While Presidents sign legislation into law, it is Congress – the House and the Senate; the Legislative Branch – that actually crafts and passes legislation. Therefore, any promise made on the campaign trail by a presidential candidate, be it by the incumbent or the challenger (or the field of candidates vying to be the challenger), is subject to the debate and acquiescence of those in the Legislative Branch; in Congress. It is because of this that any promise made by a presidential candidate must be received by the voting public as more of an intention, rather than a promise. To accept a campaign promise as an impending reality is to set oneself up for almost certain disappointment. And to blame a successful candidate for not living up to those campaign promises requires a level of certainty that the promise was actually ignored, not thwarted.

A good example of campaign promises thwarted comes in the form of the Republican TEA Party supported congressional freshman class who, during the 2010 Mid-Term Elections, promised to “repeal or defund Obamacare” and to “bring fiscal responsibility to Washington.” Each of those elected sincerely believed that they would be able to succeed in doing what they promised. In fact, HR2 of the 112th Congress did, in fact, attempt to repeal Obamacare and many of the TEA Party supported members of the House took it straight on the chin during the debt, deficit and budget debates. But for all of their good intentions and actions, the freshmen Republicans of the 112th Congress learned that unless you have a veto-proof majority in the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a friendly inhabitant in the White House, absolutes in campaign promises do not exist.

The same must be said about the Executive Branch and the President of the United States, although he has some additional quivers in his pouch where getting his way is concerned: the bully pulpit (self-explanatory) and the Executive Order.

About.com’s US Politics pages say this about Executive Orders:

“Executive Orders (EOs) are official documents, numbered consecutively, by which the President of the US manages the operations of the Federal Government.

“Since 1789, US presidents (“the executive”) have issued directives that are now known as Executive Orders. These are legally binding directives to federal administrative agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials as their agencies implement congressionally-established law. However, Executive Orders may be controversial if the President is acting counter to real or perceived legislative intent…

“Presidents have been accused of using the power of the Executive Order to make, not merely implement, policy. This is controversial, as it subverts the Separation of Powers as outlined in the Constitution.”

Some accurate examples of a President transgressing the Separation of Powers via Executive Oder have been provided by the Obama Administration in the form of:

▪ The EPA: Functioning under the authority of the Executive, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has enacted regulations that serve, effectively, as legislation, so much so that many members of Congress – from both parties, sans the Progressive contingent of the Democrat Party – have sought to craft legislation to forbid the agency from enforcing said regulations. Additionally, the EPA, again, under the authority of the Executive, is questing to expand its power “to regulate businesses, communities and ecosystems in the name of ‘sustainable development’”; to make the EPA more “anticipatory” in its approach to environmental issues. Under agency chief Lisa Jackson, the EPA targets broadening its focus to include both “social” and “economic,” as well as environmental “pillars” to its mission and authority.

▪ The NLRB: Again, functioning under the authority of the Executive, albeit at an arm’s length – thus providing plausible deniability to the Oval Office, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has, under the Obama Administration, routinely championed labor unions over private sector corporations and businesses, i.e. the job creators. Even as the hierarchy of the Government Sponsored Entity (GSE) that is General Motors discusses exporting the manufacturing of the Chevy Volt to China, so as to avoid the high cost of domestic manufacturing (thank you labor unions), the NLRB has moved forward with regulations that mandate unprecedented facilitation to labor unions in non-union shops so as to organize and hold organizational votes; votes that jettison the sanctity of the secret ballot.

▪ The Recess Appointment: Although recess appointments are commonplace in presidential politics, the recess appointments made thus far during the Obama Administration have been to entities that champion a Progressive social engineering of the country and to fill vacancies on boards and agency chairs that have been contested by a significant number in the US Senate. A perfect example comes in the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an entity created of the infamous Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill and which is being actively contested by Republicans in both the House and the Senate. This recess appointment followed, in rapid-fire succession, by three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, thus facilitating that entities ability to execute its labor-friendly special interest agenda in the run-up to the 2012 General Elections.

It should be noted here that all four of the recess appointments mentioned should be challenged in court – that is if the Republican leadership in Congress can dislodge their heads from their rectums – on the basis of constitutionality as recess appointments cannot be made while Congress is in session. The Senate is in pro-forma session.

Further, when the cancer of social engineering is at the root of an empirical presidency – as is the case with the Obama Administration, the rights of some are manipulated in a quest to “correct” a perceived wrong affecting others.

A perfect example of one voter demographic’s rights being manipulated or denied in deference to another’s comes at the hand of Attorney General Eric Holder and the US Department of Justice (DoJ).

Starting with the DoJ’s refusal to prosecute, to the fullest extent of the law, two New Black Panther Party members who executed gross and egregious voter intimidation during the 2008 election cycle outside a Philadelphia polling place, to the DoJ’s lawsuit targeting the State of Arizona for daring to attempt the securing of its borders, to the DoJ’s politically opportunistic denial of State Voter ID laws under the guise of an adherence to “civil rights,” the US Department of Justice exists as an entity that obliterates the notion of “justice for all,” instead affecting justice to some over others, predicated on skin color, sexual preference or allegiance to foreign entities hostile to the United States.

Governing unilaterally, such as with the examples above, executes an empirical presidency and, in most cases, usurps the Separation of Powers needed to maintain the checks and balances established by our Founders and Framers in the three co-equal branches of our Constitutional Republic.

So, as is evidenced, the promises made by those running for office – whether they are running for POTUS, Congress or the many State, County and local seats of power – can either be thwarted by opposition or rendered unrealistic by the law. Further, in a quest to keep campaign promises made to those who want more than good government in return, some candidates may consent to nefarious, and in some cases unconstitutional, means by which to satisfy their commitments to these ideological benefactors, their base voting blocs or both.

Because of these realities, we must understand that while politicos might say things we would like to hear on the campaign stump, we – you and I, both – must be more deliberative in our decision making before we pledge our support; before we dedicate our most precious of constitutional rights – our vote, to any one man of woman seeking political office; to any politician seeking to represent you and I in elected office.

