites, a day of rest was welcome,” Aunon said. “We were able to catch up on phone calls with family and friends, write postcards, wash our hair (very refreshing but time consuming), write in our journals and enjoy a matinee showing of ‘Nacho Libre‘ with the team.”

Now well rested, the Recon Team is primed to continue its meteorite adventure at the PatuxentRange.

“In all, this will require four flights to transfer tents, food, Ski-Doos, fuel, and people. If we?re luckywe?ll have two Twin Otters at our disposal and get everything transferred in one day. We?ll keep you updated,” Aunon said, signing off.

If you’d like to keep tabs on the intrepid explorers and their Antarctic field work, check their blogs by going to: http://humanedgetech.com/expedition/ansmet1011/

Source: Space.

*Taken from Torrent Freak.

US authorities have initiated the largest round of domain name seizures yet as part of their continued crackdown on counterfeit and piracy-related websites. With just a few days to go until “Cyber Monday” more than 100 domain names have been taken over by the feds to protect the commercial interests of US companies. The seizures are disputable, as the SOPA bill which aims to specifically legitimize such actions is still pending in Congress.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have resumed “Operation In Our Sites”, the domain name seizing initiative designed to crack down on online piracy and counterfeiting.

The new round comes exactly a year after 82 domains, including Torrent-Finder, were taken over in 2010. At the time ICE labeled the actions “Cyber Monday crackdown,” referring to the Monday following Thanksgiving where consumers are persuaded to shop online.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from Chuck Baldwin Live.

Montana Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg lent his support for ceding more power and authority to the federal government’s emerging police state by supporting HR 1505, the “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act.” This monstrous bill empowers the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to confiscate to itself tens of thousands of acres of land across the US northern border. This is for “national security” reasons, of course. Gag!

My friend, Dr. Ed Berry, has written a very astute summary and analysis of HR 1505 on his web site, PolyMontana.com. I am going to be borrowing heavily from his research in this column.

Dr. Berry rightly notes that the DHS is the giant head of no less than seven federal agencies: Transportation Security Administration (TSA), US Customs & Border Protection (CBP), US Citizenship & Immigration Services (CIS), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), US Secret Service (SS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and US Coast Guard (USCG).

CONTINUED..

*Taken from KTNV. Video at link.

We’re learning more on why the U.S. Air Force raided a local gun store Friday. They say it wasn’t guns they were looking for.

An official from the Air Force is speaking to Action News about that raid. New information clarifies that this may have been an inside job, and the penalties could turn out to be very severe.

It was an afternoon that rocked businesses near Dean Martin and Flamingo. Local and federal law enforcement agencies swarmed in and served search warrants on Citadel Gun and Safe.

CONTINUED..

*Taken from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Written by Robert P. Murphy.

“That’s quite a markup,” remarked my father as he paid for my six-year-old son’s treat after a soccer game. “Three dollars for a cup of ice.”

It’s true; the price tag did seem steep at first. But as we analyzed the situation more carefully — my father is also a fan of free markets — we realized that there was no reason to be outraged at the vendor’s price.

The Context

Before speculating on the ins and outs of the frozen-drink market, let me give the background. My son plays soccer for a town league. Every Saturday, the teams all play each other at one central location, with at least 20 little fields set up for the various age brackets. During the course of the day, I’d guess that at least a thousand people (counting spectators) cycle through the fields.

During Easter weekend my parents were visiting, and we all went to my son’s game. My son pointed out with enthusiasm a truck that was parked in a very accessible area, because it housed ice drinks. (I think technically they were not the ICEE brand, but it was the same idea.)

After my son’s team absolutely blew out their opponents, I suggested to my son that if he asked nicely, Grandpa would probably buy him a treat at the truck. And now I have brought all readers up to speed from where our story first began. …

How Could Somebody Charge $3 for a Cup of Ice?

As a card-carrying armchair economist, I did not conduct any actual research for this article. Nevertheless, it may interest some readers to learn how to think like an economist on such everyday puzzles.

Factors on the Demand Side

The first important point is that my father voluntarily paid the $3 for the refreshment, albeit with some significant social pressure leaning on him after the promise made to my son. But if, for example, he had gotten to the truck and the sign said each frozen drink cost $30, my father clearly would have walked away. We could’ve told my son that it was too much money, and that we’d stop at a convenience store instead.

