That Newt Gingrich has had marital issues in his past is common knowledge. Anyone shocked by this news should not consider themselves well-informed. Anyone offended by the marital transgressions of his past should heed the words from a follow-up Esquire Magazine article:

“…Love makes fools of us all, etc., and liberals who believe in parole and rehabilitation really should think at least once before they snicker at the religious folks who have decided to believe in Newt’s remorse for his past behavior.”

In a recent article titled, Political Baggage: Establishment & Media Manipulation, in which I wrote about Mr. Gingrich’s infidelity issues, juxtaposing them to the sexual peccadilloes of myriad Democrat and Progressive politicians, I argued:

“In an age when the world is being enveloped in darkness – both ideologically and violently; when our country stands on the brink of deteriorating from a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist Democracy; when government has grown into such a behemoth that it is on the precipice of being the master to the very people who created it, We the People had better look beyond the imperfections of the personal man where “political viability” and “electability” are concerned.

“Today, as we advance in the 2012 election cycle, We the People need the smartest man in the room at the helm of the Ship of State. We need someone who has humility enough to learn from past errors, correcting course when it is the best choice to make, leading our nation in this tumultuous time. We need someone who understands and respects the knowledge that only history can afford as we – as a nation; as the guardians of liberty – navigate the future.

“What we cannot afford is to allow the narcissistic mainstream media talking heads, self-absorbed political pundits and the self-aggrandizing political strategists to talk us out of the smartest guy in the room simply because they believe his ‘baggage’ is too heavy to carry.”

These words are worth repeating in light of the Marianne Gingrich interview.

What is interesting about this moment in time is the timing. This interview – and remember, it is a recycled item from a 2010 Esquire Magazine interview – was manufactured, produced and “in the can” for use by ABC News for whenever they chose. In fact, the Drudge Report had initially reported that there was a “civil war” among the ABC News hierarchy over whether to run the segments before or after the South Carolina GOP Primary. In the end, they decided to schedule the segments to air on the eve of the primary, a contest in which Mr. Gingrich’s campaign is seeing some mounting momentum. As of this writing, Rasmussen Reports has Mr. Gingrich taking the lead over national frontrunner Mitt Romney. It would seem that just as Mr. Gingrich was experiencing some reward from his efforts in South Carolina, just by coincidence ABC News thought it so very important to “break” an old story.

Interesting…interesting, indeed…

In a November 11, 2009, article in Human Events, Ann Coulter wrote about a disturbing penchant possessed by one David Axelrod, now a senior advisor to the Obama 2012 re-election effort. It seems Mr. Axelrod, an old Chicago Democrat newspaper man, has a fondness for advancing stories about sexual indiscretions – both real and not – about opposition candidates.

Ms. Coulter writes:

“…the only reason Obama became a US senator – allowing him to run for president – is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama’s Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama’s Republican opponent.

“One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the US Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.

“But then The Chicago Tribune – where Axelrod used to work – began publishing claims that Hull’s second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

“From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a ‘wife beater.’ He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.

“Hull’s substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.

“Luckily for Axelrod, Obama’s opponent in the general election had also been divorced.

“The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan…”

Now, I’m not claiming that David Axelrod is behind the coincidental airing of a potentially damaging interview by a GOP candidate’s ex-wife, but when all signs point to “he did it” who am I to argue?

But why would Axelrod, the quintessential poster boy for disingenuous sleaze politics, want to attack Gingrich? Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and the rest of Obama’s Progressive operatives are certain that Mitt Romney is going to be the GOP candidate in the fall. Why would they want to destroy Gingrich? Simple: They are pushing for Romney because they believe he will be easier to beat.

Defendable or not, in Romney, as the candidate, Obamacare would have to be off the table due to the similarities between the insurance mandate currently in place in Massachusetts and Mr. Obama’s signature socialized health insurance legislation; the Massachusetts mandate instituted under Mr. Romney’s watch. Mr. Romney is vulnerable on his financial history and on many of the positions he took in the past while an elected official. Axelrod also feels that Mr. Romney’s debating style is one that would pale in comparison to Mr. Obama’s. So, in an effort to misdirect – a favorite tactic of the Progressive Left – Mr. Axelrod, Ms. Jarrett and the rest of the non-transparent Obama team float the falsehood that they believe they will run against Mr. Romney in the fall. The media is falling for it – or at least complicit in the canard, and, therefore, the mass of the “I’m too busy and too important to do my own homework on the issues and the candidates” populace drinks the Kool-Aid.

