Mark Levin For President! (or, top speechwriter in 2016)

By Steve Parkhurst

As you know from this website, I have read The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic and I have been advocating the ideas presented within the book. While we must continue to work within the system that exists today, we must begin educating and running candidates that will understand, embrace and advocate for the idea that Levin has presented and even the idea put forth by THE Coolidge Project.

With that in mind, and realizing that 2016 will be here as scheduled, along with a Presidential campaign and election, these final words in The Liberty Amendments…these words should be the closing words for the nominee as he or she accepts the nomination at the Republican National Convention in 2016:

In the end, the people, upon reflection, will decide their own fate once their attention is drawn. As President Reagan stated, “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope for man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us that we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

Let us do all that can be done. Let us be inspired by the example of our forefathers and their courage, strength, and wisdom. Let us be inspired by the genius of the Constitution and its preservation of the individual and the civil society. Let us unleash an American renaissance in which liberty is celebrated and self-government is cherished. Let us, together – we, the people – restore the splendor of the American Republic.

Time is of the essence. Let us get started today!                                                         – p. 208

Yes, I realize Levin does not want to run for President, or be President. But, the conclusion of his book is a tremendous clarion call for action worthy of each and every conservative Presidential candidate in 2016. At the very least, Mark Levin should be consulted by the person writing that nominees speech.

As a final note, Jack Kemp was a huge believer in what he hoped would be an “American renaissance” leading up to and following the Reagan Revolution. I like and appreciate Levin’s reference to “an American renaissance.” We got the Reagan Revolution, but we did not achieve the needed renaissance in the following years, one could even argue we went backward.

This needs to be the mission now. Let us get started today.


The Liberty Amendments, Mark Levin, and GPH Consulting

Mark Levin, in his latest book The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic has cast a bright light on an aspect of the Constitution that has never been utilized before; Article V. Not to be confused with the Fifth Amendment. For reference, Article V reads this way:

Article V GPH Consulting

Levin uses chapter one (read for free) of his book to describe the processes that Article V advocates. To be clear, this is not an easy process. Levin had said as much, as we agree with him. But, there also may not be an alternative, and there may not be enough time left to wait for “plan B.”

As Ronald Reagan liked to say, and we like to say today, The Time Is Now.

The Time Is Now - GPH Consulting

We are here, as a political consulting firm, to facilitate the liberty-minded campaigns of those who seek to pursue this road. We are looking for candidates for state representative, state assembly, state senate and the like (as some states have varying names) to run in 2014 on the grassroots ideas that Levin has presented, along with the similar thinking of The Coolidge Project. It takes We The People, it takes a grassroots army, to affect change at this level.

We The People - GPH Consulting

One neighborhood, one community, one precinct, one person at a time.

We must also specify here that we are not necessarily advocating for the eleven amendments that Levin proposed in the book. What we are specifically advocating is the return to what our friends at The Coolidge Project refer to as (f)ederalism. A state level movement where the people of each state slowly rein back powers that the federal government has taken upon itself.

Again, as Levin has pointed out many times, this is not easy work. The change needed will not happen overnight, it will not happen in one election cycle. This is a liberty movement. It takes time. We have been here to help and we will continue to be here during this struggle to push back against the leviathan. If 2014 is not right for you, perhaps 2015 and 2016 is better. We are here to help you begin the work now, as there are ways to prepare and groundwork to be laid.

Political campaigns are difficult, but they should not be, especially if you’re waging a campaign on ideas. There are effective things you can do, and ineffective things: you need to know which is which. That’s why we are here. We can help train candidates and fine-tune their message.

Looking around our website will show you we are not more of the same. We are different from other consulting firms. We want the hard races, we want the challenges. Candidates willing to go door-to-door advocating freedom, liberty and the real American dream – that is what we are looking for.

Are you that person? Do you know someone who is? If you answer yes to either of these, it’s time we talk.

Standing For What We Believe In!

By Joe Gruters

Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster Wednesday was more than political theater. Sure, it undoubtedly gave his political ambitions a boost. But that was not the driving factor behind it, nor should be for any Republicans.