We already have more insight into the “high” price of the drinks — their extremely convenientlocation. An ice-cold-drink-at-the-store is not the same good as an ice-cold-drink-next-to-the-soccer-field. There is nothing irrational or “uneconomical” about consumers being willing to pay more for the immediate quenching of their thirst.

Although I obviously didn’t think it through at the time, I realized in retrospect that when I suggested to my son that my dad would buy him the treat, I knew that the price had to be “reasonable,” because the truck had obviously been at the games before (since my son recognized it), and because I could see a crowd of people in front of it.

These considerations shed some light on the “demand side” of the equation. Especially because it was a hot day, it’s no mystery that so many people were willing to exchange $3 for a “cup of ice.”

Factors on the Supply Side

Now let’s look at the supply side. In general, if we’re trying to understand why a price might be high, it’s not enough in economics to explain that people really value something. We need to go further, and explain why the quantity supplied stays low enough so that what’s called the “marginal utility” of the small number of units remains high.

Let me clarify with a different example. If someone were selling bottles of water at $100 a piece, we could explain that by saying that the consumers valued each bottle more than the other goods and services that could have been obtained with the $100. However, because that price is so unusually high, we would want to explore the situation more in order to figure out why more bottles weren’t being channeled to these particular consumers, who were obviously on the verge of dying of thirst.

By the same token, we can speculate on the “supply side” of our frozen drink supplier, to see if the apparently high price of $3 really isn’t so surprising after all.

One obvious observation is that it was a hot day, and so refrigerating the ice in a relatively small container (i.e. that could fit in a truck) might be expensive, especially because it has to sit in the hot sun for at least several hours. The vendor also had to buy the sugar flavoring (available in several colors) that the kids would squirt into their “cup of ice.” Who knows how much those cost to restock, but the vendor would also have to worry about some kids dribbling large amounts onto the ground before their parents intervened.

Another obvious expense in the operation was the truck itself. This wasn’t some guy’s F-150 with a cooler thrown in the back; the whole truck had been configured to sell frozen treats. (For example, one side of the truck was painted full of descriptions of the available items.) Now, perhaps the owner used the vehicle for his personal transportation needs, but it’s possible that the truck was dedicated entirely to his business. In that case, the $3 per sale would need to cover not just the ice, cup, and flavoring, but also a tiny portion of the truck payment and upkeep, including gas.

Another major cost was the vendor’s time. I love watching my son play, but I know I’m ready to get the heck out of Dodge when the game ends. In order to make it worthwhile to stand at that field for several hours, the vendor would have to charge a high enough “markup” to pay himself a decent hourly wage.

Yet another consideration is the risk involved. If there are thunderstorms (or even if the field is too muddy from previous rains), all the games would be cancelled on a particular Saturday. (I think they make them up — if at all — with double-headers in subsequent weeks, rather than extending the season.) So when deciding on his pricing strategy, the frozen-drink vendor would need to consider that he might miss out on a large fraction of potential sales due to weather. If the weather is particularly cold, then it might not make sense to drive the truck to the field even if the games are on.

Finally, we have to consider that the coveted location is itself valuable. The truck’s owner obviously had to get permission from the league to be able to park right in the middle of all the fields, so that the majority of parents and kids would pass near it on their way home. This is what gives the truck vendor such an advantage over his competitors in nearby convenience stores and restaurants, and the soccer league might charge him a fee for this privilege (unless he’s friends with the people running it).

Depending on the fee that might be charged for use of the location, the entire problem might get pushed back a step. Rather than asking, “How can this vendor get away with skimming so much off the parents?” we instead would want to know, “How can the soccer league get away with earning so much from providing concessions during the games?”

Conclusion

The point of this article wasn’t to say whether $3 for an iced drink was “too high” or “just right,” according to some particular theory of justice. Rather, as dispassionate economists, we can analyze why consumers were willing to pay so much for each unit of a good, and why producers didn’t rush in to sell more units at a lower price. Such an exercise is useful in understanding how the world works, and it also promotes social harmony when we see things from another’s perspective. And believe me, social harmony is valuable indeed after a bunch of parents have watched their 6-year-olds play soccer.