It is our constitutional duty – by right of citizenship – to take the time to research the deeds of each of the candidates; their records, dispensing with the ever-placating rhetorical commitments packaged with the precursor, “when I become president of the United States.” Most often a campaign trail promise and $16.00 will buy you a $16.00 government purchased muffin.

When a candidate says that he is going to “repeal Obamacare,” ask the question “How?” Make them explain to you the process by which they will affect satisfaction of that promise.

When a candidate says that his experience will afford him the wherewithal to “create jobs,” ask him how he will cajole Congress into passing legislation that will free the private sector of burdensome legal constraints, or how he will pressure the labor unions into accepting reasonable restrictions on their greed.

And when a candidate says he will not “allow Iran to become nuclear capable,” ask him how, exactly, they intend to utilize the full force of the office of President of the United States to affect that reality. Will he seek a Declaration of War from Congress, a feat which has eluded every president elected during a time of military action since World War II? Or will he allow Congress to once again – and in cowardly and political opportune fashion – abdicate its responsibility to define the mission for our brave men and women in uniform?

Asking the rough and tough questions and demanding no-nonsense, direct and real answers from candidates for public office is how We the People can defend the US Constitution from those who believe it is a “fundamentally flawed document.”

It is well past time that we expect detailed information and definitions about solutions and agendas from those running for office. It is also well past time that we refuse to accept as truth the pre-packaged, agendized, bumper-sticker sound-bite, oratorical vomit that passes for media coverage of political campaigns by the mainstream media.

Ask questions and demand real, substantive and detailed answers before vocalizing your support for any candidate. To paraphrase the unwashed masses from all of the labor union protests and “Occupy” rallies: This is what defending the Constitution looks like.

• Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
• Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
• Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
• Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA)
• Rep. David Rivera (R-FL)
• Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
• Rep. Don Young (R-AK)

Dishonorable Mentions for 2011 include:

• Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
• Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA)
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
• Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
• Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY)

Spencer Bachus (R-AL): He has become the face of a congressional “insider trading” scandal that has rocked the Washington establishment as 2011 draws to a close. Rep. Spencer Bachus, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was one of the principal targets of a 60 Minutes investigative report on the scandal, which aired on CBS in September 2011.

The report was based, at least in part, on the book Throw Them All Out by author Peter Schweizer, which outed a slew of members of Congress who allegedly profited in the financial markets by trading on insider information. Bachus was not the only congressman cited by 60 Minutes, others included Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, but the Alabama Republican stood out for his remarkable “good fortune” in shorting the stock market.

According to the allegations made by Schweizer and 60 Minutes, Congressman Bachus, at the time the ranking Republican on the Financial Services Committee, traded short-term stock options in 2008 after receiving a private briefing for congressional leaders by Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. The subject of the briefing: the pending meltdown in the global economy. Those privileged to attend the meeting reportedly sat around a table in Pelosi’s office, having left their cell phones outside the room to avoid leaks.

Congressman Bachus’s aggressive trading practices, in which he was able to benefit by betting on falling stock prices, reportedly earned him substantial profits from some of the 40 trades placed during the months of July through November 2008, many of the trades occurring after the September meeting.

In the wake of the congressional insider trading scandal, legislation banning insider trading is under consideration in Congress. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee advanced a bill banning insider trading on December 14, 2011. Similar legislation (pushed by Rep. Bachus himself, obviously to deflect criticism) has stalled in the House. Critics have suggested, and so has the House Ethics Committee, that the law already prohibits insider trading by members of Congress.

Back to Top

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL): In a year full of shocking congressional sex scandals, perhaps none is more serious than that involving Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings, who allegedly sexually harassed a female government employee and then engaged in a cruel campaign of retaliation when she rebuffed his advances. On March 7, 2011, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against Hastings on behalf of the victim, Ms. Winsome Packer.

The alleged harassment and retaliation began in 2008 when Hastings (formerly an impeached federal judge) served as Chairman of the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Ms. Packer served as his employee. According to Judicial Watch’s complaint, “Mr. Hastings’ intention was crystal clear: he was sexually attracted to Ms. Packer, wanted a sexual relationship with her, and would help progress her career if she acquiesced to his sexual advances.”

These advances included: making multiple demands that Ms. Packer allow Rep. Hastings to stay in her apartment while she served as the Commission’s lead staff representative overseas; subjecting Ms. Packer to unwanted physical contact, including hugging her with both arms while pressing his body against her body and his face against her face; inviting her on multiple occasions to accompany him alone to his hotel room; making sexual comments and references to Ms. Packer; and asking Ms. Packer humiliating and inappropriate questions in public, such as “What kind of underwear are you wearing?”

In addition, Hastings seems to have abused his office by using government travel as a cover for sightseeing and by soliciting gifts and campaign contributions from congressional staff.

On November 28, 2011, The House Ethics Committee announced that it will take an additional 45 days to determine whether to launch a full investigation into the allegations against Hastings.

Back to Top

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) and the Blagojevich Co-Conspirators: It took more than two years and two trials, but disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod “Blago” Blagojevich was finally brought to justice on June 27, 2011, for a number of crimes, including his efforts to “sell” President Obama’s vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. He became the state’s fourth governor, and one of at least 79 Illinois public officials, to be found guilty of a crime since 1972, proving that Illinois has certainly lived up to its reputation as a cesspool of corruption.

As the trial unfolded, it became clear that many hands were dirty in the Blago scandal (See Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm “Rahmbo” Emanuel, who was finally forced to testify during this second Blago trial – for a whopping five minutes – and President Obama himself, who was interviewed by the FBI in the scandal even before he took office).

But all of the focus now seems to center on Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.

