This country has recently had two very controversial Attorneys General, John Ashcroft and Eric Holder.   John Ashcroft served the first term of the George W. Bush administration.  Eric Holder currently holds the job.

What did the critics say about each and where was the press on those issues relevant to them?

John Ashcroft had just lost a Senate Race in Missouri when he was appointed by GW Bush.   Most Democrats voted against his confirmation because he had opposed laws that forced busing in metropolitan areas to achieve integration.  The media was highly critical but Bush’s appointee had the votes and Ashcroft became AG.

During his tenure Ashcroft supported what was known as the Patriot Act.   Section 215 of that act allowed the federal government access to the library records of individuals thought to be terrorists.   The media was totally opposed to this “intrusion” in the privacy of individuals and roundly criticized Ashcroft for his opinion on a political issue. 

Late in his tenure, he was roundly criticized for testifying that al Qaeda represented a direct threat and might soon attempt another attack in the United States.  He angered even more in the media and many Democrats when he testified before the 911 Commission and bluntly informed the chairman that Jamie Gorelick, a member on that commission, should be testifying before the commission rather than sitting in judgment of the testimony of others.  If everyone will recall, it was Jamie Gorelick's famous order that prevented the FBI and the CIA from sharing information with one another about known terrorists before the attack on 911.  

Ashcroft was also a proponent of the War on Drugs, an issue never popular with those on the left including the US media.  

Among the things we will likely remember the most about Ashcroft stemmed from his personal modesty.  He covered nude statues in the Justice Department.  Ashcroft was a religious man.  What the leftist elite regarded as art he regarded as offensive.  He didn’t remove them.  He simply covered them.

Thus, the criticism that probably drove Ashcroft to resign at the end of the first Bush term was reactions to his opinions and his modesty.  I do not recall criticism for any failure to enforce a law, only for his advice as to what those laws should be.    

Contrast Ashcroft with Eric Holder.

Like Ashcroft, Holder brought a record with him to the Attorney General position but his sin was his orchestration of the Marc Rich pardon in the last minutes of the Clinton Presidency.  Rich was a commodities trader who fled the country to avoid charges of tax evasion, mail fraud and trading with the enemy.  

Since assuming the responsibility of Attorney General, Holder has introduced lawsuits against two states for having the temerity to pass their own legislation that allowed them to enforce federal laws on illegal immigration, laws that Holder has refused to enforce.

Holder’s decision to dismiss charges against the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation at Pennsylvania Polls during the 2008 Election was barely mentioned by the mainstream media.   His testimony on the issue did not receive a lot of criticism either.  During that testimony Holder admitted that the “intimidation” that people encountered from those Black Panthers was nothing compared to what others of his race historically encountered.  Does it not matter to him when any citizen is hindered while attempting to vote?  He used his power to "get even" with citizens for sins of the past without regard to whether those sins belonged to them personally or to someone else.

Holder’s Justice Department has experienced resignations by US Attorneys who claimed Holder would not enforce crimes of black on white.  The voter intimidation in Philadelphia was apparently only one example.

Most recently Holder’s participation in the Fast & Furious program that sent guns to drug cartels in Northern Mexico has been in question.  Representative Issa asked him in testimony he gave to Issa’s committee in May 2011, just when he became aware of the Fast & Furious program.  Holder testified he had only recently, within the last few weeks, learned of this program.  There is now evidence that staff communicated to Holder about Fast & Furious as early as March or April 2010.  It has yet to be determined whether Holder's testimony represented perjury or whether he and his department are simply so incompetent that he would not have been thoroughly briefed on the program prior to his testimony.   

Each of these examples of the performance of Eric Holder involves more than opinion.  It involves a willful neglect to enforce our laws and a racist influence he has had in the Justice Department.  Holder has deliberately abused his position and has used his power selectively to enforce his duties as Attorney General.  Ashcroft only had opinions and to my knowledge never abused his position by willfully neglecting his responsibilities as our chief law enforcement officer.  Yet, the media vilified Ashcroft and thus far, I have seen nothing of that kind of furor over the attitude and performance of Holder.      

The Tea Party supports an amendment to the Constitution that would provide the following:

Changes to tax laws, tax rules, and tax regulations may only be made in years evenly divisible by 10. 

Changes to tax rates may be made at any time but must be approved by a super-majority, 2/3 of the House of Representatives.

