On a hot day in June 1815, standing atop a distant hill facing a red sea of British troops, Napoleon Bonaparte surveyed the military mass before him and realized Arthur Wellesley — the Duke of Wellington — was notably protecting his right flank with heavy amounts of cannon and artillery. Interpreting this to mean the Duke must be shielding a weak and vulnerable point, the Corsican determined he would launch an attack at exactly that spot, practicing his standard modus operandi of divide and conquer: hit your opponent where he is weak, force him to expend valuable reserves to protect the destabilized position therefore dividing his forces, and then aggressively press the middle to decimate a weakened center. Pointing to a farmhouse directly at the heart of this right periphery, Napoleon ordered his generals, “We’ll begin the attack there, at Hougoumont.”

As history would later dictate, this particular dwelling, Château d’Hougoumont, was held by a resolute British force that pushed back repeated advances from a superior-numbered French infantry. In a unique twist of events the strategy backfired on Napoleon: by sending waves of his men to take the Château, he stretched his troops thin and diluted the sum of his total force. This — combined with a late arrival of Blücher and his Prussian brigade — helped secure final defeat and eventual exile of the French Emperor. Despite its pivotal role in determining the battle’s outcome, Hougoumont stands as a subset of the larger conflict known as Waterloo.

As the 112th Congress convenes in Washington, the United States Senate stands as a modern-day Hougoumont, caught between a freshly minted conservative House of Representatives and a White House steadfastly holding to a Leftist ideology.

Legislation is meant to pass easier with much less parliamentary hassle in the People’s House, a simple majority is all that is needed for passage; conversely the Senate has a tradition of slow-going, debating the finer points of government policy and minutiae — one senator can hold up an entire bill single-handedly, and the filibuster serves as a counter-weight to the majority party, allowing the minority to force the party in power to garner 60 votes to end debate and bring a vote to the floor. At the top of the pyramid stands the White House, attempting to influence proposed law, hoping to have approved legislation it can sign into law and exterminate in congress ones the president wishes to avoid altogether.

Notwithstanding her devotion to all-things-bureaucratic, boundless energy to socialize anything that moves, and ubiquitous plastic smile, Nancy Pelosi has exited the stage far Left. In her absence, along with a presence of a solid Republican House majority, it is largely expected that a slew of conservative bills will emerge and pass the lower congressional chamber en masse. It is already viewed as a bold move that by weeks end Speaker Boehner will present a one-page bill to entirely repeal Obamacare — crown jewel of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate, not to mention the recipient of the highest number of ‘Likes’ on Obamacare’s Facebook page from members of the New York City Sanitation Union and Humanities Department at New Hampshire State University. But I digress.

Once this revocation of socialized medicine — along with other bills to curtail spending, prevent tax increases, and keep Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his band of merry men out of a United States courtroom — emanates from the House it will most assuredly meet stiff resistance in the Senate, abetted by some string-pulling from White House liaisons to keep such bills away from the president’s desk.

It will be in the Senate where the heavy debating and strategic fighting will take place; where a frustrated public will have to listen to the ‘Gentlewoman from California’ explain why an exploding deficit and threats of hyperinflation are not really a big deal and there is no reason to curtail government spending. Newly elected Senators supported by the growing Tea Party movement will face off with antiquities who have held their seats for time immemorial: will a conservative Rand Paul emerge victorious in a debate with the Leftist relic John Kerry? More voting Americans identify themselves as conservative now than in recent memory, will Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell use this to his advantage, or cut a deal with Senate Democrats? At what lengths, or depths, will Senators go to invoke a filibuster? If the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the White House, under what conditions will Obama sign it into law or further the debate by using his veto pen? Many issues lay just under the surface and are sure to explode in the upcoming session: extending the national debt ceiling, closing Guantanamo, bailing out bankrupt states and cities, addressing illegal immigration, reducing spending levels to previous rates in 2008 or 2006 to mention a few. All of the above and more will have their fate determined in the Senate. And finally, keep in mind how all this will influence the 2012 election.