The House Ethics Committee announced on December 2, 2011, that it will continue its investigation into allegations that “Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. or someone acting on his behalf offered to raise campaign cash for then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich in exchange for a Senate appointment in 2008.” The committee also released an initial report from the Office of Congressional Ethics that said there was “probable cause” to believe that Jackson either directed a third party or had knowledge of a third party’s effort to convince the since-convicted Blagojevich to appoint Jackson Jr. in exchange for campaign cash.

The evidence suggests Jackson, Jr. attempted to bribe his way into the U.S. Senate. And it will take a monumental lack of attention on the part of the House Ethics Committee to overlook the Illinois Congressman’s role in this serious scandal.

Back to Top

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA): A first-timer on Judicial Watch’s “Ten Most Wanted” list, Rep. Laura Richardson is in hot water for reportedly misusing her congressional staff for personal and political gain. Rep. Richardson is now under investigation by the House Ethics Committee regarding allegations by former staff member Maria Angel Macias. Macias alleges that she was required by Richardson to order other staffers to run personal errands for the Democrat congresswoman, such as picking up her dry cleaning and working on her reelection campaign at taxpayer expense.

Richardson’s alleged behavior would violate federal law, which protects federal employees from “being forced by job-related threats or reprisals to donate to political candidates or causes.” House ethics rules also specify that “in no event may a member or office compel a House employee to do campaign work.”

Macias indicated to the Committee that Richardson regularly directed her to call staff members outside of office hours to “make them work at campaign events.” According to former employees, they were required to work the extended hours “under threat of dismissal,” and, reportedly, were even required to act as servers at such events. Shirley Cooks, chief of staff for Representative Richardson, was also directed to ensure that staff members “volunteered” for off-hour campaign projects.

Rep. Richardson has responded by denying that she has ever forced employees to volunteer on campaigns, then played the “race card,” claiming she is being targeted because she is black and because she is a woman. Richardson has further indicated that she would explore whether the Ethics Committee “has engaged in discriminatory conduct”… which is a blatant attempt to intimidate committee members and undermine the investigation.

Richardson is not new to controversy and investigations of ethics violations. Complaints against her include commandeering emergency helicopters in her California district for use as sightseeing vehicles for her staff and of her receiving special treatment when a bank rescinded the sale of a foreclosed home Rep. Richardson owned in Sacramento and then restructured her mortgage. This was the third home on which Rep. Richardson had missed payments.

The House Ethics Committee failed to punish her over the foreclosure deal (no surprises there), and approximately one year later Richardson again defaulted on her payments. True to form, however, Richardson failed to take responsibility for her actions, claiming the default was due to a “clerical error.”

Back to Top

Rep. David Rivera (R-FL): Rep. David Rivera, U.S. Representative for Florida’s 25^th congressional district, is mired in numerous ethics controversies stemming from charges of money laundering and tax evasion schemes initiated when Rivera served in the Florida House of Representatives. The Republican congressman, serving his first term, is currently under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Miami-Dade Police public corruption unit, and the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s office.

Of particular interest is the investigation by the FBI and the IRS regarding Rep. Rivera’s dealings with the Flagler Dog Track, now known as the Magic City Casino. The basis for the investigation relates to payments reportedly totaling as much as $1 million made by the casino to Millennium Marketing in the guise of a consulting contract. Most of the money is said to have been paid in 2008.

Millennium Marketing is owned by Rivera’s mother and godmother, and Rivera supposedly benefited from the arrangement and is thus the subject of a tax evasion inquiry. Income from the consulting contract was never reported by Rivera on his tax forms, nor did he mention the Millennium deal in financial disclosure forms filed with the Florida Ethics Commission. Instead, Rivera indicated that he had worked as a consultant for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in addition to being a member of the Florida House of Representatives. He reported no income for USAID, however, and the agency had no record of his having ever worked there.

For a long time, Rep. Rivera denied ever receiving any income from the dog track, but just before heading to Congress, Rivera admitted receiving $132,000 in “undisclosed loans” from Millennium. He claims he paid the money back.

Participating in the dog track inquiry and at one time having had the lead on the case is the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, assisted by the Miami-Dade Police. Investigators are also taking a close look at Rivera’s campaign spending, including $75,000 he paid in 2010 “to a now-defunct consulting company owned by the daughter of a top aide.”

Back to Top

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): Rep. Maxine Waters is one of the most senior and one of the most outspoken members of Congress. She is also one of the most corrupt.

In August 2010, an investigative subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee charged Rep. Waters with three counts of violating House rules and ethics regulations in connection with her use of power and influence on behalf of OneUnited Bank. She was expected to face an ethics trial in late 2010, but the committee delayed the trial indefinitely on November 29, 2010, citing newly discovered documentary evidence that may impact proceedings.

The delay apparently has less to do with evidence and more to do with infighting on the panel. Ultimately, an outside counsel was retained and a recommendation was expected by January 2, 2012. However, the Committee announced that the Waters probe will be extended until July 31, 2012.

According to The Associated Press, the charges currently under the House Ethics Committee microscope “focus on whether Waters broke the rules in requesting federal help [bailout money] for a bank where her husband owned stock and had served on the board of directors.” At the time she requested the help, Waters neglected to tell Treasury officials about her financial ties to OneUnited Bank.

Without intervention by Waters (and a big assist from her co-conspirator Rep. Barney Frank), OneUnited was an extremely unlikely candidate for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funding. The Treasury Department indicated that it would only provide bailout funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. However, Judicial Watch uncovered documents detailing the deplorable financial condition of OneUnited at the time of the cash infusion. In fact, just prior to the bailout, OneUnited received a “less than satisfactory rating.”

Aside from OneUnited, there was yet another scandal with Waters’ fingerprints all over it.

According to The Washington Times: “A lobbyist known as one of California’s most successful power brokers while serving as a legislative leader in that state paid Rep. Maxine Waters’ husband $15,000 in consulting fees at a time she was co-sponsoring legislation that would help save the real-estate finance business of one of the lobbyist’s best-paying clients…”

“Real-estate finance businesses,” such as the one helped by Waters’ influence, were labeled a “scam” by the IRS in a 2006 report.

