1984, meet Atlas Shrugged

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

When we thought it couldn't get worse, it actually does. Yesterday morning, a blog post on the official blog of the President, www.whitehouse.gov/blog, called for individuals to report any 'disinfomration' that they hear or receive regarding Obamacare.

And I'm not even making this up.

Under the title of "Facts are Stubborn Things," the author asks private citizens to send their reports to flag@whitehouse.gov. The White House wants you to report me for making 'fishy' statements. Who cares if the information that you've heard or read has been based solely off of the words in the health care legislation.

If members of Congress aren't required to read the bills and don't have to know what they contain, why can't we citizens talk about it in order to educate the masses? And what will the Obama administration do if someone is telling 'lies' about this Obamacare? Will they pull out the strong-arm tactics of Chicago politics? Pull us into alleyways as we walk to work and help us 'see the light?' Audit bloggers and prominent conservatives ad nauseum? Send letters of reprimand? Shut down our websites?

They have already begun to propose plans to tax the wealthy and and successful into oblivion. They will destroy industries with environmental regulations and taxes. They will slaughter the dwindling American job market because of corporate taxes. And now they want to turn American citizens against one another.

Its not enough that this President wants us to be as poor as the African nations his heritage comes from, but he wants us to be fighting, looting, and raping each other just as they do as well.

This is unacceptable. This must end. He must stop. They must be defeated. The United States cannot take tyranny in its Capital. Obama might as well break in (but I guess he has the keys, right?) to the National Archives and burn every copy we have of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

To think, the left went nuts when the Patriot Act 'read' their e-mails. Now you might be sent to the gulags for writing an e-mail. What is happening to this country.

This is what I believe. Report me. I dare you.

How the Lack of Term Limits Shall Save Us ...This Time

Few, I'm sure, would find it surprising that members of Congress have never voted to reduce their authority, power, or the expansion of both at any time in their history. Harder to, it seems, that they ever will. But the widely accepted practice in a whole variety of other elected positions - mayors, governors, and presidents - of term limits is an idea that will see you removed from any holiday card list or honored constituents roll if you dare utter it in the presence of legislators. Term limits encourage intergrity, truthfulness, character, respect and intelligence from our representatives to us and to their elected jobs. Funny how most members of Congress can't honestly include those adjectives in their wonderfully written campaign biographies.

When our nation adopted and ratified the Constitution as its ruling legal document, it did not include a limitation on any elected position, however, a standard was established by President Washington to serve only eight years, and the standard was followed by all his successors until Franklin Roosevelt. Elected four times to the office of President, FDR managed to appoint a majority of the Supreme Court justices by the time he died, socially re-engineered America's way of thinking about wealth and government sponsorship, and managed to establish a successful wartime economy after failing at a peaceful one for almost a decade. In 1951, the 22nd Amendment was ratified limiting presidents to no more than ten years in office, two of which must come from succeeding a prior president.

However, presidents rarely face easy reelection campaigns. An united, organized national party who have nominated another candidate always pose a strong threat to the incumbent, but in Congressional races, the only time a race can be guaranteed to be up for grabs is if it is vacant. As can be seen by reelection rates, the incumbent candidate is at a distinct advantage of being reelected. In only five election cycles since 1964 has the reelection rate for members of the House been below 90%, and the Senate is not much lower. This is due mainly to the name recognition and pork spending sent home by candidates. But this cycle of non-recycle is dangerous.

When preparing for the formation of the United States, the Continental Congress set a committee to research and propose various forms of governments. On behalf of the state of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote a Resolution for Rotation which proposed term limits "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office..." and "...that in their future elections of delegates to the Continental Congress one half at least of the persons chosen be such as were not of the delegation next preceding." A contemporary of Jefferson, George Mason, stated that "...nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." Obviously, the principal of limiting government is not a new or novel idea, which brings us to the issue today.

More and more individuals are lashing out on Congressional leaders for their actions over the past months regarding the expansion of government unseen in many years. While in the past both parties can be found guilty of toeing the line, and in some cases stepping right over it, the majority party today is going above and beyond any power granted to it by the Constitution. Today, the leading issues are involving cap and trade and health care reform. Congressmen are being chased out of town hall meetings, Senators are being asked to apologize on behalf of Congress for their actions, and other representatives have stopped meeting with constituents altogether. It's obvious the talking points and memos being passed around Democratic offices aren't hitting home like the administration anticipated. And that is what will stop Obamacare, and most likely Cap & Trade.

If Congress worked under term limits, and assuming a majority of Democrats were in Congress, there would be no difficulty passing this legislation. Every member who is in Washington will have run on a platform stating their position for or against Obamacare, for or against Cap & Trade, for or against state sovereignty, for or against individual liberties. If a majority of the Congress were Democrats who ran on the platform of supporting Obamacare, it would pass without a single stumbling block. As would Cap & Trade, and as would any leftist agenda point. Under term limits, politicians would be elected for who they really are and how they really believe. A majority of Americans would have to believe in the same hopes and ideals their elected officials believe in. See, term limits set a ceiling on the amount of power and personal satisfaction an elected official can attain, so he has no incentive to not vote his constituent's thoughts.

But we don't live in that world. And that will save us (literally, and figuratively).

Without term limits, the goal of any member of Congress is to be reelected. What does it take to be reelected? Send enough money back to the district in the form of pork spending, come home and speak at the American Legion and the opening of the Little League season, visit a couple of high school football games, and just make sure that you keep your face in the news with enough good press to keep the election campaign funds coming in and the voters to turn out on Election Day. With the anger we have seen around the country from the Tax Day Tea Parties to the influx of listeners to conservative talk radio to the protesting of Congressmembers town hall meetings, its safe to say that most Representatives and Senators do not have enough good press. And this is before they even vote on these nation-changing bills. Knowing that their reelection is on the line, what will they do? They have no choice but to buck against their party, against their leaders, against their mentality of 'government knows best,' and against the President to vote against the passage of health care reform and Cap & Trade, among others. They must realize that with this much ground support in opposition to their views, they cannot risk voting the wrong way.

Because we don't have term limits, Obamacare will fail, solely do to the fact that a majority of politicians are spineless. And as funny as it sounds, that, is a good thing.

'Til Death Do Us Part

It is funny, the fact that Congress is spending all of this money, but no one, anywhere seems to be making any of it. Once Obama signs his name to the paper, the trail goes cold, but our debt gets higher. And the recession goes on.

