Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Obama to Black America: Quit whining, grumbling and get to work

 As of late President Obama's re-election strategy has become increasingly clear.  Tack left to his base and run against an "obstructionist" Republican Congress that favors the rich at the expense of the middle class, (or so goes the argument).

 While such a tactic is of questionable effectiveness in the best of circumstances, (because frankly, after blaming George W. Bush for 3 years most people, including us here at the ACLP, would rather hear about what President Obama is going to do instead of simply finding a new scapegoat to blame), and completely ignores the lack of the President's leadership in creating jobs and the failed keynesian "stimulus" plan he championed, at least President Obama knows how to play to his base. Or maybe not?!

 In a mystifying jab at black America, one of Obama's last and strongest remaining bastions of support in the American electorate amidst a torturous slide in popularity among all groups which presages potentially ominous chances for his re-election, the President brazenly admonished-- replete with semi-black-preaching style cadence and mock southern accent-- a gathering of African-American activists at the annual awards dinner of the Congressional Black Caucus by stating:
"Take off your bedroom slippers... Stop complaining... Stop grumbling, stop crying... We have work to do."  - President Obama, Congressional Black Caucus dinner, Sept 24, 2011.

  Unfortunately for the President, rather than rally his supporters, (the speech's ostensible intended effect), it's patronizing and somewhat condescending tone had the same effect as Governor Rick Perry's recent gaff at the Republican primary debate in Orlando when he bluntly told conservatives they "had no heart" if they didn't support in-state university tuition for illegal immigrants in response to fellow Republican critics.   The reaction of influential black caucus members was swift.

  Maxine Waters, (D-CA.), was particularly keen in her response to the President's chastisements, stating, "I don't know who he was talking to because we're certainly not complaining." 

  Continuing her criticism of the President's remarks, the California Congresswoman said:
"I found that language a bit curious because the president spoke to the Hispanic Caucus, and certainly they're pushing him on immigration... he certainly didn't tell them to stop complaining... And he would never say that to the gay and lesbian community, who really pushed him on Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Click here for full story and video links at CBS news. 

  Now we are not genuises here at the ACLP, but it doesn't take a genius to know that when you've ticked off your base and the best you can come up with generally is blaming everyone and everything else for your problems as the leader of the most powerful nation in the free world-- including your normally strongest supporters-- you are in serious trouble.

 Of course, as any reader of this blog can tell you, we are not fans of the Obama Administration's policies. But neither are we extreme partisans who want a U.S. President, any President, to fail simply for failing's sake.  Rather, our concerns are rooted in very real philosophical differences and a deep belief that this Administration, in the very least, is utterly inept to solve the great problems facing our country at this critical time.  In short, it is the failed and corrupt policies of the Obama Administration that we object to, not the man himself.

  What the dustup with the Congressional Black Caucus reveals is that, in addition to failing to be the "great uniter" of America that President Obama promised in 2008, he can barely unite his most natural base of political support.

  And that, to us, by any measure bodes very poorly for this President going into the 2012 election season.  jp

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

U.S. decides against seeking further appellate review of Obamacare.

Supreme Court Next Likely Stop for Sprawling, Controversial Legislation

The Justice department, currently involved in multi-state litigation with at least 26 states regarding the controversial "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," (i.e., 'Obamacare,'), has decided against seeking further review in the 11th Circuit court of appeals which recently upheld a lower court decision striking down its controversial "individual mandate" to buy health insurance.

As a practical matter, this means that the future of our nation's health delivery system, (and by some perspectives, the nation's very liberty and free-enterprise roots), is likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court in its term beginning in Oct., and possibly decided by the High Court in late summer or Fall 2012, (placing it smack dab in the middle of what already promises to be one of the most heavily contested and contentious Presidential election cycles in our nation's history!)

In practical terms, this also means the constitutionality of this historic legislation will also be decided by five men and women in black robes appointed for life and utterly unaccountable to the American Electorate.  Of course, for those more practiced in the art of court watching, this means this incredibly far reaching legislation touted by the Obama Administration as its crowning achievement, will come down to the vote of one man who has often played a central 'swing-vote' role in controversial cases in the last 30 thirty years of our nation's at times schizophrenic jurisprudence.  That one man is President Ronald Reagan-appointee supreme court justice Anthony Kennedy.