Despite all of her ethical woes, Maxine Waters seeks to take over the retiring Barney Frank’s position as the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee. It is quite obvious that Rep. Waters has neither the integrity nor the ethics necessary to hold such a position of public trust.

Back to Top

Rep. Don Young (R-AK): Rep. Don Young may have achieved a new level of corruption in 2011. The House Ethics Committee announced just before Christmas that the Alaska Republican Congressman was cleared of allegations by the House Ethics Committee that he exceeded the limit on campaign donations to his legal defense fund – which was set up to defend Young against an entirely different set of corruption charges! There was good reason the House Ethics Committee released this decision after most of official Washington left for the Christmas holiday, because the Committee’s “exoneration” is a joke.

House ethics rules prohibit contributions from any single source that exceed $5,000. Young received $63,000 from “twelve companies that… were in fact owned by Gary Chouest, his wife, and his five children, or some combination of those seven individuals.” Despite an independent analysis by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) that the shell-game was a rather transparent violation of the contribution limit, the House Ethics Committee gave Young a free pass because the 12 companies controlled by essentially one individual were “separate legal entities”!

On July 24, 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported that Young was under federal investigation for taking bribes, illegal gratuities, and unreported gifts from VECO Corporation, an Anchorage, Alaska-based company. Two executives in the company, including former company CEO Bill Allen, had already pled guilty to bribing members of the Alaska legislature. Reportedly, Young received $157,000 from VECO.

Rep. Young has developed a legendary reputation for steering federal dollars to Alaska. As The New Republic put it, Rep. Young is “well known for his sharp elbows and generous appetite for legislative pork,” including the $223 million he secured to build the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere.” Eventually, lawmakers responded to the mounting criticism, and the bridge was defunded.

Over the years, Rep. Young has been linked to lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s illegal efforts to lease government property, and he has been criticized for adding a $10 million earmark to a transportation bill for a short piece of road in Florida near Fort Myers, called Coconut Road. The local real estate developer who owned 4,000 acres along the road helped raise $40,000 for Young’s campaign, which might go a long way toward explaining why the Alaska congressman aggressively pushed to build a road in Florida.

Back to Top

DISHONORABLE MENTIONS:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Another perennial member of JW’s list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” will soon be saying goodbye to Congress.

Rep. Barney Frank blamed redistricting for his decision to leave office, but the congressional ethics investigation of the OneUnited Bank scandal also implicating California Rep. Maxine Waters must have helped make it easier for him to flee the capital. Both Frank and Waters improperly intervened to secure taxpayer TARP bailout money for the corruptly-run Massachusetts bank, earning them placements on the 2010 “Most Wanted” list.

When asked about the scandal, Frank admitted that he spoke to a “federal regulator,” but according to The Wall Street Journal, “he didn’t remember which federal regulator he spoke with.” That seemed a lie at the time, so Judicial Watch investigated. Sure enough, according to explosive Treasury Department emails uncovered by Judicial Watch in 2010, it appears this nameless bureaucrat was none other than then-Treasury Secretary Henry “Hank” Paulson!

Frank will forever be tied to the implosion at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – and the resulting collapse of the housing market. Frank, a key member of Congress on the “take” from Fannie and Freddie, resisted any effort to subject the two Government Sponsored Enterprises to any effective oversight.

For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: “I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis… I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.” Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008.

Frank’s corrupt behavior earned the attention of his congressional colleagues in 1990, when the House voted 408-18 to reprimand him for abusing his office to “fix” 33 parking tickets for Stephen Gobie, an acknowledged prostitute and former boyfriend of Barney Frank who had accumulated the tickets while driving Frank’s car. Frank wrote a memo intended to shorten probation for Gobie, who had been convicted of the sex and drug crimes of operating a gay prostitution ring out of the apartment he shared with Frank.

Frank also admitted in the book Reckless Endangerment that he helped yet another boyfriend gain a lucrative position with Fannie and Freddie, which is yet another abuse of office. When confronted on the controversy, Frank said, “If it is a [conflict of interest] then much of Washington is involved in [conflicts].”

That might be the most factual statement Barney Frank has ever made.

Back to Top

Former House Speaker and Current Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a career plagued by scandal and corruption.

Perhaps most notably, on January 22, 1997, by a vote of 395 to 28, the House of Representatives voted to reprimand Speaker Gingrich for “intentional… or reckless” disregard for House rules and ordered him to pay an unprecedented penalty of $300,000 for ethical wrongdoing. It was the first time in the 208-year history of the House that such a step against a Speaker had been taken. Gingrich had faced a raft of charges for alleged ethics violations during his tenure in the House.

Following a scathing special counsel report to the House Ethics Committee detailing the charges against Gingrich, the former Speaker admitted to providing “inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable” statements to congressional investigators. In a written statement, Gingrich stated that his actions ”brought down on the people’s house a controversy which could weaken the faith people have in their government.”

During the current presidential campaign, Gingrich has continuously misled the American people about how he, like many retired politicians, participated in DC’s lucrative influence-peddling industry.

Gingrich insinuated during one presidential debate that some members of Congress who took money from Fannie and Freddie should go to jail. And yet, over a span of eight years, according to Bloomberg News, The Gingrich Group was paid between $1.6 and $1.8 million by the home mortgage company. At the same time, Freddie Mac was engaged in massive fraud. Gingrich suggested he was a “historian” for Freddie Mac. But the evidence clearly shows he was “throwing his weight” behind the two Government Sponsored Enterprises to prop them up, saying in one interview that Fannie and Freddie provided a more “liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have” without them. Ironically, President Obama, the man who Gingrich is seeking to oust from office, is keeping secret each and every Freddie Mac (and Fannie Mae) document, including those that could shed light on Gingrich’s relationship with Freddie.

