Going through the various posts, thoughts and speculations I would say Charles Krauthammer comes the closest to how I feel things panned out. There isn’t some lurking in the shadows scandal as Democrats and some Republicans want to believe.

The decision, I think, was a personal choice. How so? Simple, ask your self to name another politician who has been so savagely attacked for so long a period for so few reasons from both in and outside their party.

Now add the fact she is a mother with growing kids, one who isn’t quite yet a toddler.

I am not saying I agree with her reasons given, but I am going to guess that it was a personal decision. Like Karen Hughes who gave up the DC rat race and returned home to Texas, Palin could be hunkering down to be with family.

Of course the problem remains is this: The model gives political opponents of people like Palin a model to use and repeat on whom ever they wish to destroy next. Lets be clear, there will be a next time unless something changes.

Lastly, I wanted to note that Palin represents a large swath of our society which apparently does not warrant enough importantance to be heard from.

The swath I speak of are those of us who mostly reside in what those in DC call “fly over country.”

You know, the place where most Americans care about our neighbors with out the government peering over our shoulders and simply happy to be left alone. We work hard for what we own, that includes our kids, and fear God almighty.

To be blunt, we are very frustrated, and when told by talking heads and President Obama himself that our opinions do not matter it only makes matters worse. That includes many within the GOP who turn a deaf ear to us and our simple dreams of freedom and individual liberty because of political expediency and fad turned law of the month.

While not perfect, Palin connected to us because she is one of us. She knows what its like to raise kids and deal with every day life and work hard to get where she is. The values and faith she dares to express in any little way touches our hearts because we are there too.

I would not be intellectually honest if I failed to note Palin is not the person who resonates here. Mike Huckabee also fit the bill for many of these people early in the 2008 campaign.

Both were skewered and trashed. Both were discredited and joked about in upper political circles and lied about, even with the ranks of the GOP.

Guess what, we take notice. We ain’t as dumb as what you think.

Whether I agree with Palin and Huckabee’s politics is not the point. They inspire us and give us a voice which, to be frank, is being crowded out in all the day in and day out hype.

We saw what happened to Huckabee and now we see the same thing happening to Palin, except on a much grander scale.

While I may disagree with her resignation, I cannot disagree with the principle of her decision. We all have families which should come first. People here in fly over country know that. We will honor that, even if we had not planned on voting for her for president, given the opportunity.

However, Palin’s resignation removes a huge voice and point of inspiration of millions of voters who already feel rejected by a political process which currently repudiates them simply for simply living in a way our founding fathers envisioned.

I know this, I talk to these people every day. It is real.

Where we go from here, I am not sure.

To that end, Chad Livengood’s piece today is a home run and must read.

Why? Because it provides at very least a glimpse into the soul of each of the perspective candidates (at least the announced ones) and how they not only view what the earmark is, but how they would approach the process if elected.

I will defer my personal feelings on earmarks for another time but leave everyone with this question: Congress abused what used to be a legitimate process and corrupted it. Does this mean the process should be reformed or completely abandoned?

Whats more, Democrats are spending in excess of four times what the GOP Congress proposed with thousands of more earmarks - yet they seem to be still riding high. Why does this issue not plague them?

Blunt’s record for the 2008 congress stood at 88. His life time rating in Congress stands at roughly 93.

This award, and the accompanying record, goes addresses the very heart of Steelman and other supporters who argue Congressman Blunt is not conservative enough.

With all the speculation and gossip being published regarding the entry of Sarah Steelman in to the race, one wonders why this story with actual substance was not noted.

The ACU is considered by most conservatives to be the gold standard for determining the commitment of an elected official to the cause of limited government and lower taxes.

There is a very good reason why James Carville’s Democracy Corps pushed the poll and all but wrote a press release for Sarah Steelman. Oddly enough for all the analaysis, Catanese failed to mention this obvious possibility. Maybe because of a bias? Nah.

Just a wild guess here, but could it be that Democrats are trying to stoke a bloody primary between Republican opponents in an effort to suck all the oxygen out of the room?

If there were no primary then the story would shift to why Robin Carnahan is running away from issues and exactly what her positions would be.

Instead the media is fascinated by the prospect of a bloody Republican primary in which both candidates will lose. At this point can you blame some of the curiosity?