All revenue earned by or assigned to the federal government shall be considered a tax and shall be subject to this amendment.

Argument

Among the greatest causes of uncertainty in our economy is the threat the government may modify tax laws or change tax rates that significantly affect the planning of individuals and businesses.  This amendment would prevent the Congress from enacting any law that would modify exclusions, deductions, definitions of taxable revenues, taxable gains, etc. except in the last year of each decade.  The amendment holds constant the moving targets that create uncertainty for at least ten years beginning in 2020.  This is a tremendous aid to tax reform.

Tax tables and tax rates on the other hand would be modifiable at any time but would require a 2/3 vote of the House of Representatives (290 votes) to approve.

The amendment would also remove from Congress any and every attempt to game the system by creation of a revenue source that is called something other than a tax.  The amendment identifies that all sources of revenue to the government would qualify as a tax under this amendment.  Thus, the amendment would include not only income taxes but also tariffs, franchise fees, user fees and all other methods the federal government employs to increase revenue, regardless of the source and regardless of the purpose.   

As most who are following the Republican contest for the presidency know, Herman Cain is among the more clear choices to become president in 2013 because of his affable manner and his take-charge attitude.  He bills himself as a Problem Solver and he has certainly convinced me that he is.  However, I am going to express a concern that I have regarding his 9 - 9 - 9 promotion for tax equity.

The 9 - 9 - 9 proposal would provide a 9% Personal Income tax, a  9% Corporate Income Tax and a 9% Value Added Tax against all purchases.  I like the idea in principle but I am concerned that 9 - 9 - 9 could turn into 40 - 40 - 12 or some other similar number.

I have long opposed the idea of a Value Added Tax (VAT) as is found internationally because I do not trust the Congress.  I have always believed that the imposition of a sales tax or VAT without first repealing the 16th Amendment that authorizes the income tax would be a mistake.  My concern has always been that to provide the government the ability to tax both income and consumption would be like giving a child the key to the candy store.  Yet Cain's proposal includes both in a manner that if properly constructed would allow me to accept the concept but not as it is being introduced.

Herman related his plan this morning and directly addressed the problem of future changes to tax rates.  The response was that the legislation would include the requirement for a 2/3 majority to change these rates.  That is not good enough.  No Congress can bind a future Congress to their legislative decisions.  Any bill that requires a 2/3 majority for modification could itself be modified to change that requirement to a simple majority or a plurality of those meeting the requirements of a quorum.  The supermajority must be included in a Constitutional Amendment or the 2/3 can easily become 50% +1.  

I would suggest that Cain introduce the idea as a Constitutional Amendment and while he is at it, I would like to forbid the Congress to making any changes in tax laws that deal with exclusions, deductions or anything but rates to those years ending in zero.  Thus, a real benefit to businesses would be that with the exception of rates there would be no changes in tax law until the end of every decade.  It is uncertainty that has hindered this recovery and it will continue to inhibit the recovery until we provide businesses some hard realities they can use with which they can develop their business plans.  These suggestions would provide that certainty that Obama and his legions seem unwilling or unable to provide.   

Herman Cain is catching flack for having suggested that many black men and women have been "brainwashed."  His comment was in an answer to a question posed on CNN as to why blacks overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.  Cain said they refused to open their minds.  

I have listened to this story multiple times and when asked why it might be so that blacks voted Democrat at a rate of 90%, 88% and 95% for Gore, Kerry, and Obama respectively no one seems to offer a solid reason as to why this might be so.  I have a theory.

Republicans emphasize the individual.  Republicans, particularly conservative Republicans, believe in the tenets of the US Constitution, a document intended to limit the power of the federal government and reserve all rights not provided the federal government to the people and to the states.  Within each state, citizens have the right to determine in more local environments how much liberty they are willing to sacrifice to the state or local government and which powers they wish to preserve for themselves.  At the heart of this, is the individual.

Too many blacks gain their identity from their membership in their racial group.  I believe this is understandable.  During our nation's first 80 years black men and women, at least those who lived in the South, were slaves.  Then for the next 100 years, Jim Crow America segregated and belittled blacks.  We can say things are better now and I think it undeniable that this is true.  Nevertheless, with a history of 180 years of discrimination I believe the average black feels more of an identity with his race than with themselves as individuals.  During those 180 years, they could not have survived as individuals.