Gingrich also has claimed, “I have never done lobbying of any kind.” However, as documented by the Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney, Gingrich was a hired gun for the drug lobby who “worked hard to persuade Republican congressmen to vote for the Medicare drug subsidy that the industry favored.” Carney reports that the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America confirmed that they paid Gingrich. Bloomberg News “cited sources from leading drug companies AstraZeneca and Pfizer saying that those companies had also hired Gingrich.”

Gingrich has also sustained heavy criticism for his troubled personal life, including the admission by Gingrich that he cheated on his second wife while serving as Speaker of the House with then-House employee and current wife, Callista Bisek.

Back to Top

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): Despite the media firestorm over her military travel abuses ignited by a Judicial Watch investigation, Nancy Pelosi continued to use the United States Air Force as her own personal travel agency right up until her final days as House Speaker, according to documents Judicial Watch uncovered from the Air Force in 2011.

Pelosi used Air Force aircraft for 43 flights from January 1 to October 1, 2010. By comparison, Nancy Pelosi logged 47 flights in the previous nine-month period–April 1, 2009, to January 1, 2010–according to previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch. In other words, she did not back off at all from her pattern of abuse.

In fact, these documents show Pelosi not only receiving special treatment on military flights (chocolate covered strawberries for her birthday, for example) but also ferrying her family back and forth on military aircraft, including her husband, daughter, granddaughters and son-in-law. The following is a link to records detailing one such flight with her daughter Christina.

Pelosi was also caught up in the insider trading scandal that exploded into the news in November 2011 courtesy of author Peter Schweizer and his book, Throw Them All Out.

As detailed by Bloomberg, “Pelosi and her husband, Paul, with a net worth estimated at $40 million, bought shares in the initial public offering of credit-card company Visa Inc. in 2008, when Pelosi was speaker of the House… They bought the shares just before legislation died that would have limited the fees credit-card issuers could charge retailers. The shares more than doubled in the next two months.”

Pelosi has also invited San Francisco investment banker William Hambrecht to serve as an expert at economic forums on Capitol Hill on multiple occasions, even speaking to reporters by his side at the U.S. Capitol, without disclosing the fact that Hambrecht is her son’s boss and her husband Paul’s business partner. One of the business deals struck by Paul Pelosi and Hambrecht yielded more than $100,000 in income for the Pelosi family in 2010.

While serving as Speaker of the House, Pelosi repeatedly overlooked corruption by her fellow partisans. The evidence suggests this “ethics blind spot” extends too frequently to her own activities. Pelosi’s penchant for abusing the perks of her office is reprehensible.

Back to Top

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): One year after the House of Representatives voted 333-79 to “censure” Rep. Charles Rangel for serious incidents of corruption, Rangel remains in Congress. And, in fact, the very colleagues who shamed him in the well of Congress for his ethics violations, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now stand by his side.

What does this prove? That Rangel did not receive proper punishment for the 13 violations articulated in the House Ethics Committee report, including the following allegations:

• Forgetting to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his offshore rental property (Rangel was formerly in charge of the committee responsible for writing tax policy)

• Misusing his congressional office, staff and resources to raise money for his private Rangel Center for Public Service, to be housed at the City College of New York (he also put the squeeze on donors who had business before his House Ways and Means Committee, and used the congressional “free mail” privilege to solicit funds)

• Misusing his residentially-zoned Harlem apartment as a campaign headquarters

• Failing to report $600,000 in income on his official congressional financial disclosure reports, which contained “numerous errors and omissions”

And these are just the ethics violations under the Ethics Committee’s microscope. The Committee did not even consider other serious corruption charges against Rangel. For example, it has been alleged that Rangel preserved a tax loophole for an oil company in exchange for a Rangel Center donation and used improper influence to maintain ownership of his highly coveted rent-controlled apartment — the same apartment he improperly used for campaign activities.

Rangel should have been expelled from the House of Representatives a year ago. Instead he remains in power and on Judicial Watch’s “Most Wanted” list as a “Dishonorable Mention.”

Back to Top

As you may recall, Judicial Watch investigated a partnership between the DOJ and ACORN-connected Project Vote to use the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA) to register more individuals on public assistance, widely considered a key voting demographic for the Obama 2012 campaign. (Remember, President Obama previously worked for Project Vote.)

Well, this week we obtained some new records courtesy of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on August 19, 2011. The records detail communications between the DOJ and Estelle Rogers, a former ACORN attorney currently serving as Director of Advocacy for Project Vote. These documents leave no doubt that a suspiciously close relationship between Project Vote and the DOJ is developing behind closed doors. Our friend J. Christian Adams summed up the records in a recent column:

Judicial Watch has done it again. It has produced-following a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the United States Department of Justice​ (DOJ)-documents that suggest extensive coordination and communications between the DOJ Voting Section and former ACORN affiliate Project Vote.

Project Vote appears to be directing DOJ resources toward particular states; is having meetings with DOJ staff; and is even recommending lawyers to work in the Justice Department Voting Section that will oversee the 2012 presidential election.

Now, let’s review what we know about the activist Estelle Rogers before we get into the meat of these records.

As Director of Advocacy for Project Vote, Rogers – a former attorney for ACORN, which was besieged with charges of corruption and fraud before declaring bankruptcy in November 2010 – is a primary contact person on policy matters at Project Vote on both state and federal levels and has been actively involved in voter registration issues. By threatening lawsuits under Section 7 of the NVRA, Project Vote has aggressively sought to force election officials in various states to increase the registration of people receiving public assistance.

The question we’ve been asking is, “To what extent is the Obama DOJ a participant in this scheme?” That question appears to have been answered.

According to these new records, “civil rights groups” met with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli on March 17, 2011, to specifically discuss Section 7 of National Voting Rights Act, which requires states to offer voter registration services at all public assistance agencies. The groups included Project Vote, American Association of People with Disabilities, Demos, League of Women Voters​, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Brennan Center for Justice, Fair Elections Legal Network, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and Paralyzed Veterans of America.