Over the next few weeks we will get back to our long promised analysis of Kennedy's decision making with an eye to perhaps familiarizing ourselves to what to expect from the High Court in this historic case, as well as a general and brief analysis of the 11th Circuit's substantive decision as appropriate, contrasted with contrary circuit court decision's, (long overdue I know), and their probable effects on American law and life in our Republic 'based on laws and not of men.'

 And while no one can accurately predict how the members of the Supreme Court will ultimately come down on this legislation with 100% accuracy, we are convinced that a studious examination of prior decisions and rulings of the Supreme Court, and Justice Kennedy in particular, can yield helpful clues.

 At least it is to that end that we will endeavor, and ask our friends (and all readers) to actively contribute to the discussion using the comment feature and by linking with their blog, social media site, or webspace however it may exist in the vast universe of cyberspace.  We also would like to ask those of you so inclined to pray for wisdom and the right decision to be made by our Supreme Court members, especially justice Kennedy, in undoubtedly what will be one of the most significant decisions ever made by our High Court in the 21st century!

 For those new to our blog we also suggest you might want to read our previous analysis of the Florida district court decision that started at least the 11th Circuit case here, as well as our assessment of Obamacare itself, which you can read here.

 With that said, stay tuned dear reader; this should be fun!  jp

Investigation of defunct solar company Solyndra heats up with Executives taking the fifth in Congressional hearings

 Following the FBI's raid on the headquarters of former White House "green energy" darling Solyndra Corporation earlier this month, the scandal surrounding the half-billion-dollar government loan to the now-defunct company, (a posterchild for President Obama's promotion of “green jobs” under the almost trillion dollar 2009 “stimulus” bill), is beginning to heat up, (pun intended), with Solyndra Executives taking the fifth in Congressional testimony last Friday and new eyebrow-raising revelations that the California Democrat Party is listed as a creditor on court papers filed in the companies bankruptcy, (for details click here).  

The revelations come on the heels of the feds raid on Republican-led Gibson guitar corporation in August and the release of emails from career analysts of the Office of Management and Budget, (the government agency responsible for analyzing the financial risk to the taxpayers), expressing concerns over approving Solyndra Corp's loan request shortly before being rammed through by political appointees in the Obama Administration immediately after coming to power in 2009, (see here or here, for more on the Gibson raid see here and here).

Sadly, they further underscore what is now becoming a shockingly familiar refrain, i.e., the apparent willingness of the Obama Administration to put political interests ahead of those of the nation, (see here , here, here, here and here).

Although the Obama Administration is resisting the investigation and has yet to properly comply with a subpoena by the House Energy and Commerce Committee for more information, the evidence to date reveals that Steve Spinner, a fund raiser for the Obama campaign in the 2008 Presidential election subsequently appointed by Obama to manage the disbursement of billions of dollars in pork “stimulus” money to “green” companies, aided by no less than former White house chief of staff and now Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, actively lobbied to force the loan to Solyndra through regardless of questions over an unsustainable business model raised by career civil servants in the Energy Dept. It has also raised pointed questions about how this Administration, (as well as others in the past), “do the people's business.”

“So what does this have to do with partisan politics?” you ask. After all, the Democrats don't have a corner on the market of political cronyism and corruption. Couldn't the eagerness with which the President's men pushed through the Solyndra deal just be due to a sincere, but misguided, effort on the part of the administration to encourage/create jobs in an environmentally beneficial industry, in the same way that the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq was premised by a sincere, yet mistaken, belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction?

Putting aside the conclusions of an Inspector General report that the Energy Department, (the agency through whom the “stimulus” loans were disbursed), disobeyed its own rules in order to approve the loan guarantees to Solyndra, perhaps, (download pdf of report here).

In fairness, and along those lines, we concede it is certainly true that before leaving office the Bush Administration had considered the same loan guarantees for Solyndra as was ultimately approved by the Obama Administration.

The difference is that in the end Bush heeded the advice of government analysts and decided to nix the idea before it was apparently “resurrected” after the 2008 elections for purely political short-term gain by a White House eager to reward their special-interest allies in the environmentalist movement who had donated almost 200 million to the President for his 2008 election bid with full awareness of the potential consequences of the fallout posed by a Solyndra default, (see here).

In the words of an email released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee written Jan. 31, 2011 by an Office of Management and Budget staffer, "If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will arguably be worse later than they would be today. … In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up." (“Optics” for those uninitiated is Washington speak for “image” or "political fallout" if this risky bet of taxpayer monies were to fall through).