In Mr. Gingrich, Axelrod fears a slaughter in the debates. Even a half-awake second-grader would be able to tell you, with confidence, that Newt Gingrich would have Barack Obama weeping and in the fetal position behind the podium after the first ten minutes of the first debate. In fact, I believe that if Mr. Gingrich does win the GOP nomination, Mr. Obama will be counseled to opt out of any and all debates with Mr. Gingrich. Honestly, if he chooses to debate, we will all understand that Mr. Obama has become a victim of his own media manufactured persona.

Mr. Axelrod also fears a Gingrich nomination for the fact that Mr. Gingrich – even though some of his brethren Conservatives and Republicans try to make the case against his Conservative credentials – has a record of accomplishment in the face of partisan adversity.

As Speaker of the House alone, he presided over:

▪ The successful negotiation of four consecutive balanced budgets with federal spending held to an average of 2.9 percent per year, the slowest growth rate since the early 1950s.

▪ A negotiated Capital Gains Tax cut that saw the investments by the “dreaded venture capitalists” explode by 500 percent, allowing for the creation of over 11 million new jobs through the execution of non-governmentally interfered with Capitalism.

▪ A negotiated bi-partisan Welfare Reform Act that saw child poverty drop by nearly a quarter, child poverty in single-parent households reaching an all-time low and nearly two-thirds all those who left the welfare rolls gainfully employed.

And the most important…

▪ Over $400 billion of US national debt paid down during the years he presided over a Congress that produced balanced budgets.

By contrast, Mr. Obama has given the country a trillion dollar stimulus that turned out to be a golden goose for green energy giveaways and election grease for his union benefactors and “thugtarians,” Obamacare, Congressional gridlock, a diminished stature in the world, $4.6 trillion in new debt and a country so bitterly divided that one is moved to vomit when viewing his speeches about being a “uniter and not a divider.”

So, I will watch the interview with Marianne Gingrich with a skeptical eye, not that I disbelieve her story. As I said before, if you are shocked by the news of Newt Gingrich’s marital issues who are grossly unaware. No, I will be skeptical as to the catalyst for the timing of the interview; for the motives of the interview. And all the while I will try – very hard – not to see David Axelrod’s fingerprints all over it.

As for Mr. Gingrich and the election, my belief remains:

“What we cannot afford is to allow the narcissistic mainstream media talking heads, self-absorbed political pundits and the self-aggrandizing political strategists to talk us out of the smartest guy in the room simply because they believe his ‘baggage’ is too heavy to carry.”

For that matter, I’m not going to let a mealy-mouth Progressive smear-merchant like David Axelrod talk me out of voting for anyone who stands opposed to Barack Obama.

According to a report by TheHill.com:

“A long list of California Democrats is urging President Obama to name a new housing regulator using a controversial recess appointment.

“In a letter to the president, more than two dozen House members said the temporary head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Edward DeMarco, simply hasn’t done enough to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. The lawmakers are pushing the president to name a permanent director ‘immediately.’

“‘FHFA has consistently and erroneously interpreted its mandate far too narrowly and as such has failed to take adequate action to help homeowners,’ the lawmakers wrote. ‘Installing a permanent director of the FHFA will allow the FHFA to move forward to make key decisions that will help keep families in their homes and improve our economy.’”

Okay, let’s first examine the FHFA. According to their website:

“The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) was created on July 30, 2008, when the President signed into law the Housing & Economic Recovery Act of 2008. The Act gave FHFA the authorities necessary to oversee vital components of our country’s secondary mortgage markets – Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks…FHFA’s mission is to provide effective supervision, regulation and housing mission oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks to promote their safety and soundness, support housing finance and affordable housing, and support a stable and liquid mortgage market…”

The reason the California congressional delegation is pushing for a permanent replacement for Mr. DeMarco has little to do with the well-being of California’s citizens whose mortgages are both underwater or in foreclosure. It has everything to do with 2012 being an election year. The California delegation’s letter to President Obama urging the so-called “recess appointment” of a new FHFA director presents as a gift to the Obama re-election effort. I say “so-called recess appointment” because the US Senate is in pro-forma session and it is unconstitutional for the president to make recess appointments when either house of Congress is in session. I and the rest of the Conservative and Republican rank-and-file are still waiting for congressional Republicans to do something about the initial round of “recess appointments.” Of course, one needs a spine to stand-up to a bully, so we probably shouldn’t hold our collective breath.

I say that the letter presented to the President and his team is a gift because it is a win-win situation that indirectly provides enormous benefit to his re-election campaign.