On March 29, 2011, Rogers and the “undersigned voting rights groups” that met with Perrelli sent detailed recommendations to the associate attorney general for strengthening “compliance with the NVRA.” Forwarded to Perrelli by Rogers, the recommendations stated “we are grateful that you have invited us to continue this dialogue on the Department’s [DOJ's] role in providing guidance to states, and we would be happy to supply any additional information you need.”

So, in short, the DOJ invited Project Vote (and other leftist groups) to help provide guidance to states regarding the enforcement of the NVRA.

The records also detail an effort by Rogers to secure jobs for three individual applicants for positions with the Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section, the department within the DOJ responsible for enforcing the National Voting Rights Act:

• In a February 23, 2010, email to T. Christian Herren, Chief of the Justice Department’s Voting Section, Rogers wrote, “I want to heartily recommend two candidates to you.” (NAMES REDACTED.) In an April 20, 2010, email, Rogers wrote, “I look forward to continuing to work with you, Chris. And please let me know if you need any more feedback regarding hires.”
• In a December 7, 2010, email, Rogers wrote, “I’d still love to talk for real, but in the meantime, the main reason I called is that you have an applicant for the [REDACTED] position [REDACTED] qualifies her beautifully for your position, and I hope you will give her every consideration. [REDACTED] So she would be a great fit, and I recommend her without reservation. Please let me know if I can tell you more. And give me a call if you possibly can.”

(As I’ve said before, personnel is policy. To install ACORN/Project Vote ideological clones in the DOJ’a voting section is to invite chaos and corruption.)

Regarding Project Vote’s legal strategy, in a July 13, 2010, email to Herren and DOJ political appointee Julie Fernandes, Rogers references NVRA litigation and she informs Herren that she will be bringing Niyati Shah to a meeting at the DOJ.

Shah “will be working on a lot of the litigation we’ll be telling you about,” Rogers writes. Rogers also indicated Nicole Kovite Zeitler, director of Project Vote’s public agency registration project, would also attend the meeting. As reported by The American Spectator’s Matthew Vadum, Zeitler “manages Project Vote’s efforts to advocate for enforcement of Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 through technical assistance and litigation across the country,” according to her bio on Project Vote’s website.

(By the way, do yourself a favor and check out this excellent reporting by Vadum, who has been all over the scandals inside ACORN and Project Vote.)

On June 20, 2011, Rogers and the ACLU co-wrote a letter to the DOJ, asking the department to block Florida’s new election integrity law (H.B. 1355). Florida has since withdrawn its application to the DOJ for “preclearance” of the law, and has taken its case to court instead.

If you take a look at the timeline of some of the NVRA lawsuits that have already been filed, I think you’ll see that Project Vote and the DOJ seem to have implemented a joint litigation strategy in the run-up to the 2012 elections.

On August 4, 2011, Judicial Watch released documents obtained from the Colorado Department of State showing that ACORN and Project Vote successfully pressured Colorado officials into implementing new policies for increasing the registration of public assistance recipients during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons. Following the policy changes, the percentage of invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public assistance agencies was four times the national average. Project Vote also sought a “legislative fix” to allow people without a driver’s license or state identification to register to vote online.

In addition to pursuing public agency registration cases in Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia and New Mexico, Project Vote and the NAACP filed a lawsuit on April 19, 2011, against the State of Louisiana alleging violations of the NVRA. Less than three months later, on July 12, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division/Voting Section sued Louisiana on the same grounds, claiming that “Louisiana officials have not routinely offered voter registration forms, assistance and services to the state’s eligible citizens who apply, recertify or provide a change address for public assistance or disability services.”

The DOJ also sued the State of Rhode Island on March 11, 2011, alleging violations of the NVRA. The lawsuit led to policy changes intended to increase the number of voter registration applications processed by “public assistance and disability service officers.” These two lawsuits, filed within five months of each other, are the first such lawsuits filed by the DOJ since 2007.

Now, as we detailed in our report, The Rebranding of ACORN, Project Vote and ACORN have both been linked to massive voter registration fraud. A total of 70 ACORN employees in 12 states have been convicted of voter registration fraud. And as documented in a July 2009 report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of the 1.3 million registrations Project Vote/ACORN submitted in the 2008 election cycle, more than one-third were invalid.

Moreover, Project Vote’s “Field Director,” Amy Busefink, who handled the online registration campaign for Colorado, entered an Alford plea to two gross misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters in Nevada while working for ACORN. (An Alford plea is a guilty plea, where the defendant does not admit the act or assert innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.)

It is an affront to the rule of law and a threat to the integrity of our elections that the ACORN-front Project Vote is coordinating with Attorney General Eric Holder’s DOJ on voting law. At least now we know why the Holder DOJ never bothered to fully investigate voter registration fraud by Project Vote/ACORN. They are in cahoots.

Holder must go. Pick your reason – Black Panthers​, race-based decision making, abandoning the defense of marriage law, Fast and Furious killings and lies, or turning the DOJ into an arm of the radicalized left – but Holder must go.

Here’s how messed up the situation has gotten at the Obama DOJ when it comes to racial discrimination.  As you may recall, the DOJ abandoned its own lawsuit against members of the radical New Black Panther Party who threatened and intimidated white voters on Election Day 2008.  (The leftist NAACP appears to have helped call the shots on the case dismissal.)

And now these new documents detail a scheme by DOJ officials to bully the City of Dayton, Ohio, into lowering testing standards for firefighter and police recruits because minority candidates did not perform well enough on the written exam.  (One of the most shocking claims by the DOJ is that it’s not all that important for firefighters to be able to read and write!)

This “racial quota” scheme, while clearly shameless in its intent, also seems to violate laws against discrimination and Supreme Court precedent.

On June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that city officials in New Haven, Connecticut, violated the rights of white firefighters when they discarded the results of a promotions test because minority firefighters performed poorly on the test.  “The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.  (Ricci et al. v. DeStefano et al. (No. 07–1428)).