Today we learned that a completely useless program, Cash for Clunkers, was bleeding money somewhere and that the $1 billion Congress approved for the program has quickly disappeared. It's strange considering that most dealerships that have participated in the program have still not been reimbursed the $3,500 to $4,500 per vehicle like the government promised. How is the program out of money without even paying out like it should be? So what do the Democrats decide to do? Appropriate $2 billion more of our money so that the program can continue to do nothing but leave dealerships in a bind. Seems like that $3 billion could have been very helpful for the woeful 45 million people who are suffering every single day because they won't purchase health insurance.

Who are these decision makers? What in the world is going on? Who has their slimy hands on the reigns of this nation? We can't truly expect this type of government leadership to inspire progress and success for this nation in this century, can we? With the Treasury Department selling bonds like hotcakes to China and printing new currency like there's no tomorrow, we have a grim and frightening future ahead of us - a ballooning inflation rate unseen since the Confederacy in the War Between the States, or the debt being called Beijing, or worse, both. And we still have one year and five months before Republicans can take back the House and the Senate.

Look at what has been done so far with their Congress and their President. What we can't sustain is this continued stance of ignoring the major issues of fiscal responsibility and national security, while claiming to be benefiting the future. The only future the Democrats are leaving us is to have the Republicans trying to fix our present with very few tools that will be left to them.

The odds are getting slimmer on Obama's bid for re-election, and many Congressional Democrats seem to see their own fates going down the drain, so it seems as if their actions are being taken from the advice in Tim McGraw's "Live Like You Were Dying" and spending while their lying. They know their only hope is to create enough entitlement voters, and they will spend every last dollar that we don't have to get them to the polls.

With their poll numbers still in the cellar and Obama's headed that way, Democrats seem to be shrinking into their shell and cutting themselves off from their constituents and any form of responsibility. No better example than from Representative Tim Bishop (D-NY) who said "There is no point in meeting with my constituents and [to] listen to them..." because on several occasions now he has encountered organized protests by citizens upset at his voting record in Washington. If he is to be considered the voice of his district, he needs to be able to backup his positions and explain himself fully to his voters. Since when is asking for reliability not a good thing?

So, while the Democrats are aiming at crediting another $2 billion in to a lousy, defunct program, which by the way is encouraging negative growth of the economy (smaller cars equals less gas purchased; smaller cars mean fewer long trips, fewer long trips mean fewer stops at roadside motels, dwindling sales in resort towns, less summertime industry, or winter depending on the area, that supports towns and communities for the rest of the year, which in all equals fewer jobs for those wanting them) and encouraging people to buy smaller and more dangerous vehicles we can kiss any hope of this recession ending anytime in the near future goodbye. This administration can't keep its thoughts and ideas straight anymore, and it has nothing to do with Joe Biden. Earlier this month, the economy and its health had been misjudged and that things were actually worse than we thought, but now today, because the GDP only shrank by 1%, Obama is "guardedly optimistic" that his stimulus program is working. He can't have it both ways, but he is a master at doublespeak.

The current trend of proposing and engaging in negative capitalist policies are only extending unemployment and bankrupting more businesses and state governments. Too bad our federal government can't go bankrupt.

Change is on the horizon, its coming, just like the taste of rain on the wind before the storm. Let us wait, let us hold out. We will prevail. This is what I believe.

A Growing Disconnect

It seems like every generation finds itself on the edge of an unstoppable threat to civilization, but with no offense towards the "Greatest Generation" of World War II, or those who survived the constant worry of the Cold War, we are now truly in a time of desperation, and it has nothing to do with military campaigns or standing armies.

It comes from a lack of care and understanding from the American people regarding the actions of Congress and the Executive Branch of the federal government, or even the Judiciary for that matter. We are in uncertain waters, my friends.

There is no public outrage at the lengths President Obama is going to to avoid the Constitutionally guaranteed checks and balances system by appointing self-titled "czars" to be the White House over-seers of everything from...well you know what, I'll just list all of them to illustrate the ridiculousness:

1. Afghanistan Czar (Richard Holbrooke)
2. AIDS Czar (Jeffrey Crowley)
3. Border Czar (Alan Bersin)
4. California Water Czar (David Hayes)
5. Car Czar (Ed Montgomery)
6. Climate Czar (Todd Stern)
7. Domestic Violence Czar (Lynn Rosenthal)
8. Drug Czar (Gil Kerlikowske)
9. Economic Czar (Paul Volcker)
10. Energy Czar (Carol Browner)
11. Faith-based Czar (Joshua DuBois)
12. Great Lakes Czar (Cameron Davis)
13. Green Jobs Czar (Van Jones)
14. Guantanamo Closure Czar (Danny Fried)
15. Health Czar (Nancy-Ann DeParle)
16. Information Czar (Vivek Kundra)
17. Intelligence Czar (Dennis Blair)
18. Mideast Peace Czar (George Mitchell)
19. Mideast Policy Czar (Dennis Ross)
20. Pay Czar (Kenneth Feinberg)
21. Regulatory Czar (Cass Sunstein)
22. Science Czar (John Holdren)
23. Stimulus Accountability Czar (Earl Devaney)
24. Sudan Czar (J. Scott Gration)
25. TARP Czar (Herb Allison)
26. TARP Oversight Czar (Elizabeth Warren)
27. Technology Czar (Aneesh Chopra)
28. Terrorism Czar (John Brennan)
29. Urban Affairs Czar (Adolfo Carrion, Jr.)
30. Weapons Czar (Ashton Carter)
31. Weapons of Mass Destruction Czar (Gary Samore)

Thanks to Taxpayers for Common Sense for the sizable list.

Besides the fact that all of these czars have salaries, and staffs, and research funds, and who knows how much more tax money being allocated to them, they are in no way responsible to the citizens of the United States. These individuals are appointed solely by the President and confirmed by no one. They answer only to the President and have no check on their abundance or influence.

Albeit, some of these positions are complete inventions by the Obama administration, past presidents had advisers in these roles, though they were assigned under Cabinet secretaries, who were approved by the Senate and whose offices were created at the behest of Congress. Even Senator Robert Byrd, who has been serving in the U.S. Senate longer than Barack Obama has been alive, no matter where he was born, is criticizing the President over his unconstitutional power grab with his appointment of these czars.

It's odd that only Fox News is mentioning this on TV, when even Senator Byrd is calling the President out on this.

Let me ask you, do you care?

Our representatives are getting out of touch with reality, and American citizens, too. Recently, the senator from California, Barbara Boxer was questioning a military officer during a committee hearing.

She asks BRIGADIER GENERAL Michael Walsh a question, and then interrupts him with this statement, "Could you say senator instead of Ma'am? It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, thank you." Word for word, and if you don't believe me, click the link and watch the video. Who does she think she is? California, excuse me, but she represents you? I know at Berkley they would have no respect for this man, but an average citizen knowledgeable about the great deeds our military has done for us? Could you ever imagine saying that to a career military officer, no matter what your title?

