Here are some traditional characteristics of this country Obama and the political left ‘hope’ to change, in no particular order:

• Free speech - greatly reduced with thought-crimes (Hate crimes) laws, as well as backdoor ‘Fairness Docrtine’ policies already in the works.
• Judges who respect the proper role of judiciary - gone, in favor of activist judges who rule by personal feelings and believe in a ‘living’ Constitution, which means no Constitution.
• Free markets - mostly gone in favor of a command and control economy.
• Fair elections - mostly gone with rampant voter fraud via ACORN, etc.
• Equal protection or rule of law - gone, in favor of equality of outcomes.
• God - gone from the public square completely.
• Keep and bear arms - gone.
• Property rights - further restricted and can be confiscated at any time by the state.
• Economic freedom - further restricted with more taxes, licenses, fees, regulations.
• States rights - further eroded in favor of federal power.

If they truly had their way, America would look nothing like the nation it was before, and would be reduced to another European-like socialist nation, at best. Our Constitution, for all intents and purposes, would be rendered null and void, and turned into just a museum curiosity.

Ask yourself this question; does Barack Hussein Obama have more in common politically/philosophically with Thomas Jefferson or Hugo Chavez of Venezuela? You can compare and contrast Obama with any of the other Founding Fathers to any socialist dictators, and reach the same conclusion. Obama is far more in line philosophically with authoritarian socialists. I know some will object that Obama does not want concentration camps. Yes, they may differ in degree, but not in kind. There is no such thing as a safe amount of socialism. Soft tyranny is still tyranny no matter how you slice it.

Obama sayshe believes in free markets, says he wants a small government, etc. But Obama says a lot of things. He is deceiving the people like the masterful politician he is. Don’t listen to what a politician says to know what he believes, look to what he does. Actions really do speak louder than words. His actions, friendships and political alliances are far more revealing than his soothing rhetoric.

You don’t try to change the country fundamentally if you love and respect it. Obama’s ‘Hope’ is to completely undo everything that made America great to begin with. From free markets, to limited government, to the Bill of Rights, Obama and his supporters are either for greatly reducing or eliminating altogether the foundations of American exceptionalism. It is absolutely frightening to consider the consequences of what that will mean to this country and the world, but that is what Obama ‘Hope’ represents.

President Obama refuses to see the folly of his foreign policy approach. Appeasement of our enemies combined with military cutbacks will have the same disastrous outcome like every other time in history it was tried. The Neville Chamberlains in the Obama administration believe that all you need to do is sit down with your adversaries, listen to their grievances, make concessions, and peace will follow. It’s a nice idea, but rarely works, without backing up negotiations with the possibility of force, and the will to use it, or else every agreement can be broken without consequence.

Is a softer approach justified given current events? North Korea recently launched a missile over Japan in an unprovoked show of force. Iran is moving at full speed to acquire a nuclear weapon, with a leader who publicly announced his desire to see Israel destroyed, as well as America. Baitullah Mehsud, the head of the Taliban in Pakistan, said the next attack would be in the heart of American power: “Not in Afghanistan, but in Washington, which will amaze the entire world.” Russia is rearming itself and bullying former soviet bloc nations, while supplying Iran with nuclear technology. Pirates from Somalia brazenly attack shipping vessels, etc.

Then we see Obama hugging and greeting, like old friends, rabidly anti-American Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez has embraced Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir and proudly calls them friends. Obama also intends to lift some Cuban sanctions in an effort to herald a new openness with the Castro regime. Cuba is a one party system with no freedom of speech, a secret police, no free elections, no media freedom, and no labor freedom. Much the same as what Obama and the political left in America would like to see here undoubtedly.

In the meantime our Department of Homeland Security is busy watching the most loyal and patriotic citizens as being potential ‘threats’ to America. How ironic that they look outside the government for threats to America when the real threats are in the government. The president himself has close alliances and friendships with terrorists like Bill Ayers and other radicals, but is the DHS watching Obama?

If that wasn’t bad enough, the DHS has dropped ‘war on terror’ and ‘terrorist attack’ from its vocabulary, and instead uses “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters”. No more “unlawful enemy combatants” in Guantanamo Bay, only “detainees”. It is ludicrous to believe that merely changing the terminology will somehow change the reality.