A lot is out there and much will be on the table, the Senate will serve as the dividing line between Congressional Republicans and President Obama, and that is where the real battle will take place.

In the closing chapters of election 2010, one conspicuous factor that stands out is the bizarre and obvious contempt the liberal Left has with the American voter.

Upon his coronation, it was pronounced loud and clear by the new administration, mainstream media, and leftwing blogs that all subjects who reside within the kingdom be required to show homage and reverence to the chosen-Obama and his benevolent governing. Like Plato’s Philosopher Kings — the wise guardians of truth placed in authority to guide the masses to an undiscovered utopia — Obama, Pelosi, and Reid were destined to lead us to untold prosperity and ideal community. Dissent was frowned upon and stifled: any attempt at expressing concern or worry on runaway expenditures, lack of transparency, or the wisdom of nationalizing one-sixth of our economy was handled as delicately as a union thug pouncing on a peaceful bystander wearing a Glenn Beck t-shirt at an AFL-CIO picnic. We — the unwashed masses — were told to shut up and be grateful we had such fine leadership making decisions on our behalf.

The simple fact of life is that at the end of the day results matter and the results from the Obama administration and congressional Democrats are nothing short of abysmal. Rising unemployment, trillions in runaway national debt, union kickbacks veiled in the form of “stimulus” legislation, failure to extend middle-class tax cuts are just a few examples of the many grotesque trophies the Left places on their eco-friendly fireplace that burns only soy logs. In fact, a good argument can made that the most successful bullet point Democrats can really point to in the past 18 months is the extension of the previous administration’s Iraq policies; the intellectually profound Joe Biden actually declared Iraq to be one of Obama’s “greatest achievements.”

In the face of such lustrous accomplishments, the public grew weary and payment to the piper has come due: New Jersey and Virginia saw new conservative leadership in the Governor’s office; Massachusetts witnessed the removal of a once-thought sacred senate seat held for the Left for time eternal; and presently Democrats are running away from the Obama administration as if they were placed in the witness protection program.

Rather than face up to the reality that these programs have not worked, that they have actually caused further damage to our ailing economy, and attempt to right the ship, Obama and his acolytes have taken to blaming the public in general for their low-approval ratings. In summation, Team Obama declares: It’s not our fault that our poll numbers are suffering and Democrats are losing at the ballot box, the American voter simply doesn’t understand what is good for them.

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now,” Obama recently told a group of Democratic donors in Massachusetts, “and facts and science and argument (do) not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared.” Huh? Facts and Science? Like millions of unemployed, massive deficits, a struggling housing market, and China holding our fate in their perilous hands? Pay no attention to these uncomfortable truths, not my fault, just a country that can’t see the good I’ve done them and is scared for no reason.

Nobody knows what will happen six day from now, Election Day is the final and ultimate poll taken by voting citizens and is meant to reflect the general mood of the country; anything can happen, there will inevitably be more than one surprise victory or defeat. As things stand now, all facts on the table, Dems and the Left will realistically lose and more than likely lose big: a new congress, new governors, a conservative response to the failed policies present in our government.

Don’t expect Obama or his ilk to man-up, take responsibility for their course of action, and make necessary corrections to stable our nation. No, the Philosopher Kings sit high above in their towers of ivory, gazing down at the unhappy citizens, and openly declare that they are blameless and any opposition or electoral failure rests solely at the feet of the uneducated, unenlightened, and misguided American voter.

Remember to vote this Tuesday.

With the end of mid-term election season quickly approaching, nearly every poll, blog post, and even MSM news story has come to a similar conclusion: at least one house in Congress (and possibly both) is almost guaranteed to flip from one party to another.  And on a larger scale conservative and center/right candidates should also make rather significant gains in statehouses and governorships from sea to shining sea.

Frankly, much good will hopefully come out of this election cycle.