I could go on and address anything that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) says, but that's like stealing candy from a baby, but this next video clip shows not only the ineptitude of members of Congress, but their complete lack of respect for their constituents.

A major complaint regarding the stimulus package, cap & trade, and now the Obama-care fiasco is that Congress is not giving anyone, anywhere time to read the bills before they decide to vote on them and pass on years of debt to our nation. Here, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is addressing the National Press Club, and let's everyone know what he thinks about reading very important legislation.

We must get away from this reliance on government and blind trust we put in to it. This government is created of us, by us and for us, and we need to stop accepting mediocrity from our representatives. We need and must demand only the utmost from our officials, and if they can't come to the plate for us, we must show them the door.

This is what I believe.

My Political Philosophy

Here are some of my thoughts on Washington, D.C.

Congressional offices need term limits. If an elected official is in the nation's capital for the sole purpose of representing his constituents, he will not feel the need to wade into political pastures outside of his calling like the regulation of steroid use in Major League Baseball, and inquiries into pay raises and bonuses of private corporations. How much tax-payer money is wasted on each of these hearings, and what else could be getting accomplished with all that effort? If you want to see politicians run on true identities and absolute platforms, let them know that they can only be there for a few election cycles. I promise this will cut excess "pork" spending, end unnecessary government programs, and make for a trustworthy entity, whose approval rating will be able to rise above 30%.

Lobbying groups and lobbyists are a legitimate part of bureaucracy. Do they have an easier time achieving personal contact with members of Congress and their staffs? Yes, they do. Do they have as much of an influence on the voting trend of our representatives, as groups without lobbyists claim? Probably not, because in the end, who controls whether that Congressman is elected back to Washington?

Congress and its committees need to remain out of private sector issues, fixing a naturally climate issue, and issues involving the intelligence programs and military activities that are above their security level.

For the most part, our elected officials are active members of their communities: doctors, lawyers, educators, and so on. There are a few who are career politicians, but none are experts in multiple or, most often, any field.

Right now, America is in the middle of a bitter dispute over Obama-care, a nationalized insurance ring that will have an affect initially over every sector of the medical and pharmaceutical fields, but will expand to raise costs on nearly every other practice and work area also. A major complaint is that none of the members of Congress are experts on this issue; of the 535 members of Congress, a whopping 16 are medical doctors, and eleven are Republicans against any form of this health care overhaul. That's 3% of Congress. It seems like if anything, any and all reform should be left up to them, because compared to the other 97% of Congress, they're the experts.

This type of ineptitude is seen all over Congress, and in some places it is quite dangerous. 121 members of Congress have military service, but many of those who are not veteran's of the U.S. military still have leadership positions in committees dealing with foreign affairs, military funding, and intelligence. Just as you wouldn't want your mechanic telling you how to complete your taxes, or lawyers on how to regiment your health care, non-experienced politicians shouldn't be seated in positions of power over career military personnel. Many of these committees require security clearances that are definitely not granted to average citizens, so, pardon me, but, why does a former teacher or banker now qualify to be briefed on top-secret and classified information? As we unfortunately see on a daily basis, swiss cheese is better at stopping leaks than our members of Congress and their staffs.

There is too much information floating around on every type of issue for Congress to become experts on every topic. With the American people's support, we can lasso Congress back to its roots and back to the issues that it was created to resolve.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't need to know how the CIA stops terrorist attacks, and Al Franken doesn't need to tell my doctor how to care for me.

When we as Americans begin to have more self-respect for ourselves than our nonchalant attitude towards Congress, they will begin to listen and will vote our thoughts and our beliefs, not just their agendas.

This is what I believe. Together, you and I will be a revolution.

The Beginning and Utilization of my Philosophy

(Sorry for the length of time between posts)

America, without question, is the greatest and most successful experiment in nation-building the world has ever known. What has led that development is the innate characteristic found within every man. That goal is the desire and pursuit of self-fulfillment and success. Innovation, entrepreneurship, initiative, ambition, and success are all pieces of the American puzzle. And each has played an exacting part on the development of our nation in the physical sense as well as in the psychology of its citizens.

From the development of the colonies from empty earth to the perfection of automated machinery, and to the development of the rule of a democratic republic to the international hegemony earned following the victory of the Second World War, the United States, and those it inspires, has led the world to heights never before possible. And no form of government has peacefully outlasted the one in which we own.


The Constitution was created as an everlasting document and it has and continues to serve its purpose, sporting a mere twenty-seven alterations and additions. This government of ours provides for us and by us the security we need to develop to our greatest potential. Unfortunately, it is now our government that is beginning to deprive us of our ability to develop to our fullest potential.

Now, we are using our Constitution as a crutch to enable our habits and wants to get around difficult decisions. We have begun to question the ultimate legitimacy of the Constitution, because it doesn't fit well with the rest of the world. We want the government to run parts of our private sector because we believe it can do it better. We want the community to have sole responsibility over the raising of our children. And we want the Constitution to say the things that it does not and can not say.

"The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things." Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Proponents and opponents want to use the Constitution to rule on the legality of marriage. In the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Simply put, because the issue of marriage is not found anywhere in the text of the Constitution, it is an issue belonging to the states and the individuals of those states solely. Therefore, any state can create legislation as it wishes regarding the legality or illegality surrounding marriages.

Abortions are another issue in which the Constitution is used to argue both sides, and unfortunately, the issue was forced by the Roe v. Wade case to allow the federal government's regulation of abortion options. This is an issue left solely for the citizens of a state. Arguing that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows for regulation of abortion laws is ludicrous. This is a decision completely left open to the states, just as is capital punishment, ironically.

Furthermore, as our nation rode a great wave of flourishing economic and intellectual growth in the second half of the Twentieth century, a shift began to start moving away from the idea of "What can I do for my country?" to "What else can my country do for me?". The majority of these thinkers can be considered "no-liability voters". Why give them such a name? They don't pay for public services in any way, hence they have no liability to anyone.

Welfare recipients, Medicaid patients, Housing and Urban Development beneficiaries, and other government funded individuals are almost always in the lowest taxable bracket, or fall completely under that threshold. They have very little "skin in the game," and have no inkling to enact a change in their lifestyle. As long as they continue to benefit from politicians promising no change to their program, they will continue to vote for him, no matter what other issues he advocates. Due to the political split of big government/small government these voters will continue to vote solely for Democratic politicians. This is very dangerous for America.

These no-liability voters give politicians a base, and elected officials know this. Get a population with 51% being no-liability voters, and you have yourself a never-ending dominance of political power.