Obama will only embolden our enemies with his hate-America-first world tour, and thus justify in the minds of our enemies that America deserves to be attacked. Unilaterally apologizing for America’s sins, almost never put into any historical context, only makes us look weak and unsure of ourselves. None of Obama’s groveling apologies will stop Iran from going nuclear, nor stop the North Korean missile program. Venezuela is allying with Iran and Russia, all of whom are strengthening their world influence, which often goes against ours. Cuba is also strengthening its ties to Iran and Russia, and just last December Russian warships docked for the first time in Cuba since the cold war.

The rest of the world may temporarily like us better because there isn’t a ‘cowboy’ in the White House, but it won’t last long. In an off-the-record critique of Obama’s performance, even France’s President Sarkozy called him “Weak, inexperienced, and badly briefed.” Obama says he wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons, which sounds like a very noble idea. However, how do you trust other nations to keep their word? The Clinton-Carter deal with North Korea, who promised to abandon their nuclear weapons program in return for billions in aid, lied to us by having a secret program all along. Obama’s foolishly naïve and irresponsible actions are that of an ideologue, and will do much more harm than good.

“The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) - including the use of waterboarding - caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.” Obama’s own national intelligence director conceded that harsh methods had yielded valuable insights into al-Qaida.

Yes, sometimes the person will crack under pressure and say what they think the interrogator wants to hear, but then you check out that information to see if it could be legitimate. But to suggest that a certain technique constitutes ‘torture’ , and can never be used, is to deprive us of a valuable tool that may extract useful information. Can those who are willing to ban this technique honestly say it’s worth losing innocent lives, possibly in the thousands or millions, to avoid discomforting or frightening a terrorist?

America does not engage in true torture. It’s amazing to hear those who say that waterboarding is torture when it does not physically harm the person. If your definition of torture is anything that causes discomfort or yields information, then just about anything can be called torture. Waterboarding is not like electrocution or burning, where permanent physical damage is done. Waterboarding is mostly psychological and may be terrifying, but we are not using this interrogation method on Boy Scouts or nuns - these are terrorists who are actively trying to kill Americans.

The fact that so many waterboarding demonstrations have taken place should give pause to those who call it torture. After all, if it is so bad, why are people voluntarily going through it for demonstration purposes? I don’t see people volunteering for electrocution or being hit with a Roman scourging whip.

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” and gave some reasons that need to be broken down and looked at more closely. The DHS has made warnings of leftwing groups in the past, but was always very specific. However, this time there seems to be a generalized attack on all those on the political right. Janet Napolitano, the head of the DHS, is an Obama appointee so it’s not surprising this kind of statement would come out.

The DHS warning includes, as one of the reasons for the “rise of rightwing extremism”, the “election of the first black president”. Notice how they include racism on the Right when it has primarily been a Left phenomenon. Conservatives have no problem with a black president, if he were say, Justice Thomas. The issue is un-American socialism, not skin color.

Also included was a footnote saying, “rightwing extremism…including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.” Again, racist groups are not rightwing, but are something more like apolitical anarchists who are racists. “Hate groups” is a bit vague and can mean virtually anything. I consider N.O.W. a hate group, and they certainly aren’t rightwing.

And finally this part: “reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.” In fact, this statement from the DHS is incomplete. What it should read is - “reject unconstitutional federal authority…” Those on the political right have no problem with legitimate, constitutionally authorized federal authority. It’s when the federal government usurps power not delegated to it by the constitution that we reject. This is actually a good thing, as the people are doing their patriotic duty. If The People do not keep the powers of the federal government in check, who will?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/

http://thenationalscene.com/breaking-dhs-warning-rightwing-extremism/

Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder said that the president will seek to reinstate and make permanent the ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’, despite Obama promising on the campaign trail that he would not be a gun-grabber. Obama told voters “I’m not going to take your guns away”, and “Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I think people can take me at my word.” We see his word is worth little or nothing.

Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) was the champion of the 1994 so-called assault weapons ban. She said these guns are “more deadly” and are the weapon of choice for gangs. Wrong. All firearms are potentially lethal, and so-called assault weapons are no more deadly than any other firearm. Gangs and drug cartels obtain their guns on the black market and from foreign sources. Taking them away from the average citizen accomplishes nothing against crime.