But is our work done on November 2^nd?  Have we truly changed our country after the election results are all tallied?  Are we to sit back and simply revel in what we have done before focusing on 2012?

The answer to each of these questions is clearly NO.  The unavoidable truth is that there is MUCH more work to be done.

However, I don’t mean just on a national scale – I mean in our own backyards.

The state I live in, Oklahoma, does something very interesting each fall when people are thinking about holiday plans, the end of the school semester, and anything other than politics: they have school board candidates in every district across the state file to run for office…during the first Monday through Wednesday in December.

Yep, if you want to run for school board in Oklahoma, you have to file at the most random time possible.

What this also means is that a month after the election season finally “ends” for 2010, a new one starts right back up.  And most people don’t even know it.

In fact, a majority of people probably have no clue that people are filing for an office that directly impacts their kids and their communities in some very dramatic ways.  And it is only natural that if they don’t know about school board filings, they surely do not know about the school board elections.

And we wonder why school board elections on the second Tuesday in February across Oklahoma typically see voter turnout anywhere between 3%-5% in each community.

Thus, for many school board candidates ignorance is bliss at the ballot box.

But so what?  Who cares about school boards anyway?  You should.  Why?

Because think about this:

The President of the United States chooses and thus advises the Secretary of Education, who heads the Education Department.  The Education Department is pressured by the National Education Association (a powerful and liberal teachers union) in a variety of ways to impact education legislation in Congress.  Then the same issues being pushed by the NEA at the national level are then also pushed by local chapters – the Oklahoma Education Association in my home state – who also lobby and look to persuade state legislators, the state Department of Education, school administrators, and school board members about issues they deem important.  In turn, the state Department of Education and state legislature then set guidelines and mandates for school district administrators and school board members across the state who in turn pass them on directly to the teachers who spend 8 hours a day inside the classroom with our children.

Thus, our last line of defense in this chain of national impact at the local level in education are school board members who are willing to stand up and fight for fiscal responsibility, authentic educational accountability, school choice, unbiased teaching materials, and unheeded transparency within the education system.

So, sure, it is great that the House is going to change hands in a few weeks, and I am excited as anyone to see folks from across the country stand up in defense of our freedom and liberty over the coming years.

But if you really want to impact your community and the future of your kids, don’t stop after November.  Don’t allow your natural inclination to rest and relax after your victory so that you lose sight of your local community.  Don’t let the strides we have made on the national level get overlooked at the local level – especially with school boards.  Don’t cease working to save and change the country you love so much.

The time is coming to transition from a national mindset to a local one.  The time is coming for conservatives to run for these local and vitally important offices or energetically support those who do run.  The time is coming to get off the sidelines in local elections just like we have in the national ones.

Simply put, the time is coming when we will continue to work for freedom and liberty in our local educational systems.

In the middle of October, 2008, when I still had my own personal blog (never again) I predicted that Barack Obama would win the Presidential election.  Though the poll numbers were still pretty tight at that point, the writing was on the wall as far as I was concerned.  Thus I conceded a month early and wrote a post about what conservatives should do next after the November elections.

The purpose of the post (entitled “The Conservative Reaction: A Call to Action”) was to ask the question:

“What should we as Conservatives do after the election we face of an overwhelming Democratic House and Senate and a newly elected Democratic President?”

Now, two years later, I wanted to go back and see how conservatives have done.  Thus, here is what I wrote as the “Five Things I am Going to Try to do During LUPO – Life Under President Obama”.  Check them out along with my new comments underneath.

Number 1: As a conservative, Barack Obama’s election means I must stand firm in my convictions and be ready to defend my positions…

First off, I know of many folks who immediately started reading up on the free market system, the constitution, and the history of the founding fathers in order to begin educating themselves.  Additionally, conservatives have been challenged by prominent conservatives to know where they stand and why.  And overall, conservatives have started going on the offensive more and more as the country has been taken down the road to even more massive government and less individual freedom.