No-liability voters are at the forefront calling for government-run insurance programs. And those who are just above the standards recognized for a no-liability voter are the very next ones in line, as they want to join in the "free" parade. Put those two groups together and Democrats have a majority voting block. Both of those classes know that they will not be paying for their benefits, but that doesn't matter to them, they are "no-liability", remember?

It is at this point that I want to announce the beginning of my campaign. I wish to challenge those individuals as well as the rest of our nation to stand up and have self-respect. Have dignity. Have honor. Get up in the morning and get to work. Educate yourself, advance, and make yourself better in the work place, as well as in the home. In a free market economy, the most efficient, outgoing, advantageous people are the ones who succeed. The "no-liability voter" mentality cannot survive in such an atmosphere. It can only drag us down.

Our Constitution does not live and it does not breathe. It doesn't say what it doesn't say. We can't sit back and expect the world to open doors for us.

We have to build the doors first.

This is what I believe. Come with me if you do, too.

(More to come soon)

A Smorgasbord Post

After a slight hiatus, TEOTW is back. We are also now on Twitter, so feel free to follow us and keep up to date on new blog posts and quick news. Now to our posts.

Over the weekend, the excellence of the U.S. military and the defining spirit of the American people was put on display for the world to see. After being taken captive by Somali pirates, a U.S. cargo ship captain kept his cool about him until an elite squad of U.S. Navy SEALS were able to eliminate his captors to allow him to escape. It made for wonderful news coverage, albeit no one was ever exactly sure where the entire event was taking place, nor what it looked like. Throughout the entire ordeal, we were made sure to know by the MSM that President Obama was being briefed and kept up-to-date on the situation. Then after the rescue/escape his administration finally came out with a statement, glorifying the graciousness of the President for signing an order to authorize lethal force if necessary. That's great! Except, it was not necessary for him to authorize anything. It was a hostage situation with a non-national entity; the military was in complete control of the situation from beginning to end, regardless if Obama signed a document or not.

For example, imagine a bank robbery in which hostages are involved. Will the SWAT team wait for executive approval from D.C., before they take down the hostage-taker if possible?

Obama and Rahm Emmanuel were sitting in Washington waiting for the outcome, ready to pounce on any good news and push themselves away from anything negative. Thankfully for our nation, we heard nothing but good news, but unfortunately we now have to live with the gloating of the Administration, as if they had been the snipers aiming at a ship tossing in the open ocean taking the impossible shots at a group of pirates with a hostage.

Over the weekend, one of the NBC shows was speaking to it's White House correspondent, and the conversation turned to the economy. Of course, being part of the MSM, they were busy talking about the need for greater regulation on corporations, easing of lending for homeowners to prevent foreclosures and the like. At the end of the conversation, the anchor opined that "Americans will just have to get used to the 'new normal.'" The correspondent readily agreed, citing Administration plans to level the economic playing field through continued increases in progressive taxation. This new normal is lower wages, lower yearly incomes, lower economic progress and lower expectations when it comes to anything "American." Is this "new" normal a result of the economic recession? Absolutely not; it is due completely to the policies of the administration and its dressing down of the economy. When taxes are increased, services are provided by the government instead of the free market, and private corporations are forced to deal with the reality that if they fall out of line they can be taken over all bode terribly for the economy not only in the short-term, but also for the long-run.

Finally, we have come to a new low for the American psyche. We have gotten ourselves to a point where we take the words of politicians at an elevated level, assuming that because they have been elected to Congress they are smarter than we are. Congress is made up of lawyers, doctors, teachers, business owners, and life-long government employees. Just because they won an election for Senator or won a majority of 350,000 votes for a House district they are not granted an immediate influx of knowledge. So why do we trust them to spend money, create policy and change the American way of life? Because they've held hearings? Because they won? Because they can?

It has just come out that so far in 2009, $19.6 billion has already been earmarked for pork projects. Anonymous spending without any type of approval from anyone, except those who are writing them in. Plans to restrict open airwaves for whatever type of political commentary because it isn't fair that the free market doesn't include everyone (even if no one listens to some). Cutting defense spending to increase welfare entitlements. Backing down on democratic principals established throughout the last century to open dialogue with extreme fundamentalist, communist, and totalitarian governments. The steps that these individuals are taking because they don't think you know any better are out of control. Every member of Congress must be brought to accountability by the members of their district for the deeds they have done and the attitudes they have developed.

If possible, please attend a Tax Day Tea Party tomorrow, April 15th, to protest the federal government and its outrageous spending habits. We'll be in Mobile, Ala., tomorrow at 12 noon and we look forward to seeing you there.

Balancing Those Who Write the Checks

(Article written by guest author, Drew Moore)

Since the inception of the FED in 1913, that organization has been shrouded in secrecy. The FED is responsible for our money, and our dollar is subject to a fractional reserve banking system. Over time, the FED has printed more money and raised or lowered interest rates to affect money supply and policy. In short, the dollar has been beaten and bruised. I would argue that the FED is not necessary and is unconstitutional because the Founders said "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts," but for the time being we have the Federal Reserve.

The president's administration has said on numerous occasions that there needs to be transparency in our government. Now you can argue whether the taxpayer is or isn't getting that, but that discussion is for another day. H.R. 1207 is a bill that has been introduced by the good Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX). This bill calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve. Now you may say why an audit? Well in 2008 there was a bailout with the price being $700B, can anyone tell me where ALL the money went to? If you can please contact me, if you can't then pause for a moment and think: This is just one isolated point in time where we don't know what happened to all that money. Now expand that thought to almost 100 years and still we the American people are in the dark.

In 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted, enforcing rigid audit requirements on businesses. Now, if the Federal Reserve is separate from the government, just like private businesses who face staunch regulation, why isn't the Fed. audited? I believe that an audit would show that you and I have been robbed. But as mentioned above there is real substance in H.R. 1207.

As a Libertarian minded Republican, this really gives me hope. But no matter if you are a Democrat or Republican, we have common ground found in liberty. The passage of this would be a giant step on the path to restoring our Republic, in the area of economic liberty. From one American to another, please read 1207, then contact your representative and urge them to read/support/co-sponsor this piece of legislation, H.R. 1207. Let's open the books of the Federal Reserve, together we can fix the crack in the liberty bell and this is the first step.

In Liberty,

Drew Moore

ADDENDUM: Click here to access the database for Congressional contacts both in Washington, D.C., and in local district offices.

GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE

This week, Congress and the Administration have come out with their hands raised in exasperation.

Knock it off.

They are complaining about $165 million in bonuses given to AIG executives. Ok, I understand the frustration that AIG were given bailout funds, but they were contractually owed, and in your stimulus bill, Mr. President - that you signed and all members of your party in Congress read (in the 12 hours from writing it to passing), a provision was inserted saying that all bonuses promised before February 11, 2009 could and would be paid.