The U.S. Department of Justice conducted two studies of the consequences of the 1994 assault weapons ban. In 1999, Bill Clinton’s Justice Department looked exhaustively at the ban’s effects. It concluded that “the public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.” In 2001, a second Justice Department review similarly found no evidence that the ban had a statistically significant effect on violent crime. A congressionally mandated study by the Urban Institute reached comparable conclusions.

So-called assault weapons are used only in a tiny fraction of crimes compared to handguns and so-called ‘Saturday night specials’. Data compiled by criminologist Gary Kleck put the frequency of ‘assault weapons’ use in all violent crime at 0.5 percent. Most criminals do not prefer these types of weapons because they are more difficult to conceal and more costly to obtain. More people are killed each year by drowning compared to ‘assault weapons’.

The new tactic is to claim that by banning these types of guns it will help Mexico with their drug cartel violence. Aside from the fact that robbing Americans of a constitutionally protected right to aid a foreign government is ludicrous, there is no evidence to suggest that banning these semi-automatic firearms will help Mexico’s problems. And even if guns were coming from the US into Mexico, it’s not a gun issue, but a border issue. Secure the borders and you won’t have to worry about illegal guns or drugs crossing the border (not to mention illegal people crossings).

Most of the people get their news and information from the mainstream media, which is manifestly anti-gun. People need to be educated about the myths surrounding guns in general and ‘assault weapons’ in particular. Why is there this scary word ‘assault’ attached to certain guns? Can’t you assault someone with any gun, or a knife or just about anything else for that matter? So that word is meaningless, aside from its usage as a buzzword to help demonize certain semi-automatic firearms.

‘Assault weapons’ are NOT machine guns. Fully automatic guns are called machine guns and cannot be owned by the general public (with extremely rare exceptions). When you pull and hold the trigger of a machine gun, multiple bullets are fired. If you pull and hold the trigger of an ‘assault weapon’, a single bullet is fired, which is no different than any hunting rifle. In fact, one of the rifles that would be banned is the common AR-15 Sporter rifle, which is commonly outfitted for hunting.

So how then do they define ‘assault weapon’? It is defined purely by cosmetics and nothing more. This irrational gun-banning crusade is based only on the appearances of certain guns. Some look like their military counterparts, but are NOT the same thing; internally and functionally they are different. Therefore there is no rational basis to ban these types of firearms.

Watch as the news media begin focusing more of their stories on gun crimes. This is intentionally done to help the Obama Administration enact more gun control. If they get their way, the Second Amendment will be further eroded until it is almost gone (which is their ultimate goal). Do not fall for the lies and deception from the anti-gun Democrats and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media.

The political, academic and media elites hate the idea of the people being armed because they do not trust the people. These immoral and arrogant aristocrats see the American people as small-town rubes to be subjugated and controlled. However, they do trust government agents to have ‘assault weapons’, as well as full machine guns, because they have direct control over them.

This is just another step on the road to banning all firearms. The anti-liberty crowd is devious in their tactics and uses what has been called incrementalism. Meaning, they will slowly take away rights piece by piece, so you don’t notice the infringement all at once, while claiming they just want ‘common sense’ restrictions with every seemingly small step.

Tyrants, criminals, and the political left all prefer their victims unarmed. Only an immoral person would deny a citizen the right to exercise one of the most fundamental aspects of liberty imaginable. The right to keep and bear arms has been an integral part of our nation since its inception, and We The People should not allow the erosion of that valuable right.

http://thenationalscene.com/truth-socalled-assault-weapons-media/

CNN’s Rick Sanchez stated that “Fox News and listening to right-wing radio” influenced the guy who shot three police officers in Pittsburgh. Sanchez said, “That weekend tragedy involves a man who allegedly shot and killed three police officers in cold blood. Why? Because he was convinced, after no doubt watching Fox News and listening to right-wing radio, that quote, ‘Our rights were being infringed upon.’” Poplawski (the killer) also believed in conspiracy theories and that the Jews secretly controlled the government. He came from a broken home, was expelled from high school and dishonorably discharged from the Marines. That kind of background hardly describes the average gun owner in America (roughly 90 million).

Rick Sanchez is just another spokesperson for lies and misinformation from the mainstream media. Sadly, today’s mainstream media has no integrity, and basically abandoned all neutrality when it became a propaganda disseminator for left-wing politics. Sanchez is no different from just about every other talking head in the big media.