Because people have embraced this responsibility, it has truly been incredible to see how many folks are now openly touting their conservative beliefs and their love for liberty.  Well done, American public.

Number 2: As a conservative, Barack Obama’s election means I must be creative in how I get my message to the masses…

When I wrote this post two years ago I was really curious how this was going to play out.  But two years later, I see how conservatives are using tools like Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and conservative websites to truly spread the message of conservatism effectively and strategically.  Heck, even conservative candidates are (finally) eschewing traditional media sources and taking their message straight to the people.

It is truly amazing to know that our better ideas and principled positions are finally starting to reach the average citizen – and it is humbling to know that American Majority has been at the forefront of this movement through our trainings, outreach, and education of a new generation of concerned Americans.

Score another one for the good guys.

Number 3: As a conservative, Barack Obama’s election means I must unite with those around me who believe as I do…

The implications of this advice are obvious two years later – The Tea Party Movement.  Not only has the movement grown exponentially since the spring of 2009, but it has also become a political force in all parts of the country.  And while the MSM mocked it, misunderstood it, and tried its best to kill it, the Tea Party folks have continually gotten more and more excited about cleaning house in Washington.  Thanks for that, President Obama; in reality, we owe you big time.

Oh, and just to channel my inner Al Gore, since I wrote about the need to unite and come together about 6 months before the Tea Parties started, I will take full and complete credit for them.  Yea for me.

Number 4: As a conservative, Barack Obama’s election means I must not give into the lie that conservatism is dying…

Well, obviously this is not the case.  Even though the pundits declared a new era in politics and the death of the conservative movement, we’ll see just how dead we are on November 2.

However, as a side note, if the (hopefully) decisive election results don’t clearly state the case for the country’s desire for smaller government, less spending, more accountability, and decidedly more transparency, then maybe Chris Christie can get in someone’s face and explain it to them nice and plain-like.

Number 5: Lastly, as a conservative, Barack Obama’s election means I must embrace the hope that even though things look dark now, there is a light upon the dawn…

Ah, yes, hope.  Not a false hope or a government-built hope, but a genuine and authentic “clean-out-the-halls-of-Congress-kind-of-hope” is what I feel when I look around the country and see people working hard to change our country for the better.  It truly is a blessing to see that apathy is slowly being replaced once again by the American desire for freedom, liberty, and prosperity.

Thus, before we battle for the next 20+ days for the future of this country, take a second to enjoy the fact that the horizon is breaking forth through the morning dark.  Relish the thought that soon our anger, our disgust, and our weariness will soon be replaced by a steadfast resolve to hold a new batch of elected representatives responsible for their actions and their votes.

For it is nearing the time to go from educated and informed voter to become educated and informed constituents once again – this time with a new focus and a renewed strength to see the American Dream make its comeback.

And be sure that while our days have been dark for the past two years, the light of freedom will show itself very bright very soon.  For this reason, I am thankful and encouraged by what has transpired within this movement during the past two years and what will happen many years into the future.

Fight on, fellow Americans, fight on!

An excellent article describing how one ideology wants to target and change something properly sound, morally just, and historically unique; and another is working feverishly to protect it.

Why the Left Seeks to Transform America

On March 25^th in Iowa City, Iowa, President Obama said the following: “On Tuesday, after a year of debate and a century of trying, after so many of you shared your stories and your heartaches and your hopes, that promise was finally fulfilled.  And today, health insurance reform is the law of the land.”

In taking his victory lap (and in innumerable remarks made over the past year) President Obama once again turned to a tried and true weapon in his rhetorical arsenal: the 100 year argument for healthcare reform.

Many questions arise out of what the President has been saying about the past 100 years in regards to this battle for healthcare reform.  If the press were doing their job, they would ask questions like “Why would he use this argument time and time again in pushing for healthcare reform in 2010?”, or “Who exactly has been trying to get healthcare reform done for 100 years?”, or even “Why have these folks been trying so hard for so long?” 