Should Mr. Obama make an unconstitutional recess appointment to fill the FHFA directorship, the director would be able to take action, almost immediately, to mandate the re-negotiation of any and/or all of the mortgages held by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. That mandate could literally include the forgiveness of sizable portions of monies due to those organizations by mortgage holders who are either underwater, on the bubble of foreclosure or both. This is, effectively, an exercise in debt forgiveness…without the tax liability for the borrower.

Debt forgiveness, by definition, is:

“…a reduction in loan value where a loan is discounted from its original principal or charged off as a bad debt…Under IRS rules [the amount of the reduction] is reportable as income to the borrower for loans discounted or charged off.”

Because this move by the FHFA would be recognized as a mandated re-negotiation of the loan, the borrower wouldn’t be subjected to the IRS rules pertaining to debt forgiveness. That leaves this question: How would Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks recoup the monies lost in mortgage re-negotiations? If you answered, “from the federal government” or “from the US taxpayers,” give yourself a gold star. The mandated re-negotiated mortgages would literally facilitate a raid on the US Treasury by the Obama Administration under the guise of affordable housing and the “correcting” of the mortgage industry.

Now, here’s the part that makes David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and David Plouffe drool.

Being the narcissistic political opportunist that Barack Obama has demonstrated himself to be, any of the so-called “political strategist” talking heads seen blathering on nightly on your cable news channel of choice could tell you that as soon as the first reduced mortgage bills are sent to the “rescued” (read: bailed-out, or, better yet, bribed) voters…er, excuse me, borrowers, Mr. Obama will be on television, radio, in print and on the Internet trumpeting how his administration “saved” or “thwarted the foreclosure of” hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of family homes.

I can hear it now:

“This morning, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, initiated a plan to save the homes of millions of Americans who were tricked, deceived or otherwise forced into signing on to home mortgages unfairly by the greed merchants of the Wall Street One-Percent. Exacting social justice on these filthy Capitalists, the FHFA director has ordered the heads of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks to renegotiate any and all home mortgages that are either underwater or on the brink of foreclosure. While I had nothing to do directly with this decision, I did, in my infinite wisdom, appoint the director and, therefore, am due your support in my bid for re-election to the presidency of the United States. Thank you very much and goodnight. Be sure to tip your bartenders and waitresses on your way out. They work hard. You’ve been great.”

Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, a Scottish lawyer, writer and Professor of Universal History, and Greek & Roman Antiquities at the University of Edinburgh, is quoted as saying:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship…”

To clarify, the United States of America is not a Democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic with a democratic electoral system, that understood, Tytler’s axiom still holds true. Once the voting public realizes that they can elect pillagers to office who have no problem achieving full political cowardice in their sycophancy to special interest voting blocs, the gates to the Treasury are no longer secure and the Republic is doomed.

It is for this reason that two events simply must take place.

First, congressional Republican leadership must – immediately – cease being the gaggle of spineless political geldings that they have been since Mr. Obama took office. They must challenge, in every way, shape and form the unconstitutional (read: illegal) recess appointment of Richard Cordray atop the newly established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Mr. Obama’s recent appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. This opposition should include consideration of a radical move: organizing a congressional walk-out, ala the tactics of the Democrat lawmakers in Wisconsin and Indiana, who brought those state legislatures to a halt over the legitimate limitations imposed on public-sector labor unions in those states by the duly elected.

And second, Republicans simply must become more aggressive with branding issues, with messaging. This would be a perfect opportunity to get ahead of the message; to frame the issue before the Progressive “history re-writing machine” gets a chance to sell the American public a bill of goods that is fundamentally Socialist in nature (redistribution of wealth is a Socialist tool to placate the masses). Sadly, if the same message wizards in the GOP hierarchy execute their status quo they will once again find themselves on the defensive and operating from a disadvantaged position, just as with the tax-cut extension issue, the deficit issue, the entitlement reform issues, the budget issue, etc.

Should the Republican leadership – both in Congress and at the RNC – refuse to take this battle on with the intention of winning without compromise, we can all be sure that Mr. Obama and his team of Progressive anti-Capitalists will “fundamentally transform” the raiding of the US Treasury – disguised as an affordable housing initiative – into a dedicated voting bloc come November 2012. If the Republican leadership – both elected and at the Party level – allow this to happen then the subsequent demise of the Republic becomes the GOP’s legacy to the human race.