Sanchez asked, “Are Americans being fed a pack of lies about President Obama and gun laws?”

No they are not lies, but the agenda of the political left. Attorney General Eric Holder had expressed that the Obama administration sought “a few gun-related changes…among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.” Almost everyone in the Obama administration is vehemently anti-gun. There are some pro-gun Democrats, but none are in this Administration. Liberal Democrats have made it clear that they intend to attack the Second Amendment. We heard for years how Bush was ’shredding the constitution’, but it was untrue. The true Constitution shredders are, and always have been, liberal Democrats. What more proof do you need than the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights constantly being under attack from the Left?

The mainstream anti-gun media is once again priming their audience to accept more constitutional infringements with the help of the anti-gun Democrats. No matter how many books, articles, and studies have shown that disarming citizens does nothing to reduce crime, they still can’t accept it. Liberals cannot understand how they are only hurting the people, the ones they claim to care about, by passing unconstitutional laws severely restricting our rights.

Apparently they believe that disarming law abiding normal citizens will somehow stop criminals and nuts from obtaining guns. If criminals obeyed the law to begin with, they wouldn’t be criminals. So more restrictive gun laws will do nothing to stop shooting sprees, but only enable the killer to carry out their attack without resistance.

If more people were allowed to carry concealed weapons, then the killer would be stopped much sooner with less injuries and deaths. An armed citizen would be able to shoot back and put an end to the maniac’s rampage. Calling the police and waiting for them to arrive is clearly not a winning strategy. By the time the police arrive, the shooter has usually already taken their own life, and the cops have nothing to do except count bodies and fill out paperwork.

http://thenationalscene.com/

To answer the question posed by my last posting we need to turn to the schools and universities. The root cause of the socialist ideas in popular culture can be traced directly to the education system in this country. It is here where many of the journalists, reporters, news anchors, writers and politicians received their worldview.

The academics have many fashionable theories as to how things should work in society and the world, many of them utopian, but ultimately they are incorrect and often make things much worse.

The late William F. Buckley, Jr., famously wrote: “I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” But he went on to explain why he would make this preference: 

http://thenationalscene.com/source-socialisms-influence/

The Left, with its belief in socialism and other forms of utopianism, always fail because they reject the core truths of mankind. Conservatives understand that mankind can never achieve perfection on this earth, while modern liberals believe it can. The history of the last century has proved that when movements attempt to perfect mankind and its institutions, it always ends in catastrophe.

Socialism, fascism, Nazism, communism, etc. are all forms of collectivism that have some things in common. Among these are the ideas that the troubles that plague mankind are due to corrupt institutions and ineffective leaders; that if we only remade the institutions of society with the right leadership, we can achieve some kind of utopia. That criminals and the poor are a product of broken or outdated capitalistic systems. That a classless society in which all are equal is achievable. That religion is bad and science is all that is needed to explain everything. That the State should be all-powerful and essentially worshipped by the people. That the State should control the economy and redistribute the resources according to the elite who know better because of their ’superior’ education. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and others believed in this, though they had differing way as to how to achieve a socialist paradise. Regardless of the means taken, the end goal was always the same. Continue Reading

What the Obama Administration has in store for this country represents the danger of voting for a Democrat these days. Not to say the Republicans are without flaws, as we have seen with the reckless spending and growth of government under the Bush Administration. The Republicans have certainly lost their way and have abandoned many of their conservative principles, which is why the Democrats now control the government.

But whatever their weaknesses, at least the Republicans do not try to take your money away, nor your Constitutional rights. Here is a partial list of the damage done by putting liberal Democrats in charge of the country:

• Attack First Amendment (i.e. reinstate a backdoor ‘Fairness Doctrine’)
• Attack Second Amendment (i.e. reinstate so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ ban)
• Raise taxes (i.e. letting the Bush tax cuts expire – yes, the effect is an increase)
• Weaken national defense (i.e. against missile defense systems)
• Activist judges who legislate from the bench (i.e. Ginsburg)
• Push America further into socialism (i.e. “spread the wealth around”)

Most Democratic politicians, and the intelligentsia, do not believe in liberty or the foundational principles this country was founded on, despite paying lip service to the contrary.

For example, the Left does not respect free speech, as is seen by their desire in reviving an alternative version of the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’, which in typical Orwellian fashion is about as unfair as can be. However, they will end up calling it something else (watch for words like “localism” and “airwave neutrality”) and use a different means to the same ends. How can you claim ‘fairness’ while creating a monopoly and silencing opposition?