The civil rights movement is only 50 years old.  This means that two or even three generations of black men and women have come to maturity with no direct experience dealing with segregation.  Still, the history is there and the younger generations are unforgiving.  Worse, they imprint segregationist attitudes on all whites.  Then worse still, they apply credit to the wrong party for having ended Jim Crow and ended segregation. 

Why is this?  Individuals are the focus of Republican positions.  When Republicans speak of prosperity or needed laws they do not argue from the perspective of the groups that will benefit because they do not care about lines that divide.  Republicans promote positions that extend individual liberty.

Democrats propose and promote laws and policies directed toward groups.  They speak of equality to benefit persons who belong to favored Groups.  Programs like the War on Poverty, Affirmative Action, Healthcare, Medicaid, Education, etc. are designed toward meeting the needs of blacks and many blacks see their racial group as gaining an advantage from these programs.  Yet, which of these programs has truly benefited black men and women?  To gain welfare for his family, the black father had to leave the home.  Without the presence of a male role model or parental authority in the home, illegitimate birth rates of black women have gone from 20 to 72% between 1965 and 2007. 

Were it not for Republicans, the 1964 Civil Rights Bill would never have passed.  Mostly Democrats, for example, Senator Gore from Tennessee, Senator Byrd from West Virginia, Senator Fulbright from Arkansas were vehemently opposed to the Civil Rights Bill.  Six years earlier, President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, enforced Brown v. Board of Education and integrated Arkansas schools.  Blacks should praise Eisenhower.  His willingness to exercise authority and send troops to Little Rock took a special courage, one normally found only in a first step.  Still, Democrats promote targeted benefits to pay for free housing, pay for schooling, pay for meals, and other amenities targeted toward blacks and other favored groups.  What many blacks do not realize is that by accepting payments from the government, the government has become their keeper.  Many blacks are now dependent on the government and of course, they vote Democrat in great numbers.  It would be telling if the black vote were to be analyzed as going Republican or Democrat based upon the incomes, the education, the professions, and the ages of those in their samples.  I believe that when blacks become more educated and independent of the government they begin to understand the benefits of individualism and these are the black men and women we see at Tea Party rallies and these are the black men and women we see voting Republican.  

"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that." 

Listen to a complete video of Governor Perdue making this statement.  click here 

Contrary to the assertions of her having spoken in hyperbole or that she was making a joke, I would invite you to listen to the audio and decide for yourself whether she was caught in an honest and very frank moment or not. 

A statement that I hope everyone would agree with me on is this.  When the politician comes off the teleprompter, abandons their notes, and shoots from the hip we get to see the true person.  The following defense was made by the Miami Herald, Politics Wires.  You have now heard the audio; do you believe this was a joke or spoken hyperbole?

The founding fathers created a bicameral Congress to have one body represent the people and the other represent the states.  The founders expected conflict and they expected gridlock.  Why does it amaze so many when gridlock occurs?  Why would the governor of a state desire to circumvent the voters and wish for a suspension of elections?  

Governor Perdue, the voters are the ones capable of eliminating gridlock.  If we want the gridlock to end, we will vote the rascals out.  I for one would love to reduce the number of your party that is in the Senate, the primary source of gridlock today.  It has been nearly three years since that body approved a budget.  This is unconscionable.  All Harry Reid has to do is to call the House passed Budget to the floor. 

All Harry Reid needs to do is to put the President's Job Bill on the floor.  Reid is the sponsor.  However, he knows the bill is pure election year tomfoolery.  This is his and the President's attempt to fool those who do not watch every day into believing their problem in life is that Republicans are keeping them down.  Business versus Labor, Rich versus Poor, Hispanic versus White, Black versus White, the list goes on.  This president has been the most divisive president in American History and my first priority is to do what I can to stop him and his agenda.  That requires another election for both the White House and for the Senate.  The sooner we remove Obama from the White House, Reid from his Majority Leader role in the Senate, the sooner gridlock will end, and the sooner we can begin a real economic recovery. 

Yet Bev Perdue apparently had one too many Boilermakers.  She wants to suspend Congressional elections for two years.  What do you suppose she would do with the presidential election if she had the opportunity?

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has proposed that medical records of all Americans be turned over to the federal government by private health insurers.

Kansas Congressman Tim Huelskamp has sounded the clarion bell regarding a proposed new rule by Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Department of Human Services.  