But the best question, and the one I would ask, could be “If healthcare reform is so great, why has it taken 100 years to finally pass it?”

There could be many answers to this very complex question, but the most obvious answer is that the people of the United States have never overwhelmingly desired or called healthcare reform.  Thus our elected officials have never taken the extreme steps to force it upon us.

If this is true, then this gives us insight to the basic identity and desires of the American public as a whole.  And this knowledge better explains what guides the people who have pushed the ideals that are opposite of what Americans have consistently desired. 

This understanding also sheds light on how the American public will undoubtedly respond and react when their collective will is trampled upon by those in the minority who fall outside of this basic identity.

To this end it could very easily be said that in the republic we in which we live the will of the people is designed to reign supreme.  In fact, Thomas Jefferson said, “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.”

If this is the case, what relationship is there between a 100 year push for healthcare and the seemingly opposite will of the American public?

Well, according to this New York Times timeline, over those 100 years the following presidents have attempted to drastically overhaul of our healthcare system or have openly pushed for universal healthcare: Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama.

Take a look at that list – not exactly a conservative dream team.

Okay, that tells us who has led the push.  But what about our country?

Most conservatives would call our country a “center-right” nation.  When you look over the entirety of the country (past the population centers and even certain geographical anomalies) it certainly appears as if this is the case.  We are not overwhelmingly conservative nor are we overwhelmingly liberal.  However, our historical inclination to the free market system, capitalism, and a limited form of government lead many people believe that the country leans at least somewhat to the right.

Identification studies back this up.  In October, 2009, Gallup released a poll where 40% of Americans say they consider themselves “conservative”, 36% consider themselves “moderate”, and 22% consider themselves “liberal”.

Yet as a country we do elect presidents who lean left.  In fact, we have done this on many occasions over the past 100 years.  However, this could be because of the popularity of the parties at certain times, how well campaigns are run or not run, or the political circumstances that surround hotly contested elections.

What is also true is that the current President was not swept into office by a massive popular vote margin as some on the left would have you believe.  In fact, the popular vote was a difference of roughly 9.5 million votes out of just over 131 million cast – this translated into a difference of 7.25% of the total number of votes.  To put that into perspective, in 1984 Ronald Reagan beat Walter Mondale by 16.9 million votes or 18.2%.  Where we that much different in 1984 than we were in 2008?

No.  Just as Reagan’s victory was a product of its time, the same can be true for Obama’s victory.

Furthermore, what these figures certainly do not signify is that those of us on the right are all of the sudden overwhelmingly outnumbered by those on the left.  But that is what the left would like you to believe.

On his Twitter account, Roger Ebert said this before the healthcare vote: “Not ONE Republican will depart from the Party Line. Suicidal. Out of touch with America, which WANTS this bill.”  Subsequently after the vote his reaction was much the same: “I feel kinda like I did on Nov. 4, 2008. The American people have good hearts, and democracy works. Lies and fear do not prevail.”   

What are the clear lessons we can learn from this outspoken liberal?  That the American people who voted for Obama have good hearts.  Democracy works even though no one on the opposite side of the aisle would vote for the bill.  And because no Republicans would vote for the bill, it is suicide for them politically because America WANTS this bill. 

I don’t think so, Roger.  If we are to believe public polls, America very clearly did not want the bill and still does not want the bill even as it has been signed into law.  Certain segments obviously desire this type of government intervention within healthcare (and every other aspect of their lives), and they are very passionate about their support.  But to make an overarching statement such as the entire country wants something this clearly partisan is just not very intelligent.  To me these kinds of statements born out of Roger’s liberal isolationism sound just plain silly. 

Additionally, If Roger’s assertions were true about the bill’s massive popularity, then the bill would have been passed the House by an overwhelming margin by members of both parties.  Instead, it only passed by a meager 4 votes; all of which were from the same political party.

All of this takes us back to the original question: Why did it take 100 years to pass major health reform? 