In those 13 hours of standing on the Senate floor and controlling his bodily needs,  Paul represented what so many conservatives are yearning for: someone who will stand up for what he believes in.

And he presented in force an answer to the interminably successful Obama media spin: An articulate, principled conservative who would not back down, or moderate, or capitulate, speaking directly to the American people beyond the media filter. You don’t have to agree with all of Sen. Paul’s views to appreciate the honest dedication he holds to his core beliefs and the brilliance of the decision.

It wasn’t the specific issue so much — although wanting to know the administration’s views on the constitutionality of targeting Americans on American soil who do not pose an imminent threat is worthy. Very worthy, if we still treasure our freedoms.

And it wasn’t even so much that finally conservatives had a man standing up to President Obama, who becomes more imperial in his actions every day. We have yearned for Congressional Republicans to get a spine and Paul displayed his. And his spirited defense rallied others, including Sens. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, John Thune and many others.

It is no small irony that Sens. John McCain and Lindsay Graham were at the same time at a posh D.C. restaurant enjoying a luxurious dinner with Obama, who had just closed the White House to tours to save few bucks and blame Republicans. Those methods of schmoozing where everyone gets a little something for their political gain just don’t work for the good of the country anymore — if they ever did.

And that may have been the primary accomplishment of Paul’s filibuster: He stood athwart the dangerous trail of history we are traveling and shouted, “Halt!”

He has as a core belief in the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in governing and restraining the actions of the federal government. That is a core of conservatism and the Republican Party that sets us apart from liberal progressives and the Democrat Party. We stand on the founding principles spelled out in the Constitution. We believe that document has done more than any other (outside the Bible) to free men and keep them free.

It instituted free speech, freedom of religion and freedom to bear arms — freedoms never found in one place before in history. It instituted the incredible hope and prosperity that drew millions and millions of immigrants from every country in the world.

American liberals dismiss the Constitution and the religious underpinnings of the men who wrote it. Obama has been a leader in doing that. And both the freedom and the prosperities are ebbing backwards. Today’s announcement that more than 89 million Americans are not working is the latest evidence.

Obama promised fundamental change in America and has been delivering. Paul stood up and shouted, “Halt!” against this advance of totalitarian-leaning liberals.

And finally, people began to listen.

Conservatism is always a winner with the American people. But it needs to be forcefully defended. That’s what happened Wednesday.

Thanks for being informed and engaged.

POTUS Has No Power To Change Or Delay Election Date

Breitbart has posted a very simple outline that answers whether President Barry could somehow delay the election or change the date:

The Constitution gives Congress sole power regarding the date of the presidential election, and that date is binding on the entire country.

Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 4 of the Constitution: “The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they give their Votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

This empowered Congress to pass a law setting Election Day as the first Tuesday in November during a federal election year, which they did in 1845. And since that time Election Day has been on the first Tuesday in November every year for federal elections, come rain, sleet, or snow.

Read the entire post here.

ObamaCare vs. the Post Office – Should Government Handle Either?

There was a great, short post over at The Weekly Standard today that is certainly worth looking at.  So much was said in so little space.

“The problem is, America’s Founders wrote the following words (penned at Independence Hall) into our Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power…To establish Post Offices and post Roads.” Meanwhile, Obamacare may contradict the Founders’ vision of limited government and liberty more completely than any legislation ever passed in our nation’s history. The only good thing about Obamacare is the backlash against it, which has reignited national debate over the proper scope of government and has generated renewed interest in fiscal responsibility, limited government, and our founding principles. But it doesn’t help to advance those principles to suggest that Obamacare is like the Post Office.

It didn’t take 2,700 pages to found the Post Office. The Post Office doesn’t try to run what will soon be one-fifth of our economy. It doesn’t cost more than $2 trillion over ten years. It doesn’t compel Americans to buy health insurance.  It doesn’t consolidate heretofore unthinkable levels of power in the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other unelected officials.”

As my readers know, I think the Post Office has become an unmanageable system for the federal government to handle.  The Post Office has not turned a profit in many years.  But, the larger points here are fantastic and it’s good to see validation for what I’ve been talking about here in previous weeks.