Stop complaining - you let them do it! Quit trying to act like you had no idea. AIG turned over all its financial records to Geithner for him to review before approving more funds to be given to AIG. He either didn't take the time to read about the bonuses, or didn't care.

What's worse is that now your talking about raising taxes on just the people who got the bonuses from these companies. The House wants to put a 90% tax on individuals who receive a bonus from a company that received $5 billion in bailout funds. Besides being a violation of the Constitution (Bill of Attainder - Article I, Section 9, Clause 3; Ex Post Facto laws - Article I, Section 9, Clause 3), Congress and Obama are setting a precedent that if you make too much money or the federal government thinks that you are doing wrong, then it can take away your income. That does not make sense! Let me say it again:

Even if what your doing is not illegal, if the government deems it to be wrong they will take away your money.

Finally, this issue is minuscule. $165 million in bonuses. While to most Americans it seems like an unbelievable amount, think about this: $3.1 billion, with a 'B', in earmarks were slid through the latest spending bill. Why does no one care about that. How many individuals will be affected by each one of those dollars. At least with these bonuses, the money will be pumped back in to the economy. If $200,000 is granted to build a statute at a high school, where is the long-term financial benefit? The debate over this is utterly hypocritical.

Stop acting as if you, the Democratic Party and President Obama, are offended by this action and result. You let it happen. Senator Dodd has come out and admitted that he inserted the language that allowed the bonuses to be paid at the behest of the Executive Branch. Treasury Secretary Geithner either missed the bonuses or ignored them completely, one or the other. President Obama, you should have vetoed this legislation if you did not want these retaining bonuses to be paid. You are trying to save political face and you are violating the Constitution and the Judicial Branch will shoot your legislation down swiftly and exactly.

I do not care about the bonuses. Not one bit. And secretly, I think, neither do you, Mr. President, Mrs. Speaker, and other Democrats in Congress and throughout D.C. Here is my assumption:

This is a trying time in our nation. A small, undercurrent and counter-culture group is attempting to change the mindset of the citizens of the United States. You are angering the masses towards wealth. Those with wealth and excess wealth are inherently evil. They are the bad guys. It is the wealthy's fault for those who do without. You wish to tax the wealthy and the established in order to be fair to those who are not as well off. And this bonus situation gave you the platform to continue your movement. A mere $165 million and the wealthy are nothing but corrupt and incompetent. They are thieves of our citizen's money. If you can make the masses hate wealth, you can make everyone believe that mediocracy is valuable. If you make people believe that unnecessary sacrifice is patriotic, you can change the world. You can kill capitalism if you can make people believe that no one is smarter, better, or more valuable than anyone else.

The new members of the Democratic Party are trying to shift our nation away from our foundations and everything that the United States has stood for for over two centuries. Playing the blame game in this bonus situation, stirring up imaginary conflicts among members of the Republican Party, and attacking dissenting members of the media are all attempts by this new movement to hide their true actions - nationalizing corporations, over-regulating the economy, constricting wealth, and promoting the educational agenda of socialist/left-wing organizations.

We must not let the wool be pulled over our eyes. Keeping the Constitution at the forefront of every issue is the best way to defeat this attempted governmental conversion. Stay strong, fight for liberty, defend capitalism, and always respect the Constitution and we can never go wrong.

Leading by Example - Presidential Style

"No Earmarks!"
"No Signing Statements!"
"No Lobbyists!"
"No Back-room Politics as usual!"
"Spending Cuts and No Tax Increases!"

While a majority of our nation was swept up in the "shock and awe" of Obama's campaigning, most of his supporter's have been swept under the rug when it comes to the actualization of his campaign promises. For those who have never been behind Obama's ideas or visions, we have been completely thrown under the bus. It seems that 95% of Americans will not see their taxes "not rise." 100% of Americans will see some of their inalienable rights alienated. And politics are no longer "as usual," but are regressing further and further.

Obama has outright lied to the American people. He promised to veto any legislation that came to his desk with earmarks. Yet this past week he passed the $410 billion bill to continue government funding for the rest of the fiscal year. And the bill was laden with 4,000 earmarks. His excuse: we have no choice. Great example for the youth of America - say one thing and do another, and place the blame on someone else. Remember, we're in the financial crisis not because of Obama, but because President Bush drug us here.

In his attempt to take focus off of his administrations failures so far (multiple appointments crashing and buring in regards to taxes; inability to avoid lobbyists or earmarks; increasing troop numbers in foreign conflicts and extending his own proscribed deadline for bringing troops out of Iraq) the administration has used its mainstream media (MSM) cult following to shine the camera on voices of opposition. Labeling Rush Limbaugh as the head of the GOP, questioning how Sean Hannity can fuel the fire of Republican opposition, claiming the Republicans in the House of Representatives are the "Party of No," and using Robert Gibbs to belittle dissenters of the administrations economic plans, i.e. Cramer and Santelli. When will he stop being so PARTISAN. Making other people look evil does not make them evil, it makes you the bad guy.

50+ days in and the country is in much worse shape than it was at any point of the Bush Administration. But Obama continues to refuse to "let the buck stop here."

The Government and Medicine

Today, let us talk about the growing movement to nationalize, or should I say "standardize" the medical field. The Obama Administration has laid out plans to spend at least $634 billion (page 67) over the next ten years to expand health care in the nation. In it's budget, half of the "down payment" will come from raised taxes and revoked tax write-offs from those earning $250,000 or more a year.

Before I get started, however, we'll go over a few facts. Obama claims that 45 million people in this nation don't have health insurance. In other words, 85% of us do, and 15% don't. When the numbers are put that way, it doesn't sound like such a crisis, huh? Of those 45 million, 18 million make $50,000 or more a year, 10 million of those are at atleast $75,000 a year. 10 million more aren't even U.S. citizens. Finally, of those remaining not already covered, 14 million qualify for Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP, but simply aren't signed up. But that's ok, American's should have to sacrifice for those too lazy or cheap to get around to providing for themselves.

New York Post

What was it that the most liked member of the Kennedy dynasty said? "[S]o, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country." Too bad that idea was flushed out to sea with Johnson's Great Society, bringing entitlement programs to many and a "couldn't care less" inclination to most.

1986 can be looked at as a year in which Congress openly invited illegal aliens to flock to our giving nation. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act guarantees anyone, no matter their legal status, funding - anything - access to medical care, even with foreknowledge that payment cannot or will not ever be paid. Free emergency health care.

Wait, what about the Hippocratic Oath; doctors would never deny a person in immediate need, right? On one hand, no. If treatment was pertinent and necessary, doctors are held to a moral standard to save lives, but this law required them to perform any emergency task without even the chance of being remunerated.

