On his 100th day in office, Obama said he would like to have a “serious” discussion” about how the federal government can rein in spending and meet its long term obligations.

“I know you’ve been hearing all these arguments about, oh, ‘Obama is just spending crazy,’” the president said at a town hall event in Arnold, Missouri Wednesday. “Well, let me make a point. Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit — that wasn’t from my — that wasn’t me.”

“Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis — financial crisis since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you’ve got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks.”

First: Inheriting a mess is no excuse for making it worse. If a car is going full steam towards a brick wall, you shouldn’t hit the accelerator.

Second: Uniform consensus among what economists? The same economists that got us into this mess? The same economists that told our economy was great the last few years? How about we start talking to the economists that warned us that we were heading toward an economic downturn, rather than the bipartisan cheer leading economists that uniformly believe the government must manipulate the money supply and that government intervention is required to “stabilize” the economy. Is it possible that the economist parrots we hear on TV are all in agreement and in the public eye because the politicians in Washington don’t want us to hear from economists that have more faith in free markets and free people?

Reducing our arguments to “eliminating programs to those who need them” and “cutting taxes on the rich” is the same demeaning political crap that you said you would rise above in bringing hope and change to the White House. Well, Mr. President, I hope you actually address some real concerns from the Tea Partiers, like where in the Constitution does Washington have the authority to use our money to support failing big business? When you were teaching constitutional law, did you skip a lecture on the 10th Amendment? Mr. President, how do you promote freedom, responsibility, respect for others, and the kind of serious debate you claim we lack, if our government tells the people that we cannot take care of ourselves, that we need you to fix all of our problems, and that if only we went back to sleep and left our wallets on the nightstand, you intellectuals in Washington will fix our problems with just a few more government programs? Addressing these questions would be a nice change.

Chrysler is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and will be eligible for another $8 billion in government loans.  It’s already received $4 billion of taxpayer money. The march toward fascism goes on.

Read here.

Goldman Sachs is a huge investment banking firm.  It received $10 billion in Federal bailout money and has friends in high places.  In this New York Post article, John Crudele wonders if the recent bear market rally isn’t largely a product of Goldman Sachs maneuvering.

Consider the following as well.  Former Clinton Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin, was CEO of Goldman Sachs.  Rubin helped run Citigroup into the ground afterward.  Former Bush Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson, was CEO of Goldman Sachs.  Paulson engineered the $700 billion bank bailout.  Current AIG CEO, Edward Liddy, holds a $3 million stake in Goldman Sachs.  Who was allowed a seat at the table when the Federal Government bailed out AIG?  Goldman Sachs.  Who did current Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, select as his chief of staff?  Mark Patterson, a former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.  Who did Larry Summers, one of Obama’s top economic advisors, speak for last year for a cool $135,000? You guessed it, Goldman Sachs.  Can it be any more obvious?

As one top trends forecaster said, “The fix is in, the game is rigged.”  What do you get when Big Business and Big Government are in bed together?  Fascism.

Read the article here.

John Stewart mocks Arlene Specter and the media’s reporting on Obama’s first 100 days.

For the first hundred days of President Barack Obama’s administration, here is a complete list of 100 blunders, mistakes, gaffes, and public policies that threaten our freedom:

1. Promising to “publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days… before the President signs it,” then breaking that promise over and over again.

2. Despite promising to keep lobbyists out of his administration, Obama has broken his word again and again (making 17 exceptions to this promise in his first two weeks).

3. Obama promised to eliminate income taxation for seniors making less than $50,000 a year. He has broken this promise despite numerous opportunities to keep it, including the economic stimulus package and his administration’s first budget proposal.

4. The President also boasted during his campaign that “During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired,” and has failed to keep his word.

5. Obama made it part of his agenda to “allow withdrawals of 15% up to $10,000 from retirement accounts without penalty (although subject to the normal taxes). This would apply to withdrawals in 2008 (including retroactively) and 2009,” but didn’t include this measure in the stimulus package or his budget proposal.

6. Obama broke his promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

7. Obama did a shameless 180 degree turn on earmarks by sharply criticizing them (and bragging that he would pass legislation without a single one) and then signing a spending bill with literally thousands of them.

8. Obama promised a $4000 tax credit for college tuition, but backpedaled when he signed a much smaller $2,500 college tax credit into law.

9. Obama called presidential “signing statements” (letters of interpretation and recommendations attached to Congressional legislation) unconstitutional… then attached a signing statement of his own to a $410 billion spending bill.
(more…)

As of March, 109 cities were now registering 10% or more unemployment, while 18 cities registered at least 15%.

See here.

What questions would you have asked the President and how would you respond to his address?

According to a recent Pew Research poll, just 23% of voters identify themselves as Republicans.  That’s down from 30% in 2004.    Meanwhile, 35% of voters identify themselves as Democrats, registering only a 2% jump since 2004.  Apparently, the Republican exodus is leading to more and more self-proclaimed Independents.  In the last four months alone, those who identify themselves as Independents have grown to 39%.

(more…)

While President Obama gives his  prime time press conference tonight, why not take this opportunity to take out your Constitutions and have a read?  Read a few lines, a couple Articles, or the entire document.  Reconnect with our nation’s political “bible”.  Read it by yourself.  Read it with your family.  Discuss it with your children.

Until we ourselves become more constitutionally literate, we will continue to vote in the same old politicians, continue to witness the explosive expansion of government power under both major parties, and continue to base our opinions almost exlclusively on personal feelings.

The time has come to put our government to the test.  The time has come to put our politicians to the test.  The time has come to put our political parties to the test.  And it’s time to put our own beliefs to the test. How do you put these things to the test?  Line it up against the Constitution.

So, when the next big issue, debate, or headline strikes, instead of asking what your favorite network thinks, what your political party thinks, what your friends think, or even what you think, ask yourself, “What does the Constitution say?”

But, in order to discover what the Constitution says about a particular issue or policy, we must read it first.  Let’s start tonight.

In a letter to John Spratt signed by Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Peter Defazio (D-Oregon), Ron Paul (R-Texas), and Corrine Brown (D-Fla.), the House Chairman of the Budget Committee was asked for Senate language to be incorporated in the House version of the current Budget Resolution to increase transparency at the Federal Reserve:

Dear Chairman Spratt,

As you meet with fellow conferees to reconcile the House- and Senate-passed budget resolutions, we urge you to adopt the Senate provision regarding the Deficit Neutral Reserve Fund for Increased Transparency at the Federal Reserve in the final version of the resolution. This language calls for the Federal Reserve to identify banks and other financial institutions that have received more than $2.2 trillion in taxpayer-backed loans and other financial assistance since March 24, 2008.

Under Chairman Bernanke, the central banking system has opened a range of extraordinary funding facilities that are providing additional credit to banks, large financial institutions, and primary brokers, as well as guaranteeing commercial paper. All of this activity is happening in secret, with the Federal Reserve disbursing money and credit to the large financial institutions that have put our credit markets and economy at risk. The Federal Reserve has resisted FOIA requests, and will not make public even the terms of payment for the contractors it is using to run these extraordinary programs.

At the very least, Congress and the public should have knowledge about which banks are receiving taxpayer money, what they are doing with the money, and the credit risk taxpayers are taking on through the Federal Reserve. The Senate language encourages such transparency, allowing for audits and public disclosure of secret loans and financial assistance from the Federal Reserve to these large institutions.

We urge you to include the Senate language in the final Budget Resolution.