How an Economy Grows – George F. Smith

How an Economy Grows – George F. Smith – Mises Daily

Since World War II, most economists have been apologists for government growth. Now the “experts” who never see a crisis coming tell us that we must once again abandon free-market principles to save the free-market system.

But there’s always the possibility that people not seated at the government’s table will finally wise up. Who or what could help them understand what’s going on? People need someone to draw a clear picture of what makes an economy thrive — briefly, without jargon, and, most importantly for today’s readers, in an entertaining fashion.

Going Hungry for a Day to Eat Better Later

A strong candidate for this task is Peter Schiff and his illustrated book, How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes, which he coauthored with his brother, Andrew Schiff. Other elementary texts will continue to be effective in conveying economic basics, but the Schiffs have a story to tell, an extension of a tale first developed by their father, Irwin Schiff. There’s nothing quite like a story to get people turning the pages. And in this case, the story is made more enjoyable by the creative work of illustrator Brendan Leach.

The authors waste no time getting to the root of economic growth. In the opening chapter, we find three men on an island — Able, Baker, and Charlie — fishing by hand, catching one fish per day each, enough to sustain them until the following day when they head into the surf again. Able gets an idea for an invention that might enable him to catch more than one fish, but when will he have time to build it? He spends all his waking hours working. Nor has he any assurance his invention will work.

One day Able decides to take a chance. He tells the others he will forego fishing for a day to fashion a device he calls a net. They tell him he’s crazy, but he goes hungry and succeeds. Using his net, he’s able to catch two fish a day, saving one and eating the other. This allows him to spend half as much time fishing and more time working on other ways to improve his life. (In this story, fish don’t spoil.)

Schiff augments this narrative with the first of many sidebars he calls a Reality Check. In this one, he points out that Able, in progressing beyond hand-to-mouth existence, was underconsuming and taking a risk.

At the end of this and every other chapter he has a section called Takeaway. What lesson should the reader take from the opening chapter? “By using our natural faculties we can create tools to improve our lives … and to create an economy.” No tools, no economy.

Not surprisingly, the other two men want nets but are unwilling to go hungry while they build them. They ask to borrow Able’s net on days when he isn’t using it. He turns them down. They ask him to loan them fish while they build their nets. He tells them he has no assurance they will succeed. Finally, they propose to borrow fish and pay him back at interest — for every fish he lends them they will pay him back two. If they succeed, everyone will profit. Able accepts their proposal.

The men build their nets, and their economy grows from three fish a day to six, a 100 percent increase.

In another Reality Check, Schiff points out that “the economy didn’t grow because they consumed more. They consumed more because the economy grew.”

From Barter to Money

As their savings grow, they have more time to undertake other projects. They pool their savings and build a trap that catches 30 fish a week. They never have to fish again. Able starts a clothing company. Baker builds a canoe and a cart, while Charlie constructs a surfboard.

Savings, ingenuity, hard work, risk taking, and prudent lending move the economy upward. The island’s prosperity attracts and is able to support immigrants seeking a better life. Some of them borrow fish to clear land for farming. People start offering services, such as cooking and fish-trap maintenance. The economy becomes more diversified.

And as it does, they discover they need a better way to trade their goods or services. A spear maker may want the services of a chef, but the chef may not want any spears. What they need is something that can be traded for anything and that is acceptable to everyone. They need money.

They settle on fish. Not only do fish serve to facilitate trade, they can also be saved for old age and emergencies. Money also allows people to specialize in what they do best. Duffy, for example, can build a canoe with eight fish in savings rather than the ten fish that others require. By charging nine fish per canoe, he makes a profit and his customers save money. Over time, Duffy buys specialty tools with his savings that allow him to build a canoe with only four fish. Duffy doubles his production, and by charging six fish, doubles his profit margin and sells canoes at a more affordable price (six fish instead of nine). A luxury becomes an everyday commodity.

As productivity increased, prices fell, benefiting the producer as well as his customers. Falling prices induce people to save, which swells the amount of capital available for loans. The Keynesian fear of falling prices was yet unknown.

A Middleman between Saver and Borrower

Not everyone on the island is willing to work for a better life. Some of them turn to stealing fish. Seeing an opportunity, an entrepreneur named Max Goodbank decides to open a bank and charge a storage fee for safeguarding people’s savings.