Another Orwellian act from the Left is the so-called ‘Employee Free Choice Act’, or “Card Check” that was introduced in the U.S. Congress. Employee free choice sounds good, right? Liberals are experts at twisting words and manipulating people with disinformation and lies. What this Act will do is effectively eliminate our right to vote by private ballot when deciding whether to join a union, and undermine our right to freely negotiate contracts. The Union will then know who voted against them and harass that person, or take any number of other retributive actions.

So why are modern liberals so interested in taking away our liberties and making government bureaucrats our rulers? What is it about collectivism that is so attractive to them, regardless of its historical failures?

First there was Tim Geithner who had to apologize on national television for not paying taxes for several years - this from a person who is essentially the one in charge to see that the rest of us pay. Shortly thereafter Tom Daschle had to withdraw after he also failed to pay taxes. Bill Richardson had to withdraw due to a pay-to-play probe in New Mexico. Nancy Killefer was picked to be ‘Chief Performance Officer’, but had to drop out for failing to pay employment taxes and had an outstanding tax lien on her home. Now we have Ron Kirk nominated for U.S. Trade Representative, but “underpaid” taxes totaling around $10,000.

Here you have the Democratic Party, who never met a tax they didn’t like, and yet they avoid paying taxes. The hypocrisy of liberal Democrats not paying taxes after spending their entire careers trying to raise our taxes is nauseating. Not to mention Joe Biden telling the people it’s “patriotic” to pay taxes. Now we understand why so many Democrats are sensitive to their patriotism being ‘questioned’.

If Obama has such poor judgment, and such a shaky start to his presidency (couldn’t even take the oath of office correctly the first time), then maybe the American people should reconsider all that hope and change nonsense, and make sure he is a one-term president. Perhaps the next president can undo the damage that will undoubtedly be done over the next four years of coming scandal and corruption.

If you asked the average person on the street if they want the government in their lives taking their money and controlling their choices, most people would say no. Of course no one wants to be controlled by bureaucrats or have less freedom, but the erosion of liberty is an inevitable consequence of the ideology that Obama and the Left ascribes to. When you switch a society from an individual to collectivist based, you must give up many economic and personal liberties. There is no way to have a nation that is part free, part collectivist. Capitalism cannot coexist with socialist policies and an ever-increasing government; they are mutually exclusive.

The Obama Administration has already toyed with the idea of nationalizing the banks, and will soon nationalize health care. How have other nations fared with nationalizing major parts of their economy? Every nation that has nationalized health care has to ration care for its people (except for the elite of course), with long waiting times and inferior equipment. The old Soviet Union had nationalized it farms. The result? A nation that was once an exporter of food, now could not feed its own people. It is clear from studies that nations with the greatest poverty also have the largest government control over the economy.

Socialism has long been discredited everywhere it was put into action, whether in a giant like the former Soviet Union, or the small island of Cuba. Every form of collectivism believes it has the right blueprint for a perfect society. It does not matter if they call it communism, Marxism, fascism, Nazism, Fabian socialism, syndicalism, or just plain socialism; they are all different flavors of the same poison. They all have as their end goal the same impossible objective; they only differ in the ways they believe they can get there.

Those on the political Left believe, in spite of all the evidence, that it is possible to perfect humanity and its institutions, and form a utopian society. They believe with the right leaders and enough tinkering in society they can achieve this fantasy. Lenin and Hitler believed the same thing. Human nature is unchanging, and as such, the only form of social organization that works best is individual liberty with free markets. No other system has ever produced a higher standard of living for the greatest number of people. It is not perfect, but no system is, and if you try to chase the mirage of perfection, you will only create tyranny and oppression. No matter how well your intensions may be, it’s best to remember the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intensions.

Utopias have never existed, and can never exist, at least under the rulership of human beings. That would explain why the word ‘utopia’ literally means ‘no place’.

Americans panicked.

Prior to the election and the financial meltdown, most polls showed John McCain with a small to comfortable lead over Barack Hussein Obama. Then the financial collapse hit and Americans were so frightened by the lies and distortions from the Democrat party in general, and the Obama campaign in particular, that they panicked.