Don’t get me wrong; there is much to dislike about him. His method of ‘community organizing’ preys on people’s fears and anxieties. They exacerbate and prolong racial tensions. And, his ultimate aim is a utopian marxist state. All that said, he is very good at what he does and understands progressive movements and how to create and maintain them better than just about anyone.

So, I was curious to read his recent take on the Occupy Movement:

Nonetheless, listening closely to the whole meeting, it was hard to escape the conclusion that as committed as many were, they were groping for a plan for the future. There was no consensus on that question, and really very little debate or discussion. Several people raised the issue during the “soapbox” session, which allows open mic griping that everyone can easily ignore. In fact most people left the room during that section to visit elsewhere in the coffeehouse.

As an organizer, I would venture to predict that there is a hard debate coming between occupants committed to a program and plan going forward and occupants committed to the process and trusting that something will emerge. Logically one would think that this sort of thing simply works itself out, but after listening to a 45 minute debate of sorts as they struggled to decide where to meet again twixt and tween the Plaza and our Fair Grinds Common Space, I wondered if that was possible or the group would simply split into various Occupy this and that’s without being able to sustain the Occupy core.

It’s possible to chalk this up to sour-grapes, criticizing a movement he didn’t help create. However, as someone who has spent a great deal of time reading the minutes of OccupyWallSt’s meeting minutes, I think Rathke is exactly right. There is no there, there beyond a slick focus-group tested marketing slogan. And you can’t build a real movement on a slogan.

If the Occupy crowd is starting to lose hard-core believers like Rathke, the rest of the democrat-media industrial complex can’t be far behind.

With Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives, the body where – by the mandate of the US Constitution – all legislation relating to revenue is to begin, many on the Right and in the Center believed that the reckless and spendthrift fiscal actions of the 111th Congress would be constrained if not reversed. With a sizable number of new members identifying with the oft demonized TEA Party, there was high hope for a glimmer of fiscal sanity to emerge from the halls of Congress. And while the TEA Party members of Congress are to be congratulated for doing exactly what their constituents sent them to Washington to do, in the end, they were thwarted by establishment, inside the beltway Republicans and the despotic obstructionism foisted upon them by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-NV, (to be fair, Reid was aided by a less than reform-minded Republican leadership in the senate, led by Mitch McConnell, R-KY).

The Budget
In absolute defiance of the fact that it is law that Congress must pass an annual budget for the federal government, Senate Democrats – once again, led by the indignant political disgrace that is Harry Reid – refused to abide by said law in passing, reconciling and advancing to the President an annual budget. It has been over 900 days – almost three years – since the last budget has been presented to the President for his signature or veto.

Of this, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, Chairman of the House Budget Committee, wrote:

“As required by law, House Republicans presented a budget in committee, brought it to the floor, and passed it earlier this spring. It was an honest, detailed, concrete plan to put our budget on the path to balance and our economy on the path to prosperity. But Senate Democrats, during this time of national crisis, failed even to present a budget plan – in open defiance of the law and the public they serve. Senate Majority Leader Reid said it would be ‘foolish’ to have a budget…This is the second consecutive year Senate Democrats have disregarded the legally mandated budget process.”

They went on to call Reid’s obstructionist tactics “a national disgrace,” and they couldn’t be more correct.

Debt & Deficit
On this date back in 2008, as we were approaching the catastrophe that would be the “historic election” of someone who was, arguably, the most ill-prepared person in the history of our nation to the presidency of the United States, the US National Debt stood at approximately $10.7 trillion. Our federal budget deficit was at almost $500 billion and our Gross Debt to GDP Ratio was at 75.361 percent. We weren’t in the greatest financial shape and the horizon had some ominous clouds heading our way in the form of a mortgage meltdown that led to a significant recession, which led to a financial markets crisis, all of which put the world – the entire world – on the brink of financial calamity.

Today, three years later, President Obama and his financial gurus – otherwise known as the Manson Family of financial ineptitude – tell us we are “on the mend,” we have “turned the corner,” – even as unemployment remains around 9 percent on average, but that there is “a lot more work to do” and that we should allow him four more years to complete his work toward righting the ship of state – or, as the aware see all too well, his “transformation of the United States of America.” But what have his efforts achieved?

As it stands today, the US National Debt is $15.1trillion. Our federal budget deficit is $1.3 trillion and our Gross Debt to GDP Ratio is 100.480 percent. An even more relevant number – in light of all the “fixing” that Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi have been doing – is the US Unfunded Liabilities, you know, the total the government is committed to paying out for all those nanny state entitlements, including Medicare, Social Security, Prescription Drug Benefits and, now, Obamacare. The Unfunded Liabilities held by the US federal government is a stunning $117.011 trillion. I’m going to write the full number out so you can see it, accurate to extent that the lower numbers are rolling so incredibly fast I can only be relevant to the billions digits: $117,011,381,000,000 and climbing.