With profits scarce from such a service, Max decides to loan out the savings. To entice people to deposit their fish he pays them interest. He charges borrowers a higher rate of interest so he can pay his expenses and earn a profit. Max calls his enterprise the Goodbank Savings and Loan.
“We can either return to gold or we can pursue the fiat path and return to barter.”
Murray Rothbard

Max knows that a prosperous economy would increase fish deposits. Interest on loans would then drop, but so would interest paid to depositors. As savings diminished, Max would charge borrowers a higher interest rate. He would also pay depositors a higher rate to encourage more savings, and eventually the loan rate would come down.

The safety and convenience of the bank attracts depositors, and Max is able to finance a huge waterworks project to bring water inland. New pipelines mean previously infertile land can be made into productive farmland. The steady flow of water can be used to harness machines, giving birth to new industries.

The Birth of Government

To settle disagreements and protect themselves from violence, the islanders decide to form a limited government. They elect 12 senators and a senator-in-chief with executive authority. The senate would create a court system to settle disputes and a police squad to enforce the decrees of judges. It would also create and regulate a navy of spear-packing war canoes.

The islanders agree to pay a yearly fish tax to finance the government. To keep the government confined to its assigned responsibilities, they draft a constitution to spell out what it can and cannot do. The constitution protects people from the government and protects minorities from the tyrannies of majorities.

It is widely understood that government could only function because it taxed producers. Government spending therefore was really taxpayer spending, and only taxpayers could vote. The new country is called Usonia.

As generations pass, the island’s economy continues to flourish. Then one day some creative senators decide the original constitution was undemocratic in allowing only taxpayer suffrage. The restriction is removed, and on election day the polls are crowded with people who don’t care much for government austerity.

The Birth of the Free Lunch

It isn’t long before an ambitious senator named Franky Deep comes along with a radical idea. Franky loves power, and the way to get it in politics is to promise voters free stuff. But how could he carry it off? Government can only give by first taking.

After breezing into office as senator-in-chief, he comes up with an idea for giving away more than government has. To pay for his spending plans, Franky decides to issue government paper money — Fish Reserve Notes — that can be redeemed for actual fish stored at the Goodbank. Citizens could now use either the fish or the notes in trade.

The island’s chief judge points out that the Constitution didn’t authorize Franky to issue paper notes for fish. Franky solves the problem by firing the judge. In his place he puts one of his political buddies, who views the Constitution as “a living document” subject to reinterpretation at the discretion of the chief judge.

Though uncomfortable with paper money at first, the citizens begin to like it because it is more convenient to carry. Those who redeem their notes for fish suspect they are not as big as the original fish deposited, but comparing them is outlawed, so no one knows for sure.

With a more progressive judge in office, Franky’s people find more spending projects for the government to undertake. All they need is enough support from potential voters. The new notes were the miracle solution.
“Once the savers on the island realize that there is really no safety in bank deposits, they’ll stop saving! … Our whole economy could collapse!”
Max Goodbank VII

Taxpayers are pleased because the spending doesn’t require tax hikes, progressives love it because government is showing it “cares,” and politicians feel relieved because they don’t have to balance their budgets. The only potential problem is economists, who might see the subtle theft taking place, but that is solved by cutting them in on the deal with research grants and jobs.

Eventually, bank president Max Goodbank VII starts making noise about government legerdemain. Franky replaces him with Ally Greenfin, and Goodbank Savings and Loan becomes the Fish Reserve Bank. The modern world is born.

The Fate of Usonia

The Schiffs are only getting started, and to see how the former laissez-faire economy of Usonia ends up you will find no better source than the book itself. Though the story illustrates critical economic fundamentals, the authors carry it off with elegant infusions of humor. Some examples: Franky Deep, Jim W. Bass, and Barry Ocuda as chief executives, the “Carp for Carts” program, Finnie Mae and Fishy Mac, Hank Plankton as the head fish accountant, and my favorite, Brent Barnacle, who becomes Ally Greenfin’s replacement and promises to drop notes from palm trees if needed. Peter Schiff even pokes fun at himself, making reference to Piker Skiff, TV’s comic relief man, who warns of the pending hut collapse.