With that said the media should not be giving the same pass to Robin Carnahan as it did Jay Nixon.
Being Secretary of State she gets the glamorous role of defending people’s right to vote (even the dead ones), but does not need to reveal how she might vote on issues of substance.

Similarly, some how the Democrat “establishment” is some how able to pave the way for Carnahan while Republicans lining up behind Roy Blunt are blasted as being some sort of rubber stamp.

Never mind an analysis on issues or what Roy Blunt actually did in Congress over the past ten years or so and why many of us support him for his votes, it is all about trying to define the man based on a number of press induced distortions.

This, to me, is the unmitigated strategy in which the media and Sarah Steelman her self are all to eager to play a roll in. This is why I see her as a self serving political opportunist and would find it hard to vote for her in any circumstance.

The man was more than just your run of the mill politician. He was someone who young people could look up to and say - there stands someone who understands policy and addresses it head on. I know, I was one of those individuals.

I got to meet Kemp on a campaign stop when I was in College at what is now Missouri State University. He took the time after the rally to speak to me for a few minutes and gave me what would today be called “straight talk.” The best thing about it? His genuineness. He treated me, a lowly undergraduate student like any other person in the media.

That is still with me today. If there is one thing I hope he is remembered for, it is that feature.

9. Watching paint dry is more interesting. For those who want to be more “environmentally friendly” grass growing is an EPA acceptable alternative (to this point).

8. WWE offers better acting. The entire event including questions and answers are scripted out and posted on JournaLIST. Similar to WWE, the audience gets the finished product of hours of rehearsal. At least there is add libbing with WWE. Right?

7. We already heard from President Obama about his NCAA picks and bowling skills this past week. What else is there to know?

6. Isnt my dentist appointment tonight?

5. Im not in to teaching my kids how to lie and stretch the truth for personal gain of power at the expense of other’s freedoms. Although the press conference could offer a valuable less on learning how to play pretend.

4. I get more truthful information and harder hitting questions from the forth coming Saturday Night Light skit. Count me in for that.

3. Because farming entry level Naxxramas for the 20th time is far more entertaining, especially if you run in and aggro the boss while yelling.. well, you know…

2. My grass needs mowed.

1. Our dear leader, Obama, knows better any ways. Best I leave the tough decisions to government and those in Congress who know better. I know the Constitution doesn’t give them the authority, but how dare such small details get in the way of progressive ideas!

For those who believe President Obama and Democrats in Congress are some sort of God send and fiscally responsible, the Congressional Budget Office has some news for you - the United States is 11 trillion dollars in debt.

While presidents past (including George W. Bush) added to this deficit, none have accelerated it to the levels we now face - a whopping 13% of our Gross Domestic Product.

President Obama does not share this blame alone, however. Democrats who took control of Congress in 2006 and are current operate with nearly no checks in place to balance them are perhaps even more responsible.

Democrat sponsored legislation including the original TARP bill (which included almost two hundred billion more in spending in addition to a 20% kick back to organizations like ACORN), Stimulus/Porkulus (nearly a trillion) bill and the current budget over all budget (a proposed 3.4 trillion) all accelerated the slope we are currently hurdling down.

Whats worse, perhaps, are the various discussions we’ve heard regarding additional resources being spent because there isnt enough being done.

Is it no wonder its been recently reported that many countries are refusing the path of massive deficit spending which we are on?

Not to be left out is Republican opposition to particular provisions of the AIG bailout which were inserted by Senator Chris Dodd which allowed executives to pay themselves fat bonuses for a failing company.

Nor is the coming carbon based tax hike for everyone which Democrats in Congress are trying to rubber stamp with, save for eight “moderates”, with little or no debate.

Perhaps most perplexing to me is how these same Democrats who vote for these bills, such as Missouri Senate Claire McCaskill, to call them selves fiscal conservatives to which the media seemingly acts as nothing more than an echo chamber for.

But wait, one of the chief economist of Citi (yeah, the company who is begging for nationalization) is going to work for the Obama administration.

Who do they think they are kidding? My guess is that they and the media pat themselves on the back with a high rate of frequency, facts be damned.

First, I believe that Bond could have made a larger impact by voting against the budget as proposed.