You need to contact your Congressman and stop this rule.  Congress sets policy and the individual departments to whom their legislation provides authority promulgate rules that then have the force of law.  If the rule survives its period for review then it is law and insurers or doctors have no choice but to comply.  Your privacy agreements put aside, they have no choice.  This rule is both a demonstration of the lie of Obamacare and the danger of that legislation.  The Affordable Healthcare Act is anything but affordable but worse, it threatens the liberty and privacy of every individual American. 

Who hired Craig Livingstone?  If you will recall we recoiled with horror at the prospect of a former bar bouncer in the Clinton White House perusing FBI files of prominent Republicans and other opponents of the Clinton Administration.  No one denied the invasion of privacy this represented.  We never found out who hired Livingstone although his mother's close association with Hillary Clinton might have raised our suspicions.  We have no doubt, however who hired Kathleen Sebelius.  It was Barack Obama.  Sadly, there is no doubt as to who hired Barack Obama.  The electorate has the right to hire but we also have a right to fire.  Fire is what we must do in November 2012.  

Chris Wallace interviewed David Plouffe Sunday morning.  Plouffe is a senior advisor to President Barack Obama and managed his 2008 presidential campaign.  The mantra that Plouffe promoted through the entire interview was that the government needs to raise taxes and the rich need to pay their fair share.  Wallace pressed him on this being a bad time to increase taxes and Plouffe consistently pointed out that the increases would only be on the wealthiest of Americans.  Mr. Plouffe, this does not make the tax increase proposed by the president less significant when the top 10% of the wealthiest Americans are bearing 70% of the tax burden. 

Perhaps the president is testing our endurance when he continues to engage in this class warfare.  The fact remains that we cannot afford to remain silent.  We must continue to point out that the people the president would tax are the people whose money we need to grow our economy and who create jobs.  Focus on the economy, not on who finances government.  The money Obama would take from the wealthy, government would consume and once it is consumed it is no longer available to grow the economy.

Plouffe was critical of what he called obstructionist practices by those legislators sent to Congress by the Tea Party.  He emphasized the need for bipartisan support of the president.  Plouffe might do well to recall the bipartisanship displayed by the president, Reid and Pelosi when for 18 months or more they worked to ram Obamacare down our throats?  Where was the bipartisanship then?  Bipartisan to a Democrat means everyone capitulate and allow the Left to do what they want. 

No.  I was one of many who worked to send Conservative Republicans to Congress through my work in the Tea Party.  We sent them there to obstruct the path of this president and men like David Plouffe because we understand this White House is destroying America and we will not have any more of it.  

Congratulations to Herman Cain for winning the straw poll in Florida and Mitt Romney for winning the straw poll in Michigan.  Recovery is only 13 months away.  Remember the words of Ronald Reagan reapplied to today, "When your neighbor loses his job it is a recession.  When you lose your job it is a depression.  When Obama loses his job it is a recovery." 

Thursday night's Republican debate had several winners in my opinion and one big loser.  I have been concerned since the introduction of Rick Perry that people were demonstrating irrational exuberance toward his candidacy.  I have watched and listened with great curiosity to see the man almost everyone had told me was the perfect blend between character and conservatism.  However, in the middle of the debate Governor Perry told us conservatives that we have no heart.  No heart?  We have no heart simply because we do not want our government defining to whom we should show compassion and how we should show it?  No heart simply because we see no obligation or compunction to subsidize the education of persons who do not belong in this country?  This is perhaps the portion of this argument that no one has ever been able to explain to me.  If we know a student is the child of illegal immigrants then why do we not simply have their parents arrested and their whole family deported?  Instead, Governor Perry apparently wishes to saddle the citizens of Texas with the obligation to discount their tuition in the Texas university system to the tune of $22,000 per year.  A student from Arizona or Arkansas cannot get that deal.  Why should a child who belongs on the Yucatan Peninsula or Baja?  I do not want a policy like this extended to the whole country. 

Rick Santorum took Perry to task with aplomb.  I appreciate the strength of a man who will stand face to face with an adversary and tell him without trepidation that he is wrong and why he is wrong.  Score several points for Santorum from this debate.

Santorum did not state whether he agreed or not with a Federal Right to Work Law but he did indicate that he would eliminate public employee unions.  That is good enough.  I also favor right to work laws but the elimination of the Executive Order Kennedy signed that provided public employees a legal right to organize would be a great step in the right direction. 