Nevertheless, pressure from Obama political appointees like Emanuel and Spinner to approve the deal for purely political purposes, (i.e., to allow a nice photo op at a groundbreaking ceremony with Vice President Joe Biden), was apparently unrelenting, as clearly demonstrated by an email from an Energy Department analyst who wrote, “"given the time pressure we are under to sign-off on Solyndra, we don't have time to change the model," (see here).

Additionally-- and to tie this back to our comment above regarding the Gibson guitar company-- there is one other glaring problem in interpreting the Obama Administration's actions in an innocent, (if inept), way, (which is becoming increasingly clear is entirely implausible, see below).  But just for starters:

The head of the Gibson guitar company is an on-the-record Republican, known to favor-- and personally donate to-- Republican candidates for government office. And the powers that be at Solyndra? Well, put it this way: Solyndra’s biggest shareholders were the family foundation of Tulsa billionaire and Obama fundraiser George Kaiser, and Democrats all, (as are the CEO's of America's other guitar manufacturers, with the exception of Gibson of course). Coincidence? Again, perhaps, but not likely in our estimation.  Still not convinced?

  Conveniently, Obama's Department of Energy claims to have “not kept” the emails detailing how the federal agency determined what companies would receive loan guarantee “stimulus money,” a fact noted by a Government Accountability Office report, (see report here), but the fact that agents of the Obama Administration actively attempted to circumvent a more thorough analysis in light of concerns cannot be doubted. As an editorial in the Examiner noted, “An assistant to then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel asked in yet another email if 'there is anything we can help speed along on [the Office of Management and Budget] side,' (more here).  However, the most damning information is still yet other "coincidences." 

  While the white house has been mum on to what extent the President himself may have been apprised of the extent of risk to taxpayers of the government's direct involvement via its "green agenda" loans to companies like Solyndra, (with reports that Administration officials actually took the highly unusual step of sitting in on board meetings of Solyndra for a period of time, see here), in other words, what the President knew and when did he know it, the L.A. Times reported late today that, in fact, the President was personally apprised of the risks to the plan to prop up solar companies by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and economic advisor Larry Summers nearly a year before the solar company went bankrupt, (see here and here for original L.A. Times article).

 Even more disturbing however is reports on cable giant Fox News late today that under what appears to be an unusual (and illegal!) "sweetheart deal" the Department of Energy additionally agreed before investing the taxpayer money that if, in fact, Solyndra went belly up― a prospect the President was keenly aware was probable even as the White House continued to publicly tout the Solyndra alliance as a wonderful example of a successful public/private partnership promoting the new "green economy" and supposed creator of the jobs of the future for Americans― early private investors would be entitled to recover their money first ahead of taxpayers.   And, yep, you guessed it. One of those early "investors" was a family trust fund connected to billionaire and major Obama donor George Kaiser.  So what can we conclude, indeed, what must we logically conclude?

  The end sum and inevitable conclusion is of a White House intent on pushing through for political reasons what would come to waste millions of taxpayer dollars in what it verifiably knew was an extremely risky proposition for political props, while at the same time protecting― and maybe even benefiting financially
 one of their key democratic campaign donors, (and all at taxpayer expense to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars!)

 We may not be too bright here at the ACLP, but we don't have to be to know that such an obvious "quid pro quo" for which the taxpayer was stuck holding the inevitable (and empty!) bag is malfeasance of the worst kind if ever there was!

  Now what we don't know-- dare we even to imagine?-- is whether members of the Administration, (perhaps even the President himself?), having advance knowledge of Solyndra's impending failure and having personal knowledge of his Kaiser family friends and donors so as to know of their 75 million initial investment, planned for just this outcome to occur, (i.e., knowing the bankruptcy of Solyndra was imminent a year in advance jumped into the vaunted "public/private" partnership and secured the sweetheart "early investor" provision for the sole purpose of insuring Obama's political cronies would be able to get out their initial investment in the doomed tech start up.

 We shudder to even think such could be the case, as if our speculations are even close our struggling body politic is even sicker than we thought.   Hopefully Congress will get to the bottom of this mess, (though judging from other investigations, lightsquared, fast and furious, Gibson guitar, etc. etc.) we won't hold our breath.