On Tuesday it was announced that President Obama will ask for a third increase of the debt ceiling limit this year, raising that limit to $16.394 trillion.

Boards, Agencies & Departments
With the seating of the 112th Congress, we all held the hope that some of the more activist federal boards, agencies and departments would at least have their funding scrutinized and perhaps adjusted so that the Progressive activists and special interest cronies seated to their leadership would be restrained from ruling roughshod over the American private sector through President Obama’s favorite tool: legislation via regulation. But that financial leash failed to appear.

The Boeing Corporation felt the sting of the National Labor Relations Board when it fell victim to a labor union friendly lawsuit, filed by the NLRB, which sought to interfere with the construction of a new plant in South Carolina; a plant that promises to create thousands of new jobs. The lawsuit was later dropped only because Boeing, in juxtaposition to what was a sound financial business decision to move to a right-to-work State (South Carolina) from a State that rolled over to union largess (Washington), acquiesced to keeping the Washington plant open.

Striking fear and promoting uncertainty in the American business community – you know, the sector that actually creates jobs – the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to “expand” its authority and reach, transforming the EPA into what its administrator, Lisa Jackson, says will be an agency that is more “anticipatory” in its approach to environmental issues, broadening “its focus” – or regulatory reach – to include both social and economic as well as environmental “pillars.”

The vehicle for this transformation comes in the form of a $700,000 study the agency commissioned last year from the National Academies of Science. Its aim: how to use existing laws to new ends.

The EPA announced on December 21st, new national standards to cut air pollutants from power plants, a regulation that will force older facilities to close – costing thousands of people their jobs, or clean up – costing consumers more in passed on costs.

The Department of Health & Human Services, under Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, disregarding the fact that the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare) is set to be heard for its constitutionality by the US Supreme Court later this year, has moved forward with its implementation of the entitlement program. In HHS’s implementation, Sec. Sebelius has issued over 1,800 waivers to the health insurance law, mostly to Progressive and labor union friendly businesses

HHS did, however, thwart the plans of another agency, the Food & Drug Administration, to lift a controversial age limit and make Plan B One-Step – or “the morning after pill,” the nation’s first over-the-counter emergency contraceptive, available for purchase by people of any age without a prescription.

Foreign Policy
And while there was hope that controlling the purse strings in Washington would affect Mr. Obama’s dismal foreign policy record by, perhaps, scrutinizing the funding of myriad UN agency programs enveloped in graft and corruption; by questioning the allocation of funds by USAID to pro-Islamist entities in the Middle East; and by examining the distribution of foreign aid to countries, including China, Mr. Obama’s foreign policy agenda has been left unscathed, for the most part.

And we see the fruits of Mr. Obama’s global handiwork across the globe.

In the reckless pursuit of “hope and change,” international style, the pro-democracy agenda, started administrations ago, was given a dose of steroids, only to see leader after leader in the Middle East and North Africa toppled, replaced by fundamentalist – and in some cases violent – Islamist factions. In location after location, from Egypt to Libya, from Syria to Tunisia, we are witnessing the rise of organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda sympathetic factions to the seats of power, threatening a regional war for influence between the Sunni and the Shi’ite; the Shi’ites championed by an about-to-be nuclear capable Iran, another nefarious facilitation labeled an “accomplishment.”

And while it is true that US Navy Seal Team VI took out “Geronimo” – albeit not a stone’s throw away from Pakistan’s “West Point,” it can hardly be attributed to the “extended open hand of peace” that Mr. Obama said US foreign policy in the Middle East would be under his administration. Conversely, it was the continuation and, even, the escalation of former President George W. Bush’s “War on Terror” strategies that found Osama bin Laden with an extra hole in his head.

But, perhaps the biggest foreign policy disappointment – and one where Congress held significant influence to affect a positive outcome – was in the Obama Administration’s refusal to confront China on its currency manipulation.

The Washington Times reports:

“The Obama administration said Tuesday that China is making headway on its currency-valuation policies and should not be deemed a currency manipulator — fighting back against top Senate Democrats who had demanded President Obama sanction the US’s top economic competitor…

“Earlier this fall, the Democrat-led Senate passed a bill that would push the administration to declare China a currency manipulator, which would trigger automatic penalties…

“[The] Republican-led House bottled the bill up, saying it wanted to see the White House take a position. The administration has been reticent to do that, saying it feared action would spark a trade war.