I emphatically agree with Santorum's position on troop withdrawals.  We must withdraw only after we have won.  We must not withdraw for political reasons. 

Another question he fielded was regarding the social experimentation in our military.  It is not the place.  Santorum called it tragic that the current president has extended the military into areas of social experimentation.  The military must be mission focused.  Santorum indicated that he would reverse the Obama decision to void the "Don't ask, don't tell." policy currently in effect.  He did add the caveat that he would not penalize anyone in the military who has identified himself as homosexual during the period Obama's policies were active.  Issues regarding sexuality have no place in the military and sex should never be an issue of concern.  

Gary Anderson had one of the best lines of the night when he stated that his neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than Obama.  However, I have already eliminated Anderson due to his libertarian notions about controlled substances and even this zinger will not elevate him to a level of consideration in my evaluations.

Newt Gingrich, on the other hand restored himself as a serious alternative.  I was down on Gingrich due to his gaffs, particularly his negative statement many weeks ago about Paul Ryan and the 2012 Budget.  With each debate, Newt demonstrates that the strongest person on that stage intellectually is he.  I do not know why this should surprise me.  Actually, it does not surprise me at all.  I have said from the beginning that Newt's brilliance would overshadow anyone that shares the stage with him.  In the first debate, he scolded the questioner about the quality of questions and the seeming desire to create rifts between the candidates.  In this one, he responded to a question by Megyn Kelly that essentially stated that given that Washington is as it is, how he could expect to be able to balance the budget by spending cuts alone, cuts that would have to be in the magnitude of 43%.  Newt's response was that given the way the question was presented, we can't.  He then told us we cannot accept Washington remaining as it is and if we do accept this we might as well all buy Greek Bonds and fold it up.  Score several points for Gingrich. 

Gingrich also had one of the better lines of the evening in addition to his response to Megyn.  He quoted one of my idols, Ronald Reagan when he said this, "If your brother loses his job, it is a recession.  If you lose your job, it is a depression.  When Jimmy Carter loses his job it will be a Recovery."  We all could see how this applies to Barack Obama and I certainly look forward to a recovery.  

Mitt Romney was poised.  He looked at those who were critical of him and he gave strong answers.  We will have to wait until we see the newest polls but I have to believe that Romney could very well have caught up to Perry and perhaps passed him.  He may have dealt a death blow to Perry by challenging his position on illegal immigration and making him justify his position on in-state tuition for illegal's in the Texas university system.  Romney will never be able to satisfy every conservative on the issue of the Massachusetts healthcare bill but why should he have to?  That is Massachusetts.  Massachusetts is a liberal state that supported that healthcare legislation and who supported Romney, not because of any conservative values he might possess but perhaps for other things.  He would have been remiss had he not listened to those living in Massachusetts and because of their desires not have provided the citizens the program they wanted.  It is his recognition that Massachusetts solutions will not work nation-wide and his vow to grant waivers to all fifty states and then repeal Obamacare that allows me to give him some slack on this healthcare issue. 

He pounded Governor Perry on his statements surrounding Social Security.  However, it was his confrontation with Perry on Illegal Immigration that may catapult him into the lead for the GOP nomination.      

Romney was critical of the President on foreign policy issues.  I agree with Governor Romney, we should be standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies like Israel and Great Britain and we should only discuss our disagreements with them behind closed doors.  He also declared without reservation that it is unacceptable for Iran to become a nuclear state.  However, I was surprised that he would not call Obama a Socialist given he was willing to state that Obama's worldview is a pledge of allegiance to the European Socialist model.  I cannot be too critical because I do not believe Obama to be a Socialist either.  I believe him to be a Marxist. 

I also enjoyed Romney's characterization of himself as a private sector businessman who only spent four years as a governor and while there, he had not inhaled.  This was excellent and for all these reasons, he was the big winner in the Thursday night debate.  Consider that he was closing on Perry and that during the debate he dealt Perry such a serious blow that he is no longer acceptable to me or to many other similarly minded conservatives.

Jon Huntsman reminded me why I have not supported him since his first debate.  He interjected answers that were trite.  In one, he introduced his wife as from Florida (the site of this debate) and the best person he has ever known.  When discussing healthcare he pointed to his daughter who has Juvenile Diabetes.  I applaud his wife and daughter for all they are willing to put up with especially the demands on the candidate and their willingness to stand on the dais with their husband/father yet I do not approve of the candidate pushing his family into the light.  I have always believed that the press should leave the candidate's family alone but Huntsman singled them out.  I simply do not approve.  