Welcome, citizens of Mexico, who snaked your way through Arizona backcountry with a child who broke his leg on the way through; we'll pay your bill to fix him. Welcome, Mr. Canadian, who could no longer wait the weeks to get a doctor's appointment in your own country because of nationalized healthcare, but instead crossed in to Minnesota to back up our emergency rooms even more. Welcome, unemployed high school diploma holder, who instead of going to college, decided to provide for yourself by stealing and reselling copper wiring and sheeting from construction sites and lacerated your arm jumping over the barbed wire fencing around your crime scene; we'll stitch you right up and send you out the door, no cost to you.

Now, do we feel sorry for these people or for the doctors and hospitals losing their profits? Neither, the hospitals pass on the lost income to those who do pay: the patients with health insurance, the patients with the capability to pay their way. Thanks, Congress.

So far, we've seen how the federal government involving itself has done nothing but clog our health system and consequently indangered our health and safety, but that's the past. We now have to look forward for CHANGE.

Even with all the Fed interventions, we have seen our life expectancies climb up to near 80 years. Also, because the government has been blocked out of the research and development of drugs and medicine, private companies have been able to venture, investigate, and experiment with a huge variety of sciences in attempts to increase the overall health of the nation to even higher grounds.

Now, we have government intervention. And it is only beginning. $634 billion in a down payment. $634 billion over the next ten years of the government intruding in to the private sector. That doesn't even count the billions included in the stimulus bill just passed going to the computerizing medical records. The most difficult thing about this, is that Obama refuses to even say where the money is truly going and how "universal health care" will be dealt with.

1. For those of us with our own insurance, do we lose everything we've paid in to it and are forced to join some government program? If so, are medical records (now conveniently available on a computer network) going to be reviewed by government employees tasked with sending certain patients to certain doctors at certain times? Do we lose any privacy we once had with doctor/patient confidentiality?
2. Those without insurance, are they going to be the ones who have to buy in to the government program? If so, we the taxpayers are paying their way, correct? If that's the case, then we, as the guarantor, should have the ability to regulate the actions of the guarantee, i.e. you can't smoke, you can't drink, you can't engage in risky behavior, you can't be sexually promiscuous. With that, those individuals right's have been compromised because they are limited. So therefore, restrictions cannot be placed on individuals buying in to the government's universal health care. Since that can't happen, there will be no responsibility on the guarantee's part to maintain a healthy lifestyle and the guarantor will be giving away his income to pay for the irresponsible actions of others.

It is a long held belief that $1 in an individuals hand will be spent more efficiently and effectively than $1 in the government's hand. As such, if the government wants better health care for all, it should reform malpractice laws, which will lower doctor's overheads, which will then through the competition of the market, lower health costs, and finally lower insurance premiums, allowing more individuals - if they so choose - to buy in to health insurance. All this without the government really needing tax dollars.

If it truly wants to use it's might, perhaps revamping Medicare into a competitive market between a variety of companies and allowing seniors to purchase in at a rate of their choosing, i.e. more or less coverage, the "government" will be providing health care, saving senior citizens money, the taxpayers money, and encouraging economic growth by increasing health plan companies interaction in this growing market.

There are many more facets of concern facing the Obama Administration and its plan to change the American medical field. It's one thing to fix a broken system, but when the system represents the most productive, efficient, and profitable system in the world, government tinkering should be kept to a minimum.

No, You Can

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States. It's beginning statement is one of the most recognized American phrases in our language: "We the People." Commonly cited as the summation of core American values, the Preamble is a starting point for the establishment of our Democracy. However, in the past month, our new Administration has implemented a plan of action that seems to completely re-write our most sacred of documents.

And it sounds a little like this:

Yes we can people of the United States, in order to disintegrate the most perfect Union, eradicate Justice, guarantee international instability, prosecute the defense of the common defense, redefine generational Welfare, and hand out the Blessings of Liberty to everyone citizen and not, do Mandate that the remaining Articles of the Constitution of the United States of America surcease.

In regards to the Fairness Doctrine (diversity in ownership, same thing) to ratifying the U.N.'s Convention of the Rights of the Child, the Obama administration is stepping all over the rules and requirements of the Constitution.

Even members of Obama's party have begun to speak out against his aggressive political actions. Senator Robert Byrd has labeled Barack's actions as nothing but a "power grab."

When will our Congressional delegation begin to stand up to this assault on the Constitution? John McCain tried to today, by bringing a Constitutional Point of Order during the debate on giving Washington, D.C.'s representative a vote on the House floor, however, it was voted down, 36-62. On the other side of the building, the House passed a $410 billion spending bill to support more government functions.

Southern governors have recently been seen getting back to their previous century roots, standing in contrast to Washington. While critics play the race card (Congressman Jim Clyburn: “slap in the face to African-Americans”), governors are truly worried about Constitutional breaches in regards to Federalism and the requirements of receiving funds the stimulus funds and taxes. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal have all come out saying that they won't accept, at the least, the unemployment incentives from the stimulus bill because of the required raising of taxes after the stimulus is gone. THANK YOU. Alabama Governor Bob Riley has said that he will not recommend the state legislature change state laws to include unemployment benefits for those with "compelling family reason(s)" for quitting their job and filing their claim. Even Democratic Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen has broken ranks on the issue of stimulus funds.

While we have seen more monies promised to be spent in the first five weeks of this Administration than all the totals of the War on Terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have not even come close to all the assaults on liberty that we will see with the increase of the socialist mentality.

Fear Mongering

While we have heard our President criticizing capitalism since he "won," and watched the stock market tank since the beginning of TARP and Obama becoming the President-elect, we have seen little proof that any government involvement is going to help the economic downturn.

TARP I and II ($250 billion and possibly upwards of $1 trillion, respectively) have seen little success in "jump-starting" the economy. The first auto bailout failed, because GM and Chrysler have revealed their plans for restructuring: more government money, another $20 billion. Not all the nation’s economists have supported the Democratic Party’s spending bill, nor does it represent any hopeful possibilities in relation to future success. The Congressional Budget Office has come out saying that in the end it will have the effect of lowering GDP. In fact, the stimulus bill is larger than Australia's GDP (the only country that encompasses an entire continent). Last time I was in a political economy class, we learned that government infusion and intervention hampered private-sector spending and growth, i.e. the United States during the 1930's and Japan in the 1990's.

Conservative and fiscally responsible minds have been crying out for restraint, but the new Congress and Administration continues to push forward with their Progressive policies that push the bounds of rational thought and constitutionality.