“Tuesday’s report, released while Mr. Obama is vacationing in Hawaii, signals the administration has not changed its attitude and likely means the China-currency legislation is moribund in Congress.”

China owns the United States and Mr. Obama ducks the issue…he’s on vacation, don’t you know…as is Congress.

So, as 2011 winds down, a year that began with so much promise for the reform of a runaway federal government; that started with enthusiasm – at least among the freshmen TEA Party class – to affect real and meaningful change for the American people and change that would see the marginalization of the anti-American despotism exhibited by Progressives elected under the Democrat banner, what did we actually receive from our elected officials in Washington? No budget; no meaningful deficit or debt reduction and, in fact, increased debt and spending; boards, agencies and departments expanding the authority and reach of government; and a foreign policy that sees fundamentalist Islamists taking control of the Middle East and North Africa, and China getting away with currency manipulation even as they continue to receive foreign aid for their biggest debtor; the United States government.

Maybe 2012 will be different…maybe not…all I know is this: for all the compromising and deal making, for all the speeches, rhetoric and congratulations, We the People are in the very same position we were in prior to the 2010 election…and it’s pathetic.

And the debt clock keeps ticking…as does the nuclear clock in the Middle East…as does the encroachment of government into our lives…

Politics also involves such complexity and as we ramp up toward the 2012 election, it behooves the citizenry of this country to become educated in the strategies used by both parties to enhance the viability of their candidates while reducing the credibility of the opposition. For those who enjoy politics, following the primaries is as compelling as watching the football season unfold, and for the populace as a whole, a much higher stakes game is being played that goes beyond who will gain the office of chief executive. The 2012 election has the potential to influence the direction of our country for many years beyond a presidential term of office.

Strategy 1: Discredit the messenger. Within a party and between the parties, this strategy is used to cast doubt in the mind of the voter as to whether the person running for office has the intellectual or moral capacity to lead our country. While it is important to get to know each candidate, to understand his or her strengths and weaknesses, it is also critical to remember that we are not always given the choice of voting for the best person to hold office; we are given a choice of picking the better person to become president. We need to have a set of criteria that this person must meet, much like the ideal candidate for a job. While most people cannot meet every expectation, it is the combination of skills and personality that makes a person the most viable choice. What traits make a good president? Part of this depends on the challenges that person will face. What experiences have prepared the candidate for this role? How has the candidate dealt with adversity, job growth, managing others? What problems face this person going in? Does the person have the depth to understand the long as well as the short term impact of each challenge in relationship to any solution being proposed? Does the candidate exhibit the intellectual capacity to weigh all considerations against a long term goal for leadership? What future does this person envision for our country?

Strategy 2: Discredit the message. Sometimes it is hard to swallow bad tasting medicine and if a message does not appeal to every voter, it is recast to focus on how it will hurt a particular constituency in the short term, rather than deliver for the country on the whole in the long term. The candidate needs to be savvy enough to defend the policies being suggested and to be able to answer the concerns voiced by the public regarding how policies affect the pocket book or security of our nation. Policies that appease special interest groups at the expense of others by treating people unequally are unconstitutional. Everyone, whether they are rich or poor, whether they are elected or electors, is to be treated equally under the fundamental law of this country. When a policy is constitutional, it should advance the stability and wealth of our nation while protecting the individual freedoms of our citizenry.

Strategy 3: Prevent the message from being heard. Regardless of which candidate moves forward in the primaries and is chosen to run on the parties’ ticket, each debate allows the American people to hear each candidate’s response to their concerns and to begin to understand the complexity in addressing each issue. If a teacher was expected to teach a unit on the civil war and then tested the students on the revolutionary war, there would not be an alignment between the content and the assessment. There would not be a true understanding of what was learned or whether the subject was covered well enough or if parts need to be retaught. In a primary debate, moderators need to ask questions that address real concerns facing our country and allow time for the candidates to voice their strategies and solutions, to discuss with one another why they believe they are correct or to adjust their reasoning based on new knowledge. It is inconceivable that a primary debate would be preempted by a rerun of a television series.

Just like the objectives of a teacher should be aligned to the goal of a school; to provide the tools for each student to grow into responsible citizen, able to think critically and be a lifelong learner, not to tell a child what to think, the goal of a president should be aligned to the founding documents; to protect our individual freedoms while advancing the strength, wealth, and security of our nation. It is not to promote special interests or be reelected to office.

