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.