  In the meantime, and for fun sake, (and a honest gutcheck if you are still one of those who believes the media isn't in the tank for Obama and biased strongly left), just consider for a moment if George W. Bush had ever been accused of such a thing, (not to mention stonewalled investigators); there would have been a hew and cry from Democrats in Washington the likes of which you never saw and calls for impeachment until the Dems got blood and drove Bush 43 from town on a rail to places that would make Guantanamo Bay look like the picnic that it is! (sans prayers to Mecca five times a day and soccer for recreation).  But, so far at least, the main stream media has been extremely slow in connecting the dots of this Obama scandal, (at least publicly).  Indeed, and can you blame them when this is how they treat reporters who won't give up on getting to the bottom of this corruption and capitalist cronyism that is becoming a hallmark of this Administration? (Indeed, a simple review of how the President's men have fared financially in his first term in office is breathtaking, see here and here for details).

  Instead, and adding insult to injury, the Obama administration continues to dole out funds to other "green" pet projects while it further plans how to exploit less enlightened "environmental" minded folks for its own political and/or economic agenda.

  Indeed, even as we speak Mr. Spinner, as you'll recall from above one of Obama's chief fundraisers of 2008 and one of the main characters at the helm responsible for pushing the Solyndra deal through in the first place, has just recently announced invitation of Obama's national political finance committee to be wined and dined in Chicago at a fundraising "strategy" event dubbed “Technology for Obama,” (and the beat goes on!), making the whole sordid affair that much more difficult for us to swallow, (not to mention breathe!) in the face of a stench that would make living next to a garbage dump seem pleasant in comparison.

  Indeed, the emails released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee investigating the scandal are reminiscent of the Clinton's renting out the Lincoln Bedroom to Chinese arms dealers during their tenure, prompting at least one op-ed in Obama's hometown newspaper to liken such “hope and change” promised by the President with the old familiar ways (and smell!) of Chicago politics, (see article at Chicago Tribune by John Kass here).

  Of course, as we are a “non profit” organization prohibited from outright electioneering for or against any particular presidential candidate in the fast-approaching 2012 elections we will refrain from stating the obvious, (although others haven't, see here and here), but needless to say, we are of the opinion that such self-aggrandizing behavior at the expense of the taxpayer is NOT what we elect our leaders for, (nor, dare we say, what the American people bargained for when they elected Barack Obama President).

In that regard this sad morality tale of government corruption comes with both good and bad news.

The bad news is that there are dozens of other “green” loan guarantees to other companies totaling billions more in stimulus funds which were subsequently “approved” by the Obama administration, some of which undoubtedly have as equally dubious business plans' as Solyndra's, virtually guaranteeing that Solyndra's bankruptcy will not be the last for which the taxpayers are on the hook. 

The good news is we will have a chance to voice our opinions, and ostensible displeasure, in the 2012 elections. jp

Monday, September 19, 2011

Obama outlines plan for cutting deficit, raising taxes

 President Obama today made good on his promise to address the nation's fiscal woes and pay for his "jobs plan" first revealed in a joint address to Congress Sept. 8, 2011 with a plan to cut the nation's burgeoning budget deficit by three trillion dollars over the next ten years.

 The plan also forms the basis of his suggestions to the Congressional "Super committee" established as a part of the "budget compromise" hashed out over the summer between Republicans and the White House at the last minute in order to avoid a government shut down.

 But the long awaited plan seems to be a case of much ado about nothing, at least to us.

 As Republicans were quick to point out, the plan is half paid for by tax increases on the "rich," something which Obama himself once stated would harm the already weak economy, (see here), and does nothing to systematically reform entitlements, which threaten to consume the entire federal budget within 20 years, (in spite of Obama hinting at such systemic reforms over the summer).

 Republicans however weren't the only ones to criticize Obama's deficit-cutting plan. 

 Hillary Clinton's prior campaign manager for her 2008 Presidential bid, Mark Penn, said in an article for the liberal Huffington Post, 

He (Obama) should be working as a president, not a candidate... He should be holding down taxes rather than raising them.  He should be mastering the global economy, not running away from it.   And most of all, he should be bringing the country together rather than dividing it through class warfare." (for full article click here).

  Leaving aside for now the obvious, that it is only the "rich" who can afford to open factories and hire others, (after all, one rarely gets hired by a poor man!), and the other erroneous views of Mr. Penn that cutting government spending will result in a loss of jobs, (when in fact government spending crowds out private enterprise which is the only real engine of job growth in our system), the President's plan follows a consistent "us vs. them" theme that has emanated from the White House as a steady drumbeat of speeches promising to make the "rich" pay their "fair share" of taxes, (always a popular stump topic intended to buoy the President's support among his Democrat-left base ahead of the 2012 elections).