My Two Cents: This post isn’t that old, only 2 months to be exact. However, I am writing a follow up to it, which will be posted late tonight or tomorrow. End Two Cents.

*Written by Rob Rimes. 1. Introduction: Well, it isnt like we couldnt see this coming. I mean, how many times do we have to go down this road before we fucking get it? Really, how many? As with every major shift in power in American history, at least for the last several decades, the promises and “changed” philosophy were all for naught. This time was different they said. This time there is a grassroots movement that is taking the country by st … Read More

via TheSwash.com

*Taken from Sites and Blogs.

In order to seize the domain names without notice to the owners, the Government uses a procedure that permits it to bring an action directly against a piece of property used in the commission of a crime–in this case the domain name–rather than the owner.  This type of action (called an “In Rem” forfeiture) is not new.  In the past, the government has used In Rem actions for purposes such as an action against an automobile used to transport bootleg whiskey.

An In Rem action does not necessarily require the Government to wait until a court hears both sides and rules that the property has been used for illegal purposes and is subject to forfeiture.  Instead, in many cases, the law is written so that all the Government has to do is to sign an affidavit that demonstrates probable cause for the forfeiture, which is signed by a magistrate judge and the Government can seize the property.

To carry out the In Our Sites program, ICE has treated these domains like any other instrument used for common theft and judges have signed off on their affidavits.  The U.S. Attorney has publicly exclaimed that website operators like Brian McCarthy are hiding “behind the anonymity of the Internet to make a quick buck through what is little more than high-tech thievery.”

The Government’s view on the domain seizures seems to be overly simplistic and it ignores the fact that a domain is not the same as a gun or a boat used to transport narcotics.  A domain is a unique combination of different types of property, including an address, a valuable asset, a brand and a medium for speech.

Any Government seizure of private property raises Constitutional questions.  Here, I will outline the five most pressing Constitutional questions that have arisen because of the manner in which the Government has chosen to seize this unique type of property.

On the other hand, supporters of the constitutionality of ICE’s actions, such as Terry Hart, point out that the Supreme Court has permitted prior restraint of certain items, such as obscene materials or threats to national security.  However, even these supporters recognize that these exceptions are premised on the Government ensuring a prompt judicial determination.  Hart stated that “in effect, the Court recognizes the danger that too long of a temporary restraint on speech-related items can have the effect of a final restraint.”  While true, this analysis does not address the differences between obscene material and links to infringing material.  Additionally, it would not save ICE’s procedures because the Government has not, in fact, provided an immediate hearing on the seized domains.

Even if the types of sites that have been previously targeted, often consisting of links to other sites, were not a form of protected speech, there is still concern that endorsing these seizures would ultimately lead to the Government seizing the domains of sites expressing viewpoints it deems dangerous.   ICE Director John Morton told Politico that the Government was not interested in going after bloggers or discussion boards.  Morton said, “We’re not about what is being said by anybody. We’re about making sure that the intellectual property laws of the United States, which are clear, are enforced. When somebody spends hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the next movie or a billion dollars to develop the next heart medicine, the innovation and the enterprise that went into that effort is protected as the law provides. It’s that simple.”

Certain constitutional rights sometimes take a backseat to crucial practical considerations, such as the Government’s concern that property involved in a crime will disappear if it is not immediately seized.

For example, the Supreme Court has allowed seizures without prior notice or hearing in a case involving the seizure of a yacht believed to be used to transport drugs.  The Court was swayed by the fact that a yacht is the ”sort [of property] that could be removed to another jurisdiction, destroyed, or concealed, if advance warning of confiscation were given.”  However, in a later case, the Court found such a seizure against real estate ”which, by its very nature, can be neither moved nor concealed,” to be unconstitutional.

A domain is not the same as real estate.  Like real estate, a domain has an address and space within which the owner can build, but that space is not confined to finite borders or an address the way that real property is.  Despite the differences, a domain is more like real estate than it is like a yacht.  A domain can be sold, but it cannot be moved or concealed from the Government without defeating the purpose of having a domain in the first place.