Again, could the answer simply be that because we are a center/right country, as a whole we have never truly supported massive healthcare reform?

If this is true, then the converse is also true: Only a certain liberal segment of society has always wanted massive healthcare reform and relentlessly worked toward it for 100 years.

So what is different about 2010?  If the country did not dramatically change, then what made the difference now?

This difference is that this certain liberal segment of society that has been fighting this war for the past 100 years also happens to currently lead the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate.  And it also holds the office of President of the United States.

Simply put, it was a perfect storm of liberal leadership imposing their will on not only a center/right American public but also the numerous centrist Democrats currently serving in the United States Congress.  We know this is true by the amount of arm-twisting, deal making, and parlimentarian tricks it took to get to the necessary 216 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate. 

If we were to be honest, we could even go so far as to say that three people flexed their political muscle and overrode the will of the people of the United States of America.

And now they wonder why an overwhelming segment of the population is so angry?  Could it be that we are upset our collective will got trampled on?

So what do we do?  If we are a center/right country who is not pleased by their left leaning leadership both locally and in Washington, what is the plan?  How should we proceed from this point on?

The first thing we must do is unite under a center/right flag with those whom are willing to fight for a common purpose.  If we can humbly and effectively figure out the ideals and philosophies we share and focus on them, we can unite to build effective and long-term coalitions.

Secondly, we need to be trained as educated citizens how to re-take our country through information gathering and sharing, community changing elections, and through the persuasion of more sensible ideals.

And lastly, we need to identify and support solid candidates to run for office on the local level in preparation for national change.  Then we need to give these people the tools and resources to win.  This involves encouraging center/right folks to properly assist them and support them as campaign volunteers and voters on election day.

By following these few game-changing principles we can undo what’s been done.  But it will take time, patience, and the right people in office to do the job.  American Majority can help through our candidate and activist trainings, and other organizations can provide massive amounts of tools and resources to take us from an angry group of protesting citizens to a focused group of implementers of freedom.

It is up to us, folks.  We all need to help.  We must now flex our political muscles as free and proud Americans.

In the end, if we do it correctly, we will get back to where we have always been as a center/right nation – a nation dedicated to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans.

In the summer of 1996 I could not wait for the fall when I would be starting my college experience at the University of Oklahoma.  At that point the only major worry I had about my impending freedom was how I was going to pay for this adventure. 

Unfortunately my parents were not able to help me out, and though for the first year I had won a few scholarships and “fee waivers” because of my grades, there was still a pretty sizable financial void I would have to fill.

Thus, a few months before I headed off to school I went down to the local branch of the Bank of Western Oklahoma, sat down with a friend of mine’s mother who was a loan officer, and began the process of borrowing my life away to pay for college. 

This initial experience with getting those student loans was efficient, easy, and pretty painless.  All it took was a meeting with my friend’s mom, some paperwork, and a follow up meeting a week later to finish up the process.  With that, I was set for the next 5 years of college.

It really was that simple and that quick.

Fast-forward to 2010.  I am standing in the middle of a lecture hall on a university campus speaking to around 100 very quiet students about the importance of playing a role in the political process.  My initial question to them revolves around if they are aware of what happened the previous weekend in Washington.  Their collective answer is a sporadic grumble that resembles “healthcare reform passed”.

My follow up question is something along the lines of how this healthcare reform passage affects them.

Two brave souls speak up.  The first guy says something about higher taxes.  I laugh and say that is probably true.

Then a second guy says something completely unexpected: “The government is now going to be the ones issuing student loans.”

Wait, what?  Seriously, a 19 year old with unlaced sneakers and a t-shirt 3 sizes too big knew about that?  Very impressive.

But he is right.  Inside of the massive and expansive health reform bill was a student loan reform bill as well.  A reform bill that takes away the ability of private lenders (like my hometown bank) to initiate and issue student loans.