  And what of the fact that according to the IRS the top 10% of income earners already pay approximately 70% of all income taxes, (see here and click on table two for tax year 2008), while fully half of the citizenry pay absolutely no income taxes (while simultaneously drawing from our national "safety net?")  

  Or that the top 1%, (you know, those greedy millionaires and billionaires the President likes to talk about making pay their "fair share"), pay 38% of all income taxes? Details, smetails!  Now why do you have to go messing up perfect presidential re-election politics with the facts?

  Meanwhile, ideas like Rep. Paul Ryan's doa budget and attempts at entitlement reform, or replacing the IRS with a truly flat, fair tax national sales tax which would shutter one of the most feared and invasive government bureaucracies in our nation, capture "black market" underground income and end the loopholes that have allowed international conglomerates like General Electric-- headed by the way by Jeffrey Immelt, a known democratic supporter of Obama's-- to avoid paying any U.S. taxes at all last year on profits over 14 billion, languish on the vine without any support from the White House.

 Don't get us wrong, we are happy the President has finally weighed in on the subject of deficit reduction, (even if coming late to the party), as in doing so he is at least publicly acknowledging the importance of tackling our nation's dire fiscal woes. 

 Perhaps such gestures are merely the beginning of a process that will result in a much-needed public conversation and eventual compromise with the Republican Congress that will result in real and substantive reform sufficient to save our nation from impending economic ruin.   We can only hope.  jp  

Sunday, September 18, 2011



The U.S. House voted this week to block the controversial actions of the National Labor Relations Board in attempting to block Chicago based aircraft maker Boeing, Inc. from opening a new plant in worker-friendly South Carolina instead of union-dominated Washington state, where it currently has major production facilities.

The largely Obama-appointed national labor board members, whose primary mission under law is to protect American workers and intervene in labor vs. management disputes to avoid devastating strikes, filed a lawsuit against Boeing in federal court seeking declaratory relief and monetary damages based on its allegations that the company's actions in attempting to produce the company's “dreamliner” plane in S. Carolina constitutes a “dilution” of union worker rights in Washington state contrary to law and violates Boeing's contract with the unionized workers there, prompting a fierce debate over the rights of American company's to conduct business as they seek fit and potentially pitting “right to work” states against heavily unionized ones at a time when jobs are altogether scarce to come by. It has also prompted at least one other related lawsuit by those seeking to get to the bottom of the national labor board's reasoning for taking this legal action which could have long-term and damaging repercussions to American jobs, see here.

Leaving aside the obvious that in a free Republic a company should be allowed to build wherever it seems best to them in order to make a profit, at last check a prominent feature of capitalism lest companies give up entirely risking their money to create jobs-- indeed, the fact we're even having this debate brings into question this basic premise and is a sad commentary at just how far we have become slaves of big government rather than its master-- comes at a time when hundreds of thousands of American jobs have been lost overseas already.  

Accordingly, the actions of the NLRB has seemed to some, including this organization, as particularly short-sighted, and prompted us to ponder aloud: Is the Obama Administration so hell-bent on government control and defending their union allies-- who it is no secret gave heavily to support the election of the Barack Obama in 2008 and undoubtedly will do so again in 2012-- that they would prefer to see these quality American jobs lost to overseas competition from countries whose workplace and environmental standards already place them at a competitive advantage? In other words, if we can be so blunt, would this administration, and the union bosses who support it, rather see these jobs lost to China?

Indeed, the cavalier attitude of the unions, and most worrisome, this administration, at the spectre of the loss of potentially thousands of relatively high-paying American jobs in the critical manufacturing sector is coming at a time we can ill afford it, when global competition between the American plane manufacturer and its European competitor Airbus is at a critical tipping point.

But to stand back and allow the loss of any American jobs to simply make a point and, in the most charitable view, protect union bosses cushy benefits and perks while destroying the ability of thousands of ordinary American families to make a fairly decent living seems to us distinctly un-American and to throw the baby out with the bath water.  (Apparently the union bosses would rather see the creation of no new jobs for Americans, rather than the potential loss or scaling back of any current union ones. So much for caring about all American workers, the mantra of the big unions!).  

Of course, in the less charitable view, and regarding the leadership (or lack thereof) of the White house on this matter, such conduct seems to fit a disturbing pattern of this Administration to protect its powerful political allies and special interests out of a purely crass political motive of self-preservation regardless of the broader consequences to the nation.