ICE also unwittingly made its critics’ point last month when it mistakenly seized the domain names of 84,000 websites.  The Government had falsely accused the sites of child pornography.  This type of large-scale, disastrous mistake illustrates the constitutional deficiencies of the seizures.

To be clear, the Constitution does not demand that the Government always be right.  For the Government to be able to effectively seek justice, falsely accused and falsely punished citizens are inevitable tragedies.  However, the Constitution does require the Government to institute sufficient procedures that reasonably protect a person’s freedom and property from a wrongful taking.

In many ways, the whole point of due process is to protect citizens from wrongful Government action.  The Supreme Court has explained that the right to notice and a hearing prior to a government seizure is for the purpose of enabling an individual “to protect his use and possession of property from arbitrary encroachment-to minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations of property.”

Supporters of the ICE seizures will point to the fact that, despite the lack of notice and hearing, a seizure cannot occur without a judge finding that the Government’s affidavit demonstrates probable cause.  However, critics get no comfort from the fact that ICE cannot kick down your virtual door without a judge’s sign off.   Last week, during a House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet, California Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren grilled the Obama administration’s Intellectual Property Czar Victoria Espinel about the Constitutional shortcomings of the ICE domain seizures.  Espinel attempted to argue that a judge’s sign off amounted to due process.  Lofgren tersely countered by saying “With all due respect, judges sign a lot of things.”

See the exchange and Lofgren’s full line of questioning in the video below:

Lofgren makes a good point.  Several other commentators have pointed out that judges signed off on the affidavits despite numerous factual and technical errors.  The perception that the judge’s review was inadequate was certainly not helped by the fact that Magistrate Judge Margaret Nagle literally used a rubber stamp, rather than a pen, to sign the December affidavits.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

1. Introduction:

Well, it isn’t like we couldn’t see this coming. I mean, how many times do we have to go down this road before we fucking get it? Really, how many? As with every major shift in power in American history, at least for the last several decades, the promises and “changed” philosophy were all for naught. This time was different they said. This time there is a grassroots movement that is taking the country by storm. This time the politicians have to listen. This time liberty will win! Yep, all bullshit. We are just over a month into the changing of the guard and already the freedom fighters have traded their ideals and morals in for a spot in the establishment and a long congressional career of further corruption. Why can’t they all be Rand Pauls? Granted, Paul is also in my sights, as are all the Beltway newbs.

2. The Issue of the PATRIOT Act:

What has sparked this disgust? To start, it was yesterday’s passing of extensions to one of the most tyrannical pieces of legislation in American history: the PATRIOT Act. Why is the PATRIOT Act tyrannical? Well, let me explain to the inept and apathetic lovers of blind and obedient complacency.

The PATRIOT Act, no matter how it is spun or sold to the sheepish masses, is an incredibly vile piece of legislation. At its core, it is unconstitutional and thus violates the rights of every American citizen that it touches, which is all of us. How is it unconstitutional?

Quite simply, the PATRIOT Act allows the police, FBI, DEA, ICE, ATF, U.S. Military and other federal agencies to spy on and investigate American citizens in ways that severely overstep their bounds. Essentially, it creates a massive police state where nearly everything you do can be monitored with just cause or not. It was created to counter terrorism, or so they claim. Realistically, it gives the government the power to peer into every facet of our lives and eliminates any chance of privacy, something that the Founding Fathers would have vehemently protested against.

The PATRIOT Act gives tyrannical power to the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA, both of which severely violate the 4th Amendment. Not only that but the implementation of the PATRIOT Act has cost America billions and billions of dollars, if not trillions, and the price tag is rising daily! All this tyranny for the false promise of safety!

It was Founding Father Benjamin Franklin who said:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

So, how can the Constitution pimping Tea Party not be completely fucking pissed at their leaders Michele Bachmann (MN), Colonel Allen West (FL) and a shitload of others for slapping liberty in the face by voting to extend the PATRIOT Act? Their vote is a grave hypocrisy against the ideals that they supposedly represent.