When making huge life decisions, getting married, buying a home, taking a job, too many people jump in without weighing their choice against their long term goals, what their expectations are for the work environment, raising a family, how they envision their life in ten, twenty, fifty years. Sometimes people haven’t thought about these things, they have a utopian idea about how life will evolve but they do not have a plan to get there or the tools that will allow it to happen. The president of this country must be able to show us the game plan and how we’ll get there. The goal is pretty simple really, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity; it’s how we get there and whether the president’s plan aligns with this goal that matters. Right now, the way I see it, it’s third and long.

The notion of “triangulation” is not new to American politics. Savvy politicians have triangulated messages and circumstances to their benefit ever since the creation of our country. One needs look no further than the debates that took place over the creation of the US Constitution to understand that even though our Framers and Founders were dedicated to their principles and positions, they were willing to employ rhetorical leverage to achieve their goals. Alexander Hamilton was a master at message triangulation.

Perhaps the most contemporary politician to masterfully employ the art of message triangulation was former Pres. Bill Clinton. In pursuit of re-election in 1996, Clinton senior advisor Dick Morris advocated for a set of statements, a set of policies, that differed from those of his fellow elected Democrats. These policies, which pandered to the ideological Middle and Right, included deregulation and balanced budgets, culminating in the false declaration, included in Mr. Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union Address, that the “era of big government is over.”

Triangulation, by way of definition, can be summarized as:

“…the name given to the act of a political candidate presenting his or her ideology as being ‘above’ and ‘between’ the Left and Right sides (or factions) of a traditional democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one’s political opponent (or apparent opponent). The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent’s ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.”

The same triangulation tactics used by politicos to further their careers can also be used by organizations and movements. In the case of the OWS movement, the use of a triangulated message by Progressives serves to blur the line between crony Capitalism and Capitalism, luring the citizenry to focus on the word “Capitalism,” associating it with the idea of “unfairness,” while Progressives present the notion of redistribution of wealth – a Progressive, neo-Marxist tenet – as being “fair.”

Crony Capitalism can best be defined as:

“A description of capitalist society as being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives.”

And while crony Capitalism is something that any honest, hard-working, taxpaying American should abhor, the attempt to foist the neo-Marxist, Progressive principle of redistribution of wealth on the American people under the convoluted guise of Capitalism being unfair, is, dare I say, wicked and evil; at the very least it is a lie.

A fair explanation of Capitalism states:

“In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated.”

The stark difference between crony Capitalism and Capitalism is that Capitalism is based on freedom: freedom of choice; freedom from government oppression and regulatory caveat; unfettered (or relatively unfettered) commerce between the producer and the purchaser. Crony Capitalism is based on an “unlevel playing field,” where government interferes with the free market process to create an advantage for a preferred faction. A perfect example of crony Capitalism is Solyndra, where the Obama Administration granted favoritism to a private corporation through the avail of taxpayer dollars to afford it a better chance in the market place. The fact that the corporation may or may not produce something of quality and value is irrelevant.

Back to the OWS triangulation…

While the Progressives behind OWS – and by now only the terminally daft still believe the canard that the usual suspects are not involved (i.e. MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress, The Open Society Institute and George Soros, etc.) – disingenuously facilitate the crony Capitalism versus Capitalism argument, they seek to diminish the anti-Americanism of redistribution of wealth, moving the notion into the mainstream by framing it as benevolent and “fair.”

As OWS participants condemn the producers – even as they coordinate their actions via cell phones and iPads; even as they drink Starbucks while wearing their Abercrombie & Fitch clothing – they do so while presenting a litany of “demands” that redistributed wealth from the “producers” to the 21st Century “neo-Proletariat”; demands that include:

• The imposition of a “Robin Hood Tax” on most goods and services worldwide, with the aim of using its generated revenues to fund environmental and social-welfare programs.
• The Institution of a universal single payer healthcare system.
• A guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
• Free college education.
• One trillion dollars in infrastructure spending, now.
• One trillion dollars in ecological restoration.
• Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all.

Each and every one of these “demands” requires that the producers – someone who works an honest job for an honest wage and/or invests money into a vehicle (company, business or corporation) that creates wealth for himself and others – subject themselves to the confiscation of their earned wages by government so that the non-producer (the neo-Proletariat) can benefit.

People, this is Marxism, “straight up,” to borrow and paraphrase from one of the neo-Proletariat, Janeane Garofalo.