Herman Cain was as good as always.  I like Herman Cain.  His story of surviving fourth stage colon and liver cancer and his recognition that had Obamacare been in effect when his cancer had been discovered that he would be dead today made Obamacare far more personal.  We all know we must repeal Obamacare.  

Cain again explained his 9 - 9 - 9 tax program that would provide a 9% personal income tax, a 9% corporate income tax and a 9% consumption tax.  His response to the question of future administrations and Congressional ability to increase these rates was not strong but I appreciate his ideas on creating certainty on issues like taxation. 

When asked what department would he eliminate if he had to select one he immediately said the EPA.  He also cautioned that he would not turn his back on rational environmental controls but he recognizes that the EPA is out of control and destroying our economy.  The public responded to this question by referencing the following:

          Labor          - 8%

          EPA             - 12%

          HUD            - 12%

          Education   - 47%

          Other          - 20%

I am personally amazed that the Department of Energy did not make the top four on this list.  I have no quarrel with eliminating these departments but I would hope that whomever we elect would work to eliminate all of the Department of Energy except the Atomic Energy Commission.

He prefers a Chilean model as an answer for future retirees that could replace Social Security for persons not yet close to retirement.  

He added a word to the Reagan slogan of Peace through Strength.  He prefers Peace through Strength and Clarity.  He is right!  Our allies and our enemies must be clear of the consequences of their actions insofar as they relate to the United States. 

Michele Bachmann was strong and confident but when a candidate levies a charge against someone else on the stage, he/she has an obligation to look that person in the eye.  Rick Santorum was a model for this.  To stare away, even to stare into the camera is a sign of weakness.  If the candidate is directing a barb toward another candidate, he/she must put his or her focus on that other individual, not on the camera.  

Bachmann did score some points when she responded to a statement of indifference by another candidate on trade with Cuba.  She reminded everyone that Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism.  Michele provided a strong, well thought out statement on religion.  The Constitution does not deny anyone of religious conviction access to the public square.  I scored some points to Michele Bachmann but I believe the only way she can survive is if Perry's gaff was so serious that he will leave the campaign and she can recover the support she lost to him after the Iowa Straw Poll. 

I would suggest that Michele find something besides the HPV vaccine program to use as criticism of Perry.  Perhaps this is moot but I believe that after two or three debates involving Perry that we are aware of the issue and we have made up our minds as to the significance it has toward our willingness to support Perry.  I will not be supporting Perry but is for different and already enumerated reasons.  

Ron Paul always makes good points on budgetary and fiscal policies.  Unfortunately with Paul come his isolationist policies and his willingness to legalize narcotics.  

Overall, I had no problem with the questions although I would appreciate a different focus on questions like whom we Americans regard as being rich.  They asked this of the candidates and as a polling question of the audience.  Apparently, on the question of who is rich 13% of the public regards anyone earning $100,000 as rich.  22% of the public believes that to be rich one must earn $250,000 per year; 22% believe that a person earning $500,000 per year is rich; and 44% believe that anyone earning $1 million per year is rich.  People need to understand you do not measure wealth by revenue.  You measure wealth by the Balance Sheet.  What do you own versus what do you owe?  Is a person with a million dollar income rich if he owes more than he owns?  One could define a person as rich who has his health and who is independent of a paycheck to survive.  

The Frank Luntz Focus Group that followed the debate overwhelmingly believed that Mitt Romney won the debate.  I am in good company.  I believe the same.   I place Gingrich and Santorum with him in the top three.

In 1922, there was a bribery incident during the administration of Republican Warren G. Harding.  It is known as the Teapot Dome Scandal.  Harding's Secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall leased Navy petroleum reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming as well as two other locations to private oil companies without a competitive bid. 

In 1973, there was a burglary.  A national nightmare began when hotel security caught a rogue group from the Campaign to Reelect the President (Richard Nixon) in offices of the Democrat Party at the Watergate Hotel.  The investigation that followed resulted in the resignation of Republican President Nixon who faced certain impeachment for his role in the cover-up that followed the burglary.  Spiro Agnew, Nixon's Vice President resigned only months before Nixon's resignation after he pled nolo contendere to charges of tax fraud.  