The United States has always been a risk and reward business country. In fact, it is what we started out on - a risk. A bunch of untrained civilians carrying muskets running around the country-side trying to overthrow the greatest military power in the world. No, not the insurgency in Iraq, but the American Revolution. The consequences of not doing anything made the risk of the Revolution worth it. The same with entrepreneurs opening a business. The risk of losing the start-up costs with no return at all will not stop dedicated individuals from aiming for the stars and the riches of a successful enterprise.

Not everyone is a risk-taker, and those that do not have the guts to stick their necks out on the line are not rewarded with the payoffs. The promise of government support and entitlement programs will kill any initiative Americans have at trying their hand out in business.

Extending health care to everyone is worthless on many fronts.

1) For the patient, knowing that full health coverage is available around the corner will result in several actions and attitudes: a) Every sniffle and sneeze will require a doctor's check-up, because it's free; b) Individuals won't worry about saving money for an incident that might require sacrifice, because the government will be footing the bill, therefore it will result in a lack of responsibility in personal fiscal matters.

2) For the doctor, government oversight will hamper their practice in a variety of ways: a) Government oversight will inevitably lead into standardization of practice. Standardization leads itself to lack of specialization, therefore making the practice of doctor lose its awe. b) With standardization, pay will begin to be capped. Therefore, the costs of medical school will not be worth the return of limited salary and required treatments.

3) For the taxpayer, providing the funding for health care for others will be both expensive and inefficient. Using taxes to pay health bills will result in unexpected expenses every year, making budgeting impossible. With the government controlling the funding of the medical field, doctors and their services will be rationed and herded to certain locations, decreasing competition and increasing wait times, so those with clean bill's of health coming in for a check-up will be stuck in an endless line of those waiting for treatment because of the lack of doctor's to chose from.

We see the federal government vowing to buy-up toxic mortgages from banks and refinancing house payments for those who have faulted or are about to default on their payments. This makes no sense. I take that back, it makes as much sense as giving rights to ILLEGAL ALIENS and denying them to U.S. citizens protecting their property from these invaders. Listen to the term that the Obama administration uses: TOXIC ASSETS. In Japan during the Lost Decade, toxic assets were purchased, pushing the costs of the financial situation higher and extending the recession longer. Secondly, there should be punishment involved in this. And not just at the corporate level. The individual homebuyer who thought it was "his time" to get a house, even though there was no possible way of affording it, should not be allowed to remain in their home because of their stupidity. That is an insult to those who have saved, budgeted, and done without in order to eventually purchase a home.

FIND IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE IT GUARANTEES INDIVIDUALS THE RIGHT TO A PRIVATE HOME. You cannot do it. This Congress and Administration are tossing the Constitution by the wayside.

And what is their argument? Bush did it, too. False. Bush and his Administration were validated by the Supreme Court and previous Presidential precedent. He followed the rules, even he had to make the rules first. Obama, however, isn't even trying to sneak around them. He is out everyday campaigning for an anti-Constitution administration.

I'm not against poor people. I'm not against disadvantaged people. I'm not against unintelligent people. I am against, and you should be, too, those who wish to drive our country off the cliff by ignoring the ground rules of the Constitution in order to provide for "others."

Believing in Obama

To start out, I believe you have failed the educational institution from which you learned if you voted for Barack Obama and continue to believe in him.

He wants to push past partisanship. He wants ideologies broken down.

How is that possible.

Partisanship? Calling out conservative radio hosts. Beyond partisanship. Inviting Republican leaders to include them on a massive spending bill, then denouncing their ideas and input by proclaiming, "I won." Mature, and post-partisan.

Being a fear-monger; playing on the desperation of the unemployed, needy, or stupid; insulting the efforts of those who believe this action is beyond the bounds established by the United States Constitution; praising a bill that only gets 13% of the hundreds of billions of dollars in to the economy this year, even though he's admitted the bill isn't perfect, we should question his motives, intelligence and ideas for this bill.

What kind of President belittles the American people and the elected officials they've selected by saying that because an individual is a Republican, or even a Democrat, they are against the American way because they refused to vote on some bill that takes from all Americans and gives to a guaranteed none.

Tonight, Obama, in his first press conference, stated that the only people who were against the stimulus were politicians bickering because they are partisan.

Most economists almost unanimously (that statement doesn't make sense, really) recognize that, even if philosophically you're wary of government intervening in the economy ... that government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy.

CNN.com

To that, Mr. Obama, I give you an open letter from economists from major universities across the nation. Including Harvard, Stanford, and your alma mater, Columbia.

In a matter of days, because of the spineless Senators from the state of Maine, and Senator Arlen Spector, you will be the President who will spend more money than any other leader at one time than anyone in the history of government. And you're doing it all on some "higher agenda" of social equality. Fault the rich for being wealthy, and fault the rich for the poor being poor. How do we solve the problems? We attack the problem with money. Money that doesn't exist. Money that will cause inflation to sky-rocket.

Insane spending by Roosevelt did not end the Great Depression.

Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And, in fact, there are several who've suggested that FDR [President Roosevelt] was wrong to interfere back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.

CNN.com

FDR did not solve the problem. In fact, the Supreme Court was forced to strike down legislation passed in the New Deal because it far exceeded any power given to the Federal Government. What did he do in return? He labeled the Court old men and tried to replace them and knock down their relevance, often referred to as Roosevelt's Court Packing.

What solved the problems of the Great Depression was the transition into the war time economy brought on after Pearl Harbor.

In the end, what is Obama doing? Where is he planning on going with this spending? How does he plan on bringing jobs that have gone abroad to come back? Is he going to nationalize companies and force them to bring their factories back. How is he going to fill specialized and skilled labor positions? Grant high school drop-outs collegiate degrees and grant upon them shared communal knowledge?

Who does he expect to fool? The only ones watching and listening are those who've been calling him out on his inexperience and short-fallings since the beginning.

Integrity...and the Hope and Change we can believe in? Part Two

To pick up where I left off, we continue a look at the failed (and failing) candidates for Obama's Cabinet.

5. Hilda Solis: Labor Secretary - The Congresswoman from the 32nd district of California has proven to be another thorn in the side of Obama vetters. After relaxing in the beautiful honeymoon of media support, the administration is quickly coming unraveled, much like Obama's stimulus bill in the Senate.

Stemming all the way back to 1993, Solis and her husband have had as much as $11,000 in tax liens filed against Sam H. Sayyad's business. After the White House was questioned about the issue on Tuesday, Sayyad finally took the effort to pay of the remaining $6,000 on Wednesday. Luckily the USA Today took the effort to point out this error, even though Los Angeles County tax collector claims that all with tax liens filed against them are notified by mail.

This news caused the Senate Labor Committee to delay her confirmation hearings, with Senatorial aides stating that committee members are taking a "wait and see" approach.