The budget as released by the Obama administration was a full eight percent increase over last year’s pork packed spending allotment. This, combined with nine thousand earmarks, is simply irresponsible.

Let me be clear, Bond did nothing unethical and was certainly within his rights to do so.

I can argue that the money received from earmarks here in southwest Missouri and across the state are going to appropriate places. However, because of eight Republican senators, including Bond, the political opportunity to regain the mantle of fiscal conservatism passed with a whimper.

Whats worse, moreover, is the claim by Missouri junior Senator Claire McCaskill that she is some sort of fiscal conservative because she voted against the measure.

Mind you her complaint was not the eight percent increase in federal spending, nor was it TARP 1 or the stimulus bill (aka porkulus) which she voted for. The supposed problem? Earmarks.

In other words, its a okay to spend in excess of two trillion dollars over the past four months but not okay to attach a few thousand earmarks worth a couple billion. Does this seem silly to anyone else?

Apparently not to swooning McCaskillite journalist here in Missouri.

Still, while proven reformers like Representative Jeff Flake and Senator John McCain from Arizona lead the way, others try to mimic their actions for personal gain. There were two such instances here in Missouri this week.

Junior Senator Claire McCaskill started the process this week by making a call for “tougher pork barrel spending reform.”

The former “porker of the month“, voter for “porkulus” and TARP 1 legislation offered the following proposal with co-sponsor Senator Udall from Colorado.

• Include all earmarks in the text of the bill. Congress has attempted in the past to crack down on adding earmarks to bill text during closed-door conference negotiations between the House of Representatives and the Senate, but in practice members continued to add earmarks by including them in the “statement of managers” (a document attached to the bill that is not technically part of the text and therefore not subject to the rules). McCaskill’s bill would close this loophole by requiring that all earmarks appear in the bill’s actual language, rather than in a statement of managers.
• All authorization bills must comply with the same earmark requirements as appropriations bills. Both appropriations bills and authorization bills frequently include earmarks, but currently only appropriations bills are subject to the most stringent earmark rules. McCaskill’s legislation would ensure that authorization bills are subject to the same rules as appropriation bills.
• All earmark requests must be made public on the internet within 48 hours. Under the McCaskill bill, senators must post on their website all their earmark requests - not just those that actually make it into appropriations and authorization bills - within 48 hours of submitting them to committees. Committees must also post these requests within 48 hours.
• All appropriation and authorization conference reports must be electronically searchable. Although bills are required to be electronically searchable before they reach the Senate floor, there is a loophole that allows bills emerging from House-Senate conference negotiations to forego this step. McCaskill’s legislation would fix this loophole by explicitly requiring that all appropriations and authorization conference reports be electronically searchable at least 48 hours before they are considered by the full Senate.
• Eliminate earmarks for private companies and non-profit organizations. Private companies currently receive billions of dollars in earmarks, bypassing the competitive bidding process. Congressional offices simply do not have the capacity to conduct objective, cost-benefit and merit-based analyses of the private companies and non-profit organizations requesting earmarks each year.

These points sound good until one digs into what happens in Washington, then its a completely different story in which find the proposal either duplicates existing policies or does more harm than good.

Democrats proved with the passage of the stimulus bill (aka porkulus) such rules simply do not matter as unrelated projects are tucked skillfully into places which most of our legislators or their staff never got the chance to read.

Similarly, the blanket exclusion of earmarks for private and not for profit organizations in the name of “competitive bidding” could cripple local or state organizations and or one time projects which can be vital to a community while entrenching established bureaucracies.

In the end the only true advantage of the proposal is to give Democrats political cover and perpetuate an on going media generated myth regarding their budget record in Congress.

Not to be out done, former Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman decided to chide Congressman Roy Blunt and Republicans for praising Senator Bond for fighting for Missouri in Congress while labeling the process and most Republicans in the process as “corrupt.”

Steelman, who seemingly is more interested in getting even with Roy Blunt and other Republicans who endorsed her primary opponent last year, lashed out against a series of questions posed toward Democrat Senate candidate Robin Carnahan.

The implication filters down to the Republican State Committee not supporting wasteful spending and earmarks being evil - and by extension those who are currently in office (with a focus on the Roy Blut, Kitt Bond) being corrupt.