This, to us, is one of the dangers to our Republican form of government spoken of by Founding founder James Madison in Federalist number 10, in which he plainly warned:

It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments... These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations. By a faction, I understand [mean] 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, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
James Madison, Federalist no. 10

Then too, Madison continued on a related theme in Federalist 51:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

James Madison, Federalist no. 51.

It seems to us, if ever a factious spirit has invaded our government, the actions of late of the National Labor Relations Board, and the Administration at whose pleasure it serves, are evidence of the destructive effects of the dangers of faction of which Madison speaks, and its ability to result in injustice and oppression to vast sectors of society in order to serve narrow interests.

Accordingly we urge the peoples' representatives in the U.S. Senate to quickly act on the House's example and pass the bill, and call on the President to promptly sign it into law.  

Even better, we call on the President to take immediate action disavowing the job-killing actions of the NLRB by ordering it to drop the suit against Boeing corporation.

It is time to put the needs of the American people for jobs ahead of the political interest of faction. jp


Friday, September 16, 2011


Dear friends,

Now that we are through the summer and the labor day holiday and intent on getting back to blogging at the ACLP, I feel an explanation for the recent months long sabbatical from regular blog postings is in order, (and in fact, long overdue).

First of all, allow me to apologize to any readers who had come to appreciate our blogging and analysis on issues of import to our republic. Initially, our absence from the public debate over these last few months has been partially due to distinctly personal reasons, (e.g., my six year old daughter visiting with me almost the whole summer and my need to meet many personal obligations), but not entirely. Pertinently, we have been engaged in contemplation over the direction and structure of the ACLP as an organization.

As most of you who follow the ACLP blog know, as President of this non-profit organization since its founding I have almost single-handedly been responsible for the regular postings on the blog since its creation and worked tirelessly to expand our outreach, (sometimes in the face of withering criticism and personal attack, indeed, the vitriol I have endured has been one reason I felt it necessary to post semi-autonomously, a time-honored tradition in our country dating back to Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay collaborating to publicly write articles in the “The Independent Journal” and “The New York Packet” between October 1787 and August 1788 under the pseudonym “publius” in favor of the newly proposed American Constitution).

As many of you are also aware, I have done so without a salary or renumeration of any kind, (though as those who know me personally will attest, this endeavor has never been about money, but an idea and desire to make a difference in this greatest experiment in liberty on earth which we call America!)

Indeed, in discharging what I consider to be a solemn duty, I have striven for excellence and in-depth analysis in the goal of educating and informing the citizenry and general body politic on issues of broad import and concern to our great nation in accord with our mission of advancing and defending our constitutional Republic and its founding values of limited government, personal liberty and the rule of law, (all in a somewhat academic way which attempts to focus on ideas rather than personalities or politics, not always an easy task especially when examining/reporting on often politically-related matters!)

Nevertheless, the need to effectively reach the ACLP's goals as well as more broadly share the duties of the organization in a way so as to better enable me to meet my own many personal obligations have become increasingly clear.

Accordingly, although discussions over the weeks ahead will undoubtedly continue on several matters under consideration, including how to grow and/or monetize the site and even changing our corporate structure to allowing infusion of capital and/or replacing/expanding the number of board members to bring in “fresh blood” by those who will support a more active organization with the goal on expanding our impact and/or becoming self-supporting, (including resignation of this party as President), are on the table. However, several things seem increasingly clear.

We must find a way to independently fund our organization.

In addition to co-branding and/or linking with other sites and/or organizations which philosophically share our views, in order to continue we will need to find ways to more directly fund the ACLP's mission. In addition to our goal of applying for and receiving federal tax-exempt status and ultimately receiving foundation underwriting and grants as appropriate, in the interim we are seeking monthly financial support from like-minded business partners, and will need much more involvement of individual readers who support our mission. Indeed, this organization is, and has always been intended as, an organization of those who believe in its principles. To that end, we will be implementing a “member dues” format for those who want to put their “money (freedoms?) where their mouth is,” (see below).

Also to that end, in the coming weeks we will be placing a “donate now” button on the site, and would ask those who believe in our cause to contribute by clicking on this button to proceed to the secure portal and follow the prompts in order to financially support our mission. Although donations are not currently tax deductible, we promise to spend your donations in an ethical and careful manner in accord with standard practices for the purpose of purchasing business supplies and other needed services, expanding our outreach, creating web and other promotions, and paying salaries of full time employees, and will conform with all reporting and/or all applicable annual reporting requirements per law.