In 1998 there were scandals involving our 42nd President, Democrat William Jefferson Clinton.  The first involved a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones.  The second scandal involved the President's recreational use of the Oval Office with one 21-year-old intern, Monica Lewinsky.  Eventually that first scandal led to charges of perjury against the President and then to his impeachment. 

In 2001, on the last day of his second term, Bill Clinton pardoned sixteen Puerto Rican terrorists that appeared to be a gesture to assist his wife, Hillary Clinton, in her quest to become Senator from New York.  The same pardons also included Clinton's brother, Roger, and billionaire Marc Rich.  The Justice Department indicted Rich for oil deals he made with Iran during the Iranian Hostage Crisis and for tax evasion.  Denise Rich, his ex-wife, lobbied Clinton for this pardon.  What appeared to be a quid pro quo at a minimum included large donations she had made to the Democrat Party and the Clinton Library.     

In 2009, Democrat President Barack Obama cheated General Motors bondholders out of millions of dollars in a takeover of both General Motors and Chrysler.  Obama infused $62 billion taxpayer dollars into the two former auto giants, engineered the sale of Chrysler assets, and essentially bullied General Motors bondholders by forcing them to subordinate their debt below unsecured creditors of the auto company.  The settlement provided them, according to one account Click Here, approximately two shares of common stock for every $1,000 in principal owed them.  At the time, this amounted to approximately $2.38.  Unsecured creditors who were elevated in the bankruptcy case above the bondholders included the United Auto Workers.  Obama bailed out the auto giants to protect the pension plans of his political supporters and he used taxpayer dollars to do so. 

In 2009 President Obama, immediately upon assuming office asked for and received a measure from the Congress that provided a "stimulus" to an ailing economy.  The price tag on this was around $787 Billion.  States and local governments received stimulus funds that enabled them to maintain public sector employees on the payroll for another year.  Stimulus funds were also used to guarantee a $527 Million loan for Solyndra.  Solyndra is a "green" company.  It manufactures, excuse me, it manufactured solar panels at a cost that was at least 50% greater than their sales value.  Solyndra was already in trouble and the prior administration had withdrawn plans to support the organization through Department of Energy Loan Guarantees but not Obama.  It seems that a major investor in Solyndra is one of his key Democrat fundraisers, a billionaire named George Kaiser.  If this is not bad enough, this administration thought enough of the near-bankrupt company to subordinate the taxpayers' position behind investors like Kaiser.  Thus Obama bailed out his friend Kaiser and the Solyndra Corporation is now bankrupt.  The FBI is investigating and the taxpayer is on the hook for more than $500 million.

Between 2009 and 2010 President Barack Obama with the assistance of willing Congressional accomplices, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, pushed a measure through Congress that if allowed to stand will nationalize 14% of the US economy.  The bill that the Congress had to pass so that they and the public would be able to discover what was in it is certain to destroy the insurance industry with the intent of providing a government managed, single payer system for more than 300 million citizens. 

In 2011, the Obama Administration pressured Air Force General William Shelton, head of the Air Force Space Command, to alter his testimony on a matter of national security.  It seems the LightSquared Corporation wants to build a national 4G phone network that Shelton and apparently all other interested federal agencies believe will adversely affect GPS capabilities in the US.  Click Here  The FCC has this on a fast track for licensing and the communications agency has apparently turned a deaf ear toward the security concerns of the military as well as other federal agencies and the only reason why appears that the primary investor in the LightSquared organization is another large donor to Barack Obama, billionaire, Phil Falcone.  Read their defense here. 

The policies of the current president have resulted in millions of unemployed and underemployed in this economy.  His banking regulations have depressed the housing market and real estate values have decreased in some areas by as much as 40%.  His environmental regulations shut down 24% of domestic oil production that came from the Gulf of Mexico and contributed to the price of a gallon of gas going from $1.79 to more than $3.75.  During a period of recession, Obama increased the discretionary portion of the federal budget by approximately 24%.  His profligate spending created a debt crisis in 2011 that threatened default and ultimately resulted in a downgrade from our historic AAA bond rating to AA.  

Corruption or incompetency?  This may not all be the result of corruption but the portion that might be proven corruption if we had a Justice Department that was not itself run by a rogue villain makes Teapot Dome, Watergate, and the dalliances of Bill Clinton look like child's play.