The Schiffs add a touch of satire when Barnacle tells a conference that Usonia’s policy of sending Fish Reserve Notes to the island of Sinopia in exchange for fish and goods is merely the latest development in economic specialization. With their voracious appetites, Usonians “had a comparative advantage in consuming,” while Sinopians were tops in the areas of savings and manufacturing things.

Many otherwise-good stories founder with forgettable endings. But I suspect the final two lines of this story will stay with you forever.

Given the critical role of money in an economy, including the economy of Usonia, I would’ve preferred to see a more detailed development of how the island economy moved from barter to money. The authors tell us on page 52 that because “everyone on this island ate fish, it was decided that fish would serve as money.” Though I’m aware of the authors’ free-market convictions, the wording left me wondering if the decision was done by a committee rather than the market.

People who find anything related to economics tedious will find the Schiff book an exciting discovery. It should have special appeal to Austrians at all levels of expertise, while the Keynesian wizards who laughed at Peter Schiff when he predicted the housing collapse will likely disdain it.

It might be the only economics book ever written that could be read aloud to one’s family without putting them to sleep. The narrative never once lags or becomes academic. The authors manage to convey the critical concepts without straying from their “Connecticut straight-talk” approach.

The Schiffs’ tale of Usonia would make an excellent text for a “pre-economics” course, as a way of burning in the basics and of showing how they apply to the US history of the past 100 years. Precalculus is a requirement for premed, as one of my daughters has discovered. A “pre-econ” class featuring How an Economy Works and Why It Crashes would make it clear how government interventions operate in diametric opposition to the medical principle of primum non nocere (“first, do no harm”), with predictable results.

The Schiffs have hit one out of the park. I’m already introducing parts of their book to my five-year-old grandson — who enjoys fishing.

George F. Smith is the author of The Flight of the Barbarous Relic, a novel about a renegade Fed chairman, and Eyes of Fire: Thomas Paine and the American Revolution, a script about Paine’s impact on the early stages of the Revolution. Visit his website. Send him mail. See George F. Smith’s article archives.

Congressman Paul Ryan Making Waves With Roadmap

GOP Rep. Paul Ryan tackles Obama’s path to deficit disaster

By Michael Gerson
The Washington Post

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

The new era of Democratic bipartisanship, like cut flowers in a vase, wilted in less than a week.

During his question time at the House Republican retreat, President Obama elevated congressman and budget expert Paul Ryan as a “sincere guy” whose budget blueprint — which, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), eventually achieves a balanced budget — has “some ideas in there that I would agree with.” Days later, Democratic legislators held a conference call to lambaste Ryan’s plan as a vicious, voucherizing, privatizing assault on Social Security, Medicare and every non-millionaire American. Progressive advocacy groups and liberal bloggers joined the jeering in practiced harmony.

The attack “came out of the Democratic National Committee, and that is the White House,” Ryan told me recently, sounding both disappointed and unsurprised. On the deficit, Obama’s outreach to Republicans has been a ploy, which is to say, a deception. Once again, a president so impressed by his own idealism has become the nation’s main manufacturer of public cynicism.

To Ryan, the motivations of Democratic leaders are transparent. “They had an ugly week of budget news. They are precipitating a debt crisis, with deficits that get up to 85 percent of GDP and never get to a sustainable level. They are flirting with economic disaster.” So they are attempting some “misdirection,” calling attention to Ryan’s recently updated budget road map (click here for Roadmap 2.0) — first unveiled two years ago (click here for the 2008 Roadmap) — which proposes difficult entitlement reforms. When all else fails, change the subject to Republican heartlessness.

From a political perspective, Democratic leaders are right to single out Ryan for unkind attention. He is among their greatest long-term threats. He possesses the appeal of a young Jack Kemp (for whom both Ryan and I once worked). Like Kemp, Ryan is aggressively likable, crackling with ideas and shockingly sincere.