Another hold-up facing her confirmation is her place on the Board of Directors of a unionization organization, American Rights at Work which might involve a bit of conflict of interest considering her nomination as LABOR SECRETARY.

As the Obama Secretary-designates continue to spiral farther and farther beyond the realm of integrity, the public must begin to question the authenticity of the B.H.O.

6. Leon Panetta: Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The former Chief of Staff in the Clinton Administration has already been dragged through the coals for his lack of experience or knowledge in the Intelligence Community. To pour more fuel on the fire is quite easy to do, and I'll do it gladly. $700,000 in speakers fees since the beginning of 2008. Speaker's fees are not really that big of deal. Toss in where some of the fees came from and that's where the trouble starts:

• $56,000 from Merrill Lynch & Co., who was later bought out by bailed out Bank of America.
• $28,000 from Wachovia Corporation, who agreed to being sold to Wells Fargo & Company.
• $28,000 from the Carlyle Group. Who is the Carlyle Group? A private firm that owns a variety of companies who do business with defense agencies, including the CIA. Conflict of interest, anyone?
• $60,000 from the Pacific Maritime Association for a "Governmental Advisor Fee." PMA lobbies members of Congress on legislation relating to terrorism laws and shipping. Another conflict of interest?
  

Wall Street Journal

7. Eric Holder: Attorney General - The former Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, Holder is the first African-American U.S. Attorney General. That positive might be the only positive thing surrounding his appointment and confirmation. Holder helped orchestrate the final hour pardon of Marc Rich during the Clinton days.

In 1983, Marc Rich was indicted for tax evasion ($48 million) and engaging in trade with Iran (oil deals) while that nation held 52 U.S. diplomats hostage. He fled to Switzerland and never returned. On January 19, 2001, Rich's pardon came across the desk of the impeached President. How it got there involves shading dealings involving Rich's wife and donations to the Clinton Presidential Library and the Democratic Party. When asked about his stance on whether the pardon should be granted, Holder was "neutral leaning towards favorable."

This man is now our Attorney General. The Justice Department is against trying the enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay in military tribunals, but it's leader is on the record as being supportive of releasing dangerous and un-American criminals who engage in trade with the enemy.

8. David Ogden: Deputy Attorney General - This man is a total left-wing nut. As an attorney for the ACLU and the pornography industry, he argued cases against requirements for parental notification for teenagers getting abortions and against filtering programs of adult materials at public library computers.

With these two men at the top of the Justice Department, we can only wonder what type of Supreme Court justices Obama might one day pick, or the cases that he dictates they pursue.

In all, only eight names. However, these are only a handful. Many more are probably slipping through the cracks and will only come to light later. Our nation doesn't have the opportunity or time to sit back and wait for these faulty picks to fulfill their destiny. It it up to our Congress to prevent any further deterioration of the Federal government.

Integrity...and the Hope and Change we can believe in?

The Obama administration rode to power on a wave of support coming from individuals across our nation with little to no knowledge of politics or how they work. He promised us a change in the Beltway Politics. Lobbyists would have no influence in his administration. Transparency would be the key to his success. Being the guy "who [doesn't] look like those other Presidents..." we figured he wouldn't partake in backroom dealings and make sure that all his i's were dotted and t's crossed. Or at least make sure someone could have sprung for an accountant.

Let's take just a short look at the diseases already plaguing Mr. Obama in regards to his Cabinet:

1. Governor Bill Richardson: Commerce Secretary - The governor of New Mexico was the first Obama appointee to crash and burn, and he managed to do it long before Inauguration Day. An ethics investigation into the awarding of a bid to a company by New Mexico that had given $100,000 to PAC's started by Richardson set off alarms, and the idea of Richardson being Commerce Secretary was quickly pushed under the rug. This "pay-for-play", the company managed to bank almost $1.5 million off its "advising" role in a state refinancing plan, scheme seems to be running amuck in the Democratic Party nowadays.

2. Timothy Geithner: Treasury Secretary - Geithner was the former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. During his Senate confirmation hearings, it was revealed that Geithner had failed to pay self-employment taxes while at the IMF. To the tune of $35,000. These claimed lapses in accounting occurred in 2001 and 2003. When did Mr. Geithner finally get around to paying? After he was approached by the Obama team for the potential Cabinet position. How is a man who can't even notice to pay his own taxes going to be responsible for the taxation of all Americans?

That's not all with Geithner, either. He also employed an illegal housekeeper. But that's ok, because we are in a new age - a new age where we look past actual laws, a new age where it's ok as long as it isn't done again. Unless, you're Average Joe. Then you've got some scrambling to do, either with your illegal gardener or your confusing W-2.

3. Nancy Killefer: Chief Performance Officer - Killefer, too, was in need of an accountant, or just a basic understanding of the law, when it came to taxes. Regarding hired help in her D.C. home, she had trouble filing a mere $900 in unemployment comp taxes. In a letter to President Obama obtained by Real Clear Politics Killefer stated:

I recognize that your agenda and the duties facing your Chief Performance Officer are urgent. I have also come to realize in the current environment that my personal tax issue... [are] exactly the kind of distraction and delay those duties must avoid.

She withdrew her name, quietly albeit, from the nomination, leaving Obama scrambling to fill this all-too-important position with someone who has integrity and honor (and maybe financial discipline as well).

4. Tom Daschle: Health and Human Services Secretary - Daschle, former Senator of South Dakota knew how to use his connections during his time as a regular citizen. Instead of taking the wonderful D.C. transit system around the District, he had the services of a chauffeured Cadillac that he thought was just a gift from a good friend, not a taxable income. How many of us could have used a free ride when gas prices were sky-rocketing? In all, Daschle owed the IRS nearly $150,000 in taxes that he had failed to report.

On top of his tax issues, since leaving the Senate, Daschle has raked in $5.2 million from organizations and donors, including $220,000 from health care groups he would be working above directly in his post.

Worried that he would smear the Obama administration, he withdraw his nomination on February 3rd. Just in time, huh?

As a bit of first post humor, here is how Daschle used to commute:

Daschle should've kept the Pontiac

Unfortunately, this is just the beginning. Obama is using his "I won" mantra as his proof that he knows the true way to American prosperity. With a blatant disregard for the feelings of the American people, he is jamming through this spending bill, pushing for Cabinet nominations that don't qualify, and believing that his election guarantees him unfaltering support. Obama is quick to forget the troubles that followed his predecessor.

The tide will turn, the bold will speak up, and those who voted for Obama will realize the error of their ways - or just continue to watch Judge Joe Brown everyday.




I'll outline some more cronies that Obama pledged to oust but seems to be including in my next post. As a preview: Hilda Solis, Leon Panetta, Eric Holder, and Holder's soon to be subordinate David Ogden.