 And while we realize many in society are now facing difficult financial times, no donation, even a few dollars, is insignificant.  To the contrary, at this time critical time in our nation's history, support from you, our readers, would be greatly appreciated and is critical to the success of our ongoing mission.
Please send all gifts payable to the American Center for Law and Policy, Inc. to: Box 11408, Fort Wayne, IN. 46858.   

Membership-based format

To help fund the mission of the ACLP, we are also asking all those who believe in our principles and organizational mission to pay an annual membership “dues” fee of 40.00, a small price to pay in exchange for the work we do in defending limited government and the constitutional principles so many take for granted. These funds will be used to help pay organizational expenses and/or salaries of corporation employees, including the CEO and President of the ACLP, (in accordance with law and appropriate corporate resolutions enacted by the board), in order to continue apace the work of this organization and/or pay for expenses incurred in promoting the activities and mission of the ACLP.  If you are gifted in the area of web site/ html creation and would like to help us build our main site and/or have suggestions on how to increase donations to our cause we would love to hear from you!  Just drop us a line at!

We must increase our web exposure and impact

We plan to do this through an expanded internet presence through social media, building a stand-alone web site, and partnering with other blogs and non-profit organizations who will agree to place link(s) to our blog and web site(s) on their site(s) in exchange for the same on ours. We also plan on utilizing such proven programs as Google AdSense, and other web advertising and promotions. You, our readers, can also help by placing a link to our site on your blog, web site, or social media site or referring/linking to our site in any posts of yours on reputable like-minded sites.  And of course, we are open to any suggestions on how to improve our presence on the net and placement in internet search rankings.  Again, we would love to hear any feedback and/or suggestions at

We must successfully recruit other content contributors and guest editorialists.

Equally important to our success as the above factors, and perhaps directly related to them, will be broadening our content, (i.e., number of contributors, including “guest editorialists,” who are published on the blog). Of course, unanimity is neither possible nor desirable on every legal/policy issue in our society, indeed, open debate on such matters is one of the things that makes America a great country, but any such “guest” writers must agree to abide by our standards of decency and general mission. We also anticipate starting a new column feature, “The Other Side,” in accord with our dedication to the principle of free speech, to allow opposing points of view and foster the lively public debate that is a core part of our mission. We are also considering how to best recruit and encourage such “guest editorials” and “Other Side” contributors, including potential minimal compensation for pieces that we publish from twenty to fifty dollars, depending on length. We of course reserve the right to edit or ask for revision to any pieces we agree to publish in accord with our high grammatical/academic standards and purpose, and ask that our guest editorialists refrain from personal attack or profanity. Send all suggested guest editorials to

We must change our format and/or frequency of substantive posts and commentary.

This is a virtual fait acompli as we speak, as on my own I can no longer carry the entire burden of writing ten to twenty in depth and exhaustively documented articles a month. Instead, and absent drastic change in the level of others' involvement, we are considering either moving to a “digest” format with short headlines and summaries and linking primarily to other blogs and news sources, or reducing postings to a monthly “newsletter” or just 2-3 in-depth posts a month on substantive issues and/or court decisions. Reader input and/or financial support will be critical to the eventual way we go on this matter, so please send your suggestions to

Possibility of changing format of corporate organization entirely as a last resort.

Harkening back to our roots as founded (technically) by JP Andreas Enterprises, Inc., a private corporation, as a last result we will consider changing our corporate structure and/or disbanding as a “non-profit” organization entirely. Although this is by no means our first choice, absent greater contributions by others and/or successful progress towards our corporate goals we are forced at this time to consider this option as a last resort. Consequently, and absent drastically increased input and support of others to this organization, this would have the benefit of personally freeing up my time to pursue other business or political pursuits that might better utilize my abilities in aid of our country. (This may especially become necessary if I go back to school or procure employment in a field in which I feel I can make a difference, i.e., law, public policy, etc.). Much of this will depend on the response of readers and others to this post and our efforts/success at executing the above plan.

Regardless of the outcome, it has been a pleasure to serve you for this time in the “fight for freedom” in this greatest nation on earth. It has been a privilege to do so, and we thank you for your past (and hopefully future) continued support of the ACLP and its mission.


'JP' Andreas, President