Then again, maybe the Tea Party, or at least a large part of it, was just a grassroots movement to put the right side of the establishment back in power. Personally, I don’t think so but then again, it was these Tea Partiers that were quick to adopt Sarah Palin as their pageant queen without giving much thought to her big government track record as Governor of Alaska. I just assume that people are unaware of her fiscally irresponsible past and thus, just blindly buy what she’s selling today. With that said, lets see if these Tea Partiers get off of their lawn chairs and join in the disgust against their elected candidates who are apparently just chips off of the old establishment block.

With their PATRIOT Act vote, candidates like Bachmann and West fail completely in their promise to promote liberty and the Tea Party platform. Any other Tea Party candidate who voted alongside Bachmann and West are just as guilty and should have their feet held to the fire. Hell, their feet should be scorched as it wouldn’t really matter since none of them can walk tall anymore. You see, not only did they deliver us tyranny, but they also just spent billions more that we can’t fucking afford! Which brings me to my next point.

3. The Issue of Balancing the Budget:

When it comes to the budget, how well are these new Tea Party candidates going to do? I mean, all of them across the board became Tea Party candidates because they adopted the platform of fiscal responsibility going into the 2010 midterm elections. Our government has been spend crazy for years and everything is about to break and unless we cut spending and eliminate big government programs, we’re all pretty much fucking doomed. The Tea Party was created out of their mantra “taxed enough already!” So are the Tea Party candidates living up to these promises?

Well, if they voted on the PATRIOT Act extensions the answer is a solid “fuck no!” Michele Bachmann, Colonel Allen West and others like them have not only extended tyranny but they have dug the economic hole even deeper. However, the PATRIOT Act is not the only piece of expensive legislation that many Tea Party candidates support. The biggest pieces of legislation that many of these candidates endorse, as well as many Tea Partiers themselves, are the entitlements.

You see, the Tea Party candidates are all for ending entitlements unless it is their own. They want an end to the welfare state but not the welfare that they receive. “Cut everything!” they yell. “Stop spending!” they scream. Of course, that is everything except for social security, medicaid and medicare. Those programs are holier than thou, even though they are vampiring the shit out of Liberty’s neck. These three programs must be cut and completely eliminated. Until Tea Party candidates and the Tea Partiers themselves wake up to this, all their bitching and carrying on is pretty fucking pointless and hypocritical.

These programs ARE welfare for the silver haired demographic. If we are going to try and combat the welfare state it has to be across the board otherwise the battle is futile. You can’t pick and choose favorites, even though that is what the government does. In doing so, every little program proposal will weasel its way in and grow to be a gargantuan beast reliant on the nurturing care of the parental leviathan. We have to slay the shit out of that damned beast!

According to Reason Magazine:

As the 78 million baby boomers begin retiring over the next few years, under business-as-usual scenarios, spending on their Social Security and health care will more than double by 2050 to about 18 percent of the GDP. By 2052, Uncle Sam’s three entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—will consume all federal tax revenues, leaving nothing for government’s core, constitutional functions. America will have to either mortgage its entire economy by 2042 or raise federal income taxes by 81 percent in order to pay for the $107 trillion in health care and pensions it has promised seniors. Add to all this the 30 million uninsured Americans whom ObamaCare has put on Uncle Sam’s insurance card and you have the makings of the fiscal equivalent of Nightmare on Elm Street.

So, someone needs to stress this to Tea Party uber-econimist and “fiscal” hero Paul Ryan. In addition to Ryan: Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, Michele Bachmann, Colonel Allen West, Marco Rubio, possible presidential candidates: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich, as well as several others, need to get this memo too. Truth is, they have the memo. They have all read it but instead, they would rather protect their fan base of hypocritical baby boomers instead of truly conforming and adapting to the reality of our economic peril. I guess the common sense approach to economics is too fucking much for the Tea Party contingent of Congress to swallow. You figured GOP “young guns” Cantor, Ryan and McCarthy who bashed the Obama administration and their own party would “get it” but maybe they are just motivated by books sales and not real fiscal legislation. I hate to think so but c’mon, where are the cuts? The only one who does “get it” is Kentucky senator Rand Paul, son of the World Champion of Liberty Ron Paul.