But unlike Kemp — who didn’t give a rip for deficits, being focused exclusively on economic growth — Ryan is the cheerful prophet of deficit doom. “For the first generation of supply-siders,” he explains, “the fiscal balance sheet was not as bad. The second generation of supply-siders needs to be just as concerned about debt and deficits. They are the greatest threats to economic growth today.”

Fiscal Obamaism is not just a temporary, Keynesian, countercyclical spike in spending; it is deficits to infinity and beyond. “It is the interest that kills you,” Ryan says. In a few weeks, he expects the CBO to report that, in the 10th year of Obama’s budget, the federal government will “spend nearly a trillion dollars a year, just on interest! This traps us as a country. Inflation will wipe out savings and hurt people on fixed incomes. A plunging dollar will make goods more expensive. High tax rates will undermine economic growth. It is the path of national decline.”

But unlike other deficit hawks, Ryan courageously — some would say foolhardily — presents his own alternative. His budget road map offers many proposals, but one big vision. Over time, Ryan concentrates government spending on the poor through means-tested programs, patching holes in the safety net while making entitlements more sustainable. He saves money by providing the middle class with defined-contribution benefits — private retirement accounts and health vouchers — that are more portable but less generous in the long run. And he expects a growing economy, liberated from debt and inflation, to provide more real gains for middle-class citizens than they lose from lower government benefits. Ryanism is not only a technical solution to endless deficits; it represents an alternative political philosophy.

For decades, culminating in the Obama health reform proposal, Democrats have attempted to build a political constituency for the welfare state by expanding its provisions to larger and larger portions of the middle class. Ryan proposes a federal system that focuses on helping the poor, while encouraging the middle class to take more personal responsibility in a dynamic economy. It is the appeal of security vs. the appeal of independence and enterprise.

Both sides of this debate make serious arguments, rooted in differing visions of justice and freedom. But the advocates of security, including Obama, have a serious problem: They are on a path to economic ruin.

In his Kemp-like way, Ryan manages to find a bright side. “The way I look at it, we were sleepwalking down this path anyway. The Democratic overreach woke people up. It was a splash of cold water in the face of every voter. Now we have a new, more serious conversation. And I’m not going to back down.”

Dick Cheney Returns, Again

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:””; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

Just when I thought my Sunday was going to be boring, even after my Dunkin Donuts coffee, Vice President Dick Cheney shows up on Fox News Sunday and drops the hammer, again, on the left and in specific, on Herr Obama.

Wow, what an interview that was.

When asked about his opinion of Obama, Dick Cheney unleashed: “I wasn’t a fan of his when he got elected, and my views haven’t changed any. I have serious doubts about his policies, serious doubts especially about the extent to which he understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation.” Ouch.

Politico has a good recap of the interview.

“The thing I keep coming back to time and time again, Chris, is the fact that we’ve gone for eight years without another attack,” Cheney said. “Now, how do you explain that? The critics don’t have any solution for that. They can criticize our policies, our way of doing business, but the results speak for themselves.”

He added: “It was good policy. It was properly carried out. It worked very, very well.”

Asked if he thinks “Democrats are soft on national security,” Cheney replied: “I do.” recaps the interview as well. has 4 minutes of the video.

If you’re a serious addict, Real Clear Politics has posted the transcript of the interview here.

Vice President Cheney’s book is not due to be released until 2011, I’m going to have a tough time waiting that long.

Thoughts on the 4th of July

This July 4th I have been thinking about the meaning of this country and how this country began. I recently completed a great book called The 5000 Year Leap, shortly after reading and then re-reading Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny.

Both of these books could not have been better timed, one is a new book and one was re-released after being originally published in 1981. Our new president (yes, with a lower case p) has us on a high speed bullet train to a form of government most of us will not recognize. The boiling frog concept will not do justice to what the president is doing.

The Tea Party movement is important, if they can turn their get togethers into a political movement that affects change. Only time will tell if this is going to happen. The July 4th Tea Parties will be sparsely attended compared to the previous efforts, this will be strictly because of the weather in some of the places where the weather was more tolerable on April 15th. So the Tea Parties will likely start to be discredited by those on the left, which includes the media.

November 2010 cannot get here soon enough, so that the people can properly elect a check and balance to watch over the president for the last two years of his presidency.