According to this editorial by the Newark Star-Ledger, now instead of going to privately owned financial institutions, “families will be able to apply for the government’s Direct Loan Program through college financial aid offices”. 

And yes, this editorial board considers this a good thing.

The editorial goes on to say, “The changes make sense for students, parents, colleges — for everyone except the loan companies losing their unnecessary role as middlemen. When the Senate passes the health care reconciliation bill, this will be another reason to cheer.”

Did you see that?  The underlying message from this editorial board is that banks and other private financial institutions are greedy and selfish because the federal government has used them to distribute and issue student loans.  And those privileged bankers have made money off of this?  Oh, the humanity!

What this editorial did was make me even more curious about the aspects of the student loan reform.  So I did some digging.

First, I wondered if banks and other financial institutions really made that much money off of student loans.  I posed this question to a banker friend of mine who works in lending, and he looked at me and laughed.  He explained that even when the bank does issue the loan at a higher interest rate, it is not enough to make then bank any money when you count the man hours and governmental fees associated with issuing the student loans.  If fact, he said, the bank loses money on them and simply employs them as a service to students.

But I thought the banks were greedy and were using the students’ desperate situations for private jets and parties for their Wall St cronies!?!?

Secondly, in looking at this editorial, I wondered why anyone would want the government to take over an industry that is doing something well.  Sure, there have been “scandals” associated with the student loan process, but are government run bureaucracies any different?  No, and in fact they are worse (see Freddie and Fannie). 

What this editorial blatantly and unapologetically shows is the philosophy of the left that the government can always do something better than private business.  But we know from a hundred years worth of examples that his is simply not the case.  In the instance of student loans, overnight our country goes from having literally millions of banks to handle millions of student loans to one government agency handling the millions of student loans.

Yeah, I bet that is efficient. 

So efficient that surely other questions will not arise about where you actually go to get your loan or how much of your personal information will the government have or who will ultimately approve or decline your loan.  Plus, I am sure that there is a plan in place for the massive structure for which this program will undoubtedly need.  At least we know they will have to hire thousands of new governmental employees to work there. 

Oh good, more government expansion. 

Lastly, like many other ways in which the government is operating now, the underlying problem is that the government is overstepping its bounds and trying to create a solution where there is no major problem.  But who cares if there is no problem – the banks are making way too much money on poor college students, and this must be stopped.  Where does the solution lie then?  With the government of course!

In reality, what we have is the United States government taking over yet another private industry because it feels like it can operate it better.  What the result will be is longer lines and more red tape, more confusion and frustration about the process and the hoops families will have to jump through to get their student loans, and the government having more of our personal information to use as it sees fit. 

The entire scenario is a nightmare for parents and student alike.  And that is what our government has created through this terrible piece of legislation.

It has become increasingly clear to most Americans that the mainstream media is courting the current White House with the intensity of a 17-year-old boy. As I flip through the major networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC, it becomes painfully clear that there is an agenda they want to see pushed. When the president does this– elation. When the president does not– criticism. That is not news, that is a drama filled episode of HBO’s Big Love.

Coming from a traditional communications background, I am disappointed and deeply saddened at the loss of objectivity and standards within the news today. As an amateur historian, I am embarassed that the memory of men like Franklin and Jefferson are made a mockery by people like Matthews and Olbermann. Benjamin Franklin, who owned and published a newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, once said that “a newspaper in every home” was the “principle support of…morality” in civic life. Unfortunately, the current news structure has become less about education and knowledge and more about persuasion and opinion. In today’s era of big media, there unfortunately is another quote from Franklin that comes to mind, “When truth and error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter.” 50 years ago the media was there to tell the nation what the people thought. Today, the media exists to tell the nation what to think.