In fact, Rand Paul proposed $500 billion in spending cuts, just as a start to save the economy. The Tea Party led GOP aren’t too keen on that idea however. In fact, the 112th Congress’ complete ineptitude has never been more apparent in their short history than in regards to their laughable proposal to only cut $100 billion out of 2011′s monstrous $3.6 trillion dollar budget! Hell, they’ve been tugging their choads over those cuts already and the likelihood of even eliminating that miniscule amount is not looking good.

4. The Issue of Reneging On Promises:

It’s no big surprise that politicians renege on their campaign promises. Hell, every POTUS ever has failed to carry out their full mission. I’m also sure that there may have never been a single politician that has ever fully fulfilled their campaign objectives, at least not effectively. However these are Tea Party candidates, they are the first group of politicians to come along in decades that are storming Capitol Hill to truly represent the people. Unfortunately, the clock is ticking and so far, no good.

An example of this is happening in my own state. Florida’s newest senator Marco Rubio, as far as I am concerned, has not lived up to his promises. In fact, he has seemingly reneged on one of the three parts of his platform. Unluckily for me, he is my senator. At least I can sleep though, as he didn’t get my vote. My vote went to Libertarian Party candidate Alexander Snitker, someone who I hope runs again in 2012 for a Senate seat who is a true FairTax supporter.

So, as was told to the Florida FairTax group, an organization that I am a part of, Marco Rubio’s platform consisted of three objectives: term limits, balancing the budget and pushing the FairTax on Capitol Hill. Well, he has been in the senate for well over a month and he has not yet co-sponsored the FairTax bill. Lately, he has not even brought the subject of the FairTax up in his talking points. Something that was once a big part of his platform has now mysteriously vanished from his rhetoric.

If the FairTax is something that Rubio believes in, then why hasn’t he signed his name to the bill as a co-sponsor? I mean if he truly is for it, doesn’t he want to help it? He said he would push it and promote it and do anything in his power to see it pass. So is he helping it by not co-sponsoring it or by no longer even mentioning it? Hell no he’s not!

Recently in an interview, the subject of the FairTax was brought up and Marco pussyfooted around it in typical establishment fashion. Because of his abandonment of one-third of his platform, the leaders of the Florida FairTax group have reached out to him for answers. Unfortunately, but not surprising, he hasn’t responded and his office dances around it and gives the same bullshit half-assed excuses that politicians’ aides have been giving since the cavemen held their first caucus. With a third of his platform seemingly in limbo, that takes 33.3 percent off of his score and brings him down to 66.7 percent. In high school, that’s a D-! Not a lot of room to breathe there, is there homie?

I can’t honestly say that Marco Rubio has turned his back on the FairTax and the FairTax supporters who supported him but what the fuck am I and anyone else supposed to think? Get off your ass dude and co-sponsor the bill or face the wrath of the voter who will check your ass and take you out next election. Pretty boy looks and a neat haircut can’t save your ass from a voter scorned. If you are retracting from your proposed platform after preaching about false prophets and bitchass punks in politics, then you, my friend, will see the epitome of your verbal assault staring back at you in the mirror. Do the right thing Marco because now, more than ever, the people are watching and they are watching intensely.

5. Conclusion:

You see, now that the Tea Party took over the country and gave the GOP a major assist in getting back control of the House of Representatives, the politicians owe it to the American people to do what the fuck they said they were going to do! There is no time, the time is NOW! We aren’t sitting idly by giving you the benefit of the doubt. The benefit of the doubt was our vote on November 2nd of last year. Now you need to get to work because there is a lot of shit to clean up and a lot of work that has to get done. If the 112th Congress is not able to get it done, then there isn’t much hope. This isn’t a second chance, this is the last chance. Do what must be done because if this Congress fails, they’ll be added to the unemployment statistics.

Tea Partiers, wake up and do your research. Know who you are supporting inside and out. Watch these motherfuckers and don’t let them give you the run around. If us, as American voters, don’t ride these politicians hard, then they will continue to follow the familiar and comfortable path that brought us here. The fight didn’t end at the ballot box. The fight ends when tyranny is eradicated and our debt is wiped out. We all have to work hard and contribute to solving the problem. If any Tea Party candidates augment the problem, they must be called out for it and be forced to face the lovely music.