The Progressive Left – the neo-Marxist American Left – is relentless in its pursuit of the transformation of the United States of America. Since its entrance onto the American political main stage, circa 1888, Progressives have been triangulating messages, redefining words, rewriting history and lying to the American people with a regularity that would make the producers of Metamucil jealous.

There is a great clamor in this nation for political “compromise” in the hope that said compromise will affect honest solutions for the very real problems that face our country. The problem with instituting political compromise today is this: Honest American politicians from both sides of the aisle cannot compromise with Progressives when Progressives negotiate from a position of dishonest, deceptive and self-serving ideological and political greed. Today’s Progressives – today’s neo-Marxist leaders and their self-indulgent neo-Proletariat – are just that abhorrent.

A recent column by The Atlantic’s Emily Berman, a Furman Fellow and Brennan Center Fellow at NYU School of Law, informs the citizenry:

It just got easier for the federal government to collect information about innocent Americans — and those Americans have had surprisingly little say in the matter.

On October 15, the FBI reportedly implemented new rules that relax restrictions on, and oversight of, the FBI’s intelligence collection activities. Although they are not available to the public, reports indicate the changes permit FBI agents to search an individual’s trash with the goal of finding material that might pressure him into becoming a government informant, grant agents the authority to search commercial or law enforcement databases without first opening an investigation, and reduce the type of investigations subjected to heightened oversight because of their relationship to protected First Amendment expression, association, or religious practice.

This is the third modification of the FBI’s intelligence collection authorities since September 11, 2001. First in 2002, again in 2008, and finally, just last week, amendments were adopted with scant public attention and with minimal — if any — congressional involvement. Groups and communities concerned about the new rules’ impact on civil liberties, particularly the risk of religious or ethnic profiling, also had no constructive input.

Granted, heated debate continues over the PATRIOT Act, signed into law after the jihadist attacks of September 11, 2001. Debate is good. It helps all involved – citizenry, government and advocacy groups — to present cogent arguments in pursuit of protections for the US Constitution and the whole of the Charters of Freedom. But the PATRIOT Act, whether you agree with it or not, was the result of a direct enemy attack on our country and was drafted in pursuit of protection for our citizenry. While it may need to be refined, it is a completely different matter from the federal government usurping enumerated limitations on federal authority and protected rights to extract information from an American citizen who is not officially under investigation or to coerce an American citizen in matters not related to national security, and even then without due process.

The Fourth Amendment states quite clearing:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It’s pretty straightforward; there is a procedure in place (due process) that the federal government must adhere to when engaging an American citizen in matters of law enforcement. To ignore – or usurp – this due process is to ignore the rule of law, which is the bedrock of our Constitutional Republic. To ignore due process, where an American citizen is concerned, is unconstitutional and criminal in nature.

If that weren’t enough, Eric Holder’s Justice Department is also acting to codify a longstanding policy that effectively validates lying to not only the American people but the judicial branch as well:

A longtime internal policy that allowed Justice Department officials to deny the existence of sensitive information could become the law of the land — in effect a license to lie — if a newly proposed rule becomes federal regulation in the coming weeks.

The proposed rule directs federal law enforcement agencies, after personnel have determined that documents are too delicate to be released, to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests ‘as if the excluded records did not exist.’

Justice Department officials say the practice has been in effect for decades, dating back to a 1987 memo from then-Attorney General Edwin Meese.

In that memo, and subsequent similar internal documents, Justice Department staffers were advised that they could reply to certain FOIA requests as if the documents had never been created. That policy never became part of the law — or even codified as a federal regulation — and it was recently challenged in court.

A final version of the proposal could be issued by the end of 2011. If approved, the new rule would officially become a federal regulation with the force of law.

All of this presents the question: Who does one call when the chief law enforcement officer when the federal department responsible for upholding justice ignores our rights and begins acting like Third World or Soviet-era intelligentsia?

From his refusal to protect the voting rights of every citizen, to the blatant, politically based, “social justice” racism executed by his department, along with his pursuit of the deliberate usurpation of the enumerated limitations placed on the federal government to protect the rights of the citizenry in both personal security and our right to know, Mr. Holder has not only been a disgrace to the American system of justice; he has effectively become an enemy to the US Constitution, the whole of the Charters of Freedom and the very ideas of blind justice and liberty.

If, for no other reason, Holder’s exit from the federal government will be one of the major benefits of the Obama Administration coming to an end. But for now, as I asked before, who do you call when 9-1-1 is the criminal?