But that didn’t stop the Obama DOJ.

The documents obtained from Dayton by Judicial Watch include the City’s standards and test materials for police and firefighter candidates produced by Fire & Police Selection, Inc., a company with a 15-year track record of designing and validating tests used to recruit police officers and firefighters.

The documents also include correspondence between the City of Dayton and the DOJ as DOJ officials conducted their analysis of the Dayton recruitment and testing program.  (A “Consent Decree” was signed by both parties to resolve a discrimination lawsuit filed by the DOJ against the City of Dayton which mandated the analysis.)

The City of Dayton submitted ahead of time its detailed recruitment and testing plans (including its written examination) per the request of the DOJ.  Dayton also took steps to focus its recruitment strategy on “minority – African-Americans, Hispanic, Asian, Females and other underrepresented minority groups.”  These plans apparently did not elicit any significant objection from the DOJ until the tests had been administered and scores were calculated.

According to an internal assessment by Fire & Police Selection, Inc., “An exhaustive item-level analysis was conducted on the data from the administration and our statisticians did not identify any significantly problematic items that negatively affected the reliability of the test.”  But after reviewing the test results, the DOJ registered its objections.

In a letter dated February 7, 2011, DOJ Senior Attorney Barbara Thawley informed the City of Dayton the DOJ rejected the written portion of the Dayton examination:  “The United States has determined that the City’s proposed use of the written examination violates…the Civil Rights Act of 1964…because it has a statistically significant disparate impact upon African-American candidates…”  The letter closed by threatening court action.  A subsequent letter on February 17, 2011, suggests the written exam be used as a “pass-fail” screening device, which the DOJ described as a “compromise.”

The DOJ also objected to the use of a written test in general for firefighter applicants.  “With regard to the writing portion for firefighter, it seems unusual to me.  I have never seen a fire department give a writing test to entry level firefighter applicants.  From what I know about the job, it seems very unlikely that an entry level firefighter would have to do much writing,” wrote Ms. Thawley.  “All of our firefighters are either EMT or paramedics and do a lot of report writing,” responded Giselle S. Johnson, Secretary and Chief Examiner, Civil Service Board.

On February 18, 2011, Fire & Police Selection, Inc. CEO Dan Biddle issued a sharp rebuttal to the government’s claims regarding its test.

…we are appalled to learn that the DOJ has branded our tests as “invalid,” despite having been appraised [sic.] openly in advance of our validation steps, methods, and resulting data, and despite having never raised a single concern over the process during the entire seven month-period prior to the exam administration…Click here.

…Only at this point, two months after the exams were given, has the DOJ made any assertion about the unfairness or impropriety of the selection exam, much less that the tests are not valid.  This complete reversal and flip-flop of judgment contradicts DOJ’s position prior to test administration, i.e. that the test was valid.  Given that the only new information introduced after test administration was test scores and passing rates by race, it is not a difficult leap to conclude that the DOJ’s decision to contradict their prior position is drive solely by test scores and passing rates by race…In fact, it is illegal and in direct violation of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Click here.

…It is our opinion that throwing out the exam results will inevitably lend to less qualified candidates taking the place of qualified candidates.  We therefore recommend that the DOJ concedes with the City’s decision to move forward with the exam results, selecting one of three available cutoffs that align with the minimum competency levels established by the validation study. Click here.

According to a report by Dayton’s ABC News affiliate on March 11, 2011, the ultimate compromise struck between the City of Dayton and the DOJ resulted in a lowering of test standards for Police Department candidates:

The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits.  It’s a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam.  Dayton is in desperate need of officers to replace dozens of retirees.  The hiring process was postponed for months because the D.O.J. rejected the original scores provided by the Dayton Civil Service Board, which administers the test.

Under the previous requirements, candidates had to get a 66% on part one of the exam and a 72% on part two.  The D.O.J. approved new scoring policy only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%.  That’s the equivalent of an ‘F’ and a ‘D’.

One would be hard pressed to find a more egregious example of the unlawful application of race-based quotas.  These documents show the City of Dayton bent over backward to accommodate the DOJ’s ridiculous demands.  But the racialists at the Holder Justice Department did not care a whit about the testing process; they cared only about the results and race quotas.

Now the DOJ has cut standards and gamed the system to give critical first responder jobs to less qualified candidates.  This puts the public safety at risk.  And, as is typical, this Justice Department can’t be bothered to comply with basic FOIA law and tell the American people exactly what it is up to.

That’s why we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Justice Department (DOJ) on April 29, 2011. We want access to any DOJ records pertaining to the agency’s decision not to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. (You may recall DOMA, as it is called, breezed through Congress with a vote of 85–14 in the Senate and a vote of 342–67 in the House. President Clinton signed the act into law by on September 21, 1996. It has been the law of the land now for almost 15 years.)

Now we know what the Obama administration has said publicly about its decision.

On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Congress announcing that the Obama Justice Department would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (which defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman) in two recently-filed cases: Pederson v. Office of Personnel Management and Windsor v. United States.

The Attorney General then took it a step further, announcing the Justice Department would not defend DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in any other pending or future litigation:

The president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The president has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.

So there you have it. The president “has concluded,” and is now saying publicly, that the U.S. Congress, the American people and the U.S. Constitution are all dead wrong on this issue of gay marriage.

But what went on behind the scenes to lead to this sudden reversal in Justice Department policy?

The Obama administration has defended the constitutionality of DOMA in court and is changing its tune mid-stream. The President did admit during the campaign that while his religion opposes same sex marriage, his views were “evolving.” But what outside special interest groups may have helped nudge the president’s evolving views along?

We know there is evidence that the race-baiting National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) influenced the Justice Department’s decision to abandon the Black Panthers voter intimidation lawsuit. And JW uncovered further evidence the Justice Department colluded with the leftist American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on their respective attacks against S.B. 1070, Arizona’s get-tough illegal immigration law.