Any sane individual can clearly delineate the lines drawn in the sand. Victor Davis Hanson has done an excellent job recapping the media’s treatment of both Bush and Obama in a piece for The Corner. Specifically, Hanson noted the lack of “substantive criticism of Obama’s flips on renditions, military tribunals, wiretaps, intercepts, Iraq..” and the “Obama plan to run up more red ink in a year than Bush did in eight.” Apparently, an objective stance on the growth and over-reach of government is less important than ensuring the masses accept their fate and relinquish decision making in an appropriately jovial fashion.

In addition, Pew Research notes that this Administration has received an extraordinary amount of positive press, almost double that of Bill Clinton and George Bush. Their study has found that positive stories about this Administration have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed.

It seems objectivity is not only lost by those who produce the news, subjectivity is quickly overtaking those who consume it: According to the new poll out by Gallup, nearly half of Democrats (45%) say the media have done an excellent or good job as a watchdog of the Democratic Obama administration, compared with 29% of independents and 30% of Republicans. You can read the whole article here: Click to Read the Full Article

There are many speculating on why the mainstream media favors this Administration and why limited government never gets a fair shake, leave your thoughts in the comments and let me know what your take is. Me: I believe the news is there to inform, not influence. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.” This country was built on the ingenuity of free men and will continue to remain so only with the input of an educated, informed populace.

Regardless of our political affiliation, for now the writing remains on the wall; or in this case, the heart shaped eyes and dropping jaw remain on Chris Matthews:

You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour.

WATCH THE FULL CLIP HERE

Times, they are a changing. With the rise of blogs and social media, I hope we will fulfill the wishes of both Franklin and Jefferson in creating an educated, informed populace with the knowledge and know-how to steer this country from the bottom-up. Until then, I’ll take my news with a grain of salt…and a margarita.

No matter which side you are on, it’s pretty easy to see that the White
House’s message of transparency has been, somewhat, well, hard to
decipher. Matt Kibbe wrote about a few of the back door deals and the
behind the scenes nature of the health care debate.

Despite the transparency rhetoric, promises of an open conversation and a
ban on lobbyists in the White House, there have been murky-at-best
explanations for documented White House visitors. President Obama pledged
not to work with lobbyists. So, naturally, lobbyists just delist, and
voila! No more lobbyists in the White House. Which unfortunately, doesn’t
make them any less of a lobbyist… just a lot more illegal.

Lobbyists are nothing new. The issue is that for a campaign that ran so
vehemently on not working with lobbyists and special interests, they seem
to be more than happy to blur the lines when it benefits their cause. But
what makes a lobbyist a lobbyist?

The Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) defines a lobbyist as a person who spends
more than 20% of their time on “lobbying activities” and has had more
then one “lobbying contact”. Pretty simple. What constitutes a
“lobbying activity”? Time spent on lobbying contacts, as well as any
planning, prep time, research, coordination, and dirt digging. A
“lobbying contact” is any communication, oral or written, with federal
officials regarding policy modification, formulation and adoption. That
goes for legislation, government officials, government contracts, and
nominations subject to Senate consent.

Andy Stern, a known lobbyist who delisted in 2007, has taken his share of
heat. He appeared on the White House visitor log 22 times last year for
meetings with President Obama, Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel, and Peter Orzag.
News articles also report meetings with House members and Senators.

Apparently not the brightest bulb, Stern also reported his meetings on
Twitter. The Alliance for Worker Freedom and Americans for Tax Reform
collected tweets from February to June that mention White House meetings,
visits with Congressmen, and lobbying with Mayor Bloomberg.

Click here to view a clip from an interview with Stern.

“I don’t care if I went there once, or if I went there every single
day, they would say it’s too much. That’s because they have a different
vision of America than the people I work with every day.”

The assumed access to the White House is an incredible display of
arrogance. They never thought they would be denied access. This is what
happens when everything is negotiable and promises mean nothing. Washington
is doing what it wants, and the less we know the better.

Transparency redefined: We’ll actually show you nothing, and then say
that the reason nothing is working is because of the Republicans. Those
Republicans and their silly “Constitution” and “procedures”. That
is all that stands between you and utopia, people.