Government was ultimately the cause of the financial meltdown, but did America vote for the one who would potentially shrink government and curb spending? No, America made the huge mistake of voting for the one who is guaranteed to grow government even bigger and more intrusive than ever with massive new spending.

It’s difficult to say just how much damage will be done to this country and whether or not it can be saved. There is always a point of no return, where you have a one party system that cannot be changed. Once the media is in bed with the government, and you have the schools and university system in lock step for socialists, it’s extremely difficult to balance or correct the public’s perception by presenting opposing points of view. Those promoting a socialist ideology control virtually all factors influencing public opinion.

It would be interesting to know what the Founding Fathers would have to say on the matter if they were around today. Although I’m afraid I already know the answer.

So what are some predictions that can be made for the next four years? In no particular order:

• Heath care will be nationalized, possibly other industries
• Taxes will increase, perhaps more stealthfully
• The return of stagflation and protectionism
• The middle class will shrink and the poor will increase in number
• Iran will most likely acquire nuclear weapons
• Terrorists around the globe will be emboldened and increase their attacks
• If Iran gets a nuke, it will likely hand it to a terrorist organization
• Treaties and arms reduction agreements will be made, and broken
• Israel may be hit with a nuke

Obama wasn’t even president for one month and already his Administration was mired with scandals. For the longest time we’ve heard moving speeches about transparency, honesty, change, etc. Yet, after the stages and styrofoam Greek columns were dismantled, a very different image materialized before the American people. What was about change, turned out to be more of the same politics as usual. What was about honesty and transparency, turned out to be the familiar hypocrisy of political elites who sermonize the people about living one way, while they themselves live another (i.e. Al Gore flying in private jets to give lectures on global warming, then flying back to his mansion that consumes more energy in one month than the average American household does in one year).

Before even being sworn in, we were expected to believe that Obama and his team had absolutely no knowledge of Blagojevich’s activities. It strains credulity to think that Obama could rise from obscurity from some of the most corrupt, entrenched politics in the nation, and come out of the Chicago machine smelling like a rose. In addition, his spokesman gave changing answers to questions concerning Obama’s contacts with the embroiled governor at the time. It’s not a good sign when the election is barely over and already something unethical is somewhat surrounding you.

However, it seemed plausible at first that some positive change may be happening when Obama issued an executive order to ostensibly ban lobbyists. But then he nominated at least a dozen former and current lobbyists to prominent positions in his Administration. Then came the Tim Geithner ordeal, who was nominated to Treasury Secretary, but had to apologize on national television for not paying taxes for several years - this from a person who is essentially the one in charge to see that the rest of us pays. Shortly thereafter Tom Daschle had to withdraw after he also failed to pay taxes. Additionally, Daschle reportedly was paid one million dollars per year for five years from a law firm he is neither a lawyer nor lobbyist for. Law firms don’t pay that kind of money to a politician for no reason, only because favors and influence was provided. Bill Richardson had to withdraw due to a pay-to-play probe in New Mexico. Nancy Killefer was picked to be ‘Chief Performance Officer’, but had to drop out for failing to pay employment taxes and had an outstanding tax lien on her home.

Here you have the Democratic Party, who never met a tax they didn’t like, and yet they avoid paying taxes. The hypocrisy of liberal Democrats not paying taxes after spending their entire careers trying to raise our taxes is nauseating. Not to mention Joe Biden telling the people it’s “patriotic” to pay taxes. Now we understand why so many Democrats are sensitive to their patriotism being ‘questioned’. But seriously, how can America trust such people in positions of authority and power? The corruption and ethical lapses have already started, and for certain this is only the tip of the iceberg.

If president Obama is suppose to represent something new and hopeful, then why did he choose all these deeply flawed people to be in his Administration? But isn’t that what Obama is really all about for those that voted for him - an image. He has no executive experience, no significant bills and little time in the Senate, and has shown bad judgment on the only two foreign policy issues he had been confronted with prior to the election  (he opposed the surge in Iraq, and issued moral equivalence with the Russian invasion of Georgia). So he was really only elected based on image and rhetoric.

If Obama has such poor judgment, and such a shaky start to his presidency (couldn’t even take the oath of office correctly the first time), then maybe the American people should reconsider all that hope and change nonsense, and make sure he is a one-term president. Perhaps the next president can undo the damage that will undoubtedly be done over the next four years of coming scandal and corruption.