So is the homosexual lobby calling the shots on the gay marriage issue? (The Washington Post reported that Valerie Jarrett, also known as the “other half of Obama’s brain,” and the administration’s liaison with the homosexual lobby, was involved in this decision.)

That’s what Judicial Watch intends to find out.

On February 24 and March 1, 2011, Judicial Watch filed FOIA requests with the Office of Information Policy, a component of the Justice Department, as well as a separate FOIA with the DOJ’s Referral Unit seeking internal DOJ communications related to the DOMA decision as well as correspondence between Justice and members of Congress, the White House, and outside entities. Outside entities include liberal special interest group, such as The American Civil Liberties Union, Freedom to Marry, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Moveon.org, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and the Service Employees International Union.

The Office of Information Policy and the Referral Unit both acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests but have failed to respond to these requests within the statutory allotted time frame. In fact, the DOJ has failed to release any records or indicate when a response is forthcoming, prompting Judicial Watch’s lawsuit.

It appears Barack Obama and Eric Holder have arrogantly decided to ignore the Constitution and abandon their responsibility to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” — again! And adding insult to injury, they refuse to answer to the American people for their behavior. There is now little doubt that liberal special interest groups are pulling the strings at the DOJ and dictating the policies of the nation’s top law enforcement organization.

You should know that the alliance isn’t only about ideology — it is also about campaign cash for Obama’s reelection. Politico ran a story last week entitled, “Gay donors fuel President Obama’s 2012 campaign.” Sure enough, Obama is seeking campaign cash as payment for his abuse of office:

President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign is banking on gay donors to make up the cash it’s losing from other groups of wealthy supporters who have been alienated and disappointed by elements of Obama’s first term.

The article goes on to cite the abandonment of DOMA as one of several policy decisions that are spurring increased support from homosexual activists and that the Obama “campaign’s new fundraising apparatus appears designed to capitalize on their enthusiasm.”

You can see why this issue is not only about the rule of law, but naked political corruption. The Justice Department must release these documents and tell the American people exactly why they made the shameful decision to shirk its constitutional obligation to defend DOMA and the interests of the American people.

The raids took place in Chicago and Minnesota, where 23 individuals were targeted by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. The individuals are anti-war and international solidarity activists with possible links to funding Hamas and other terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah and the Marxist F.A.R.C. (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia).

U.S. Representatives and Democratic Socialists of America members; Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), John Conyers (D-MI), Danny Davis (D-IL), Jim McDermott (D-WA), and Keith Ellison (D-MN) have all written letters to either President Obama or Eric Holder regarding the status of the ongoing investigation. Representative David Price (D-NC) has also joined these socialist members of Congress on behalf of the radical extremists.

The letters refer to the anti-war and social-justice activists as “peaceful.” However you can see recent footage of Andy Thayer, one of these so-called “peaceful activists” targeted in the investigation, in the video below. Just this past March, Thayer called for revolution at an anti-war/pro-socialist revolution protest in Chicago. Unfortunately in a time when most Americans struggle to find any adequate representation from their elected members of Congress, these radicals seem to have just the right representatives to turn to.

Thayer: “Egypt showed us that getting on the streets was a prelude to the strike action that actually turned over Mubarak, and hopefully we’ll be seeing that kind of correct action and strike action here in Chicago and up in Madison.”

Cross Posted at: Rebel Pundit

And so in America today if you are black, a union member, Muslim, Hispanic, gay and/or profligate you can expect preferential treatment from this administration.  For most everyone else, tough luck.  I know of no other way to interpret the pattern of the words and actions of this President and his cronies.  We need not judge Obama on the Bill Ayers, Edward Said/Rashid Khalidi and Jeremiah Wright influences.  The true instincts of this administration show quite clearly in its deafening silence on so many true injustices, only to be outdone by its knee-jerk reactions to issues either not germane to it, or on which it consistently sides against the majority of Americans.

Witness the fact that the President cannot help but interject when it comes to the actions of a white cop in Cambridge, a mosque being built by Islamic supremacists near Ground Zero, a Governor trying to return his state to fiscal sanity by taking on an obfuscatory union or the evil fat cats trying to make their undeserved profits, nor can Eric Holder admit that perhaps even the word “jihad” exists, let alone that the nightstick-wielding Black Panthers in Philadelphia were anything more than “inappropriate,” though they threatened the citizenry in the very way that his “people” were threatened decades ago.  The notion of the keeper of justice defending above all his “people” poses a challenge to Justice Sotomayor’s wise Latina women quip in the volumes it speaks with regard to the “soft” bigotry of this administration.

This administration does not represent the people, but only the narrow majority which elected it, save for a handful of Independents they have thrown under the bus along the way.  But as Lenin said, “if you want to make an omelet, you have to be willing to break a few eggs.”

Equal justice for all and special privileges for none is a credo as foreign as a Tea Partier to this White House.  Every policy is biased towards one group at the expense of others, created with the intent to rectify some grievance often imperceptible to any free-thinking, right-minded individual.  The public is viewed solely in terms of groups to be molded, conditioned and manipulated, as opposed to individuals free to choose their own destiny.

Whoever is to challenge President Obama must be constantly cognizant of and able to articulate that the President’s proper role is to serve as a representative of all of the people, not just the 51% or so of voters necessary to win; he or she must understand that the policies that leave our people happiest, healthiest and most prosperous are those which serve to benefit all, equally (generally policies that restrain government).  The challenger must create an undeniable contrast to this President whose whole term has served as an Ivy League seminar in class warfare, race-baiting, suicidal multiculturalism and moral relativism, victimhood and submission.

How ironic it is that the man supposed to embody a world devoid of discrimination, a man supposed to be beyond our petty differences fashions policies and asserts himself in ways that universally prove discriminatory.  Forget the other 49%, this is the 51% President.  Let’s make sure that that number is reduced come 2012.