Steelman is correct that Missourians do not support inefficient and wasteful spending. However, she could not be more wrong regarding the lack of accountability or what her apparent targets do in Congress.

To be sure, Blunt and Bond are not perfect.

I would mark 2002 as a low point for Roy Blunt specifically with his insertion of tabacco interests into legislation and massive spending votes. This was wrong, as was the increased levels of pork which as whip he helped pass. This is not an accurate picture of where Roy Blunt is or his entire legislative list of accomplishments, though.

Since then Roy Blunt recanted and rebuked past budget votes and committed him self to earmark transparency and budget reform. In fact he championed many “clean” defense and various budget bills which never allowed a vote because of rules put in place by Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

Of those earmarks Roy did submit, all are listed in plain speaking on his Congressional website.

Outside of defense spending earmarks which certainly are debatable, the list is filled with financial requests for first responders, schools, much needed highway maintenance and the White River Basin project.

For fiscal year 2008 the list includes money for local reading programs, law enforcement, schools and “Crisis Nursery of the Ozarks” - a battered women’s shelter.

My question would be to both Steelman and McCaskill which of these earmarks are unethical? Which represents irresponsible government spending?

Niether McCaskill or Steelman offer real reform. Neither one offer any real reform beyond lip service and media wagging rhetoric.

America needs real earmark reform which serves our needs but takes as much political preference out as possible.

It is apparent to this political observer that both are unaware of the earmarks being requested and simply want to gain positive media experiences to further their own careers.

Such demagoguery must stop.

To start off, Obama is promising unions that the Orwellian named Employee Free Choice Act will pass. The legislation allows unions to bypass a federal requirement that organizations take a secret ballot vote on whether or not to form a union. Instead, union organizers simply could pressure a simple majority into signing a document which would the government would immediately recognize as a union.

The financial impact on businesses nation wide would leave a wake of unprecedented devastation while businesses would be shackled with new government imposed requirements and union contracts.

Of course this wouldnt matter to President Obama or the Democrat party who apparently believe financial institutions like the stock market do not measure the American economy. The highly partisan act would increase union membership in intern funnel millions of dollars into Democrat campaign funds.

To that end, the mission would be accomplished.

If that piece of legislation wasn’t enough to pause for concern, then a not so little matter reported by the Hill today should. Apparently the Obama administration is contemplating pushing government controlled health care and a cap and trade tax system through Congress in a manner which would mean little to no debate and guarantee its passage.

Instead of debating government controlled health care as a separate matter, the legislation may be slipped into a budget bill which only requires fifty votes.

Does anyone else find it a little disturbing that legislation which would take over large sections of our economy would require not even a simple majority with little or no debate? Whats worse, perhaps, is the far reaching implications of such legislation.

With government controlled health care we as individuals will lose a quality health care system as choices are removed from doctors and services are rationed.

Not to be outdone would be a 100% cap and trade system which the Obama administration champions that would tax many farms and businesses out of existence because of their “carbon foot print.”

Each of these proposals removes freedom and liberty from our nation and are proven losers when implemented abroad. Yet there is still no objective analysis in the media few willing to stand in the gap and act as any source of reason or impediment.

I am guessing that as long as Americans give Democrats a pass and ignore what is going on in Congress and what is actually hurting the economy, this will be the case. By then I can only wonder what will be left of our nation.

In the mean time I will offer a glimmer of hope based on a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll which surveyed more Democrats than Republicans by a thirteen percentage point margin.

While self described “moderates” dominated the poll at 38 percent, 34 percent called themselves conservative compared to 23 self identified liberals.

More to the point, on health care, nearly seventy percent of people believe someone else besides the government should be responsible for taking care of health care needs. (question 32d)

Similarly, anyone remember when people such as my self warned other wise pointing to Obama’s record when he voted on matters in the Illinois state legislature which proved other wise?

Yesterday guess who proved to be correct? ABC News published a story yesterday which notes that the Obama administration is seeking a new Assault weapons ban.

There were not many details announced by Attorney General Eric Holder other than trying to use a foreign policy problem as means to justify the violation of our second amendment rights.

Perhaps whats worse is the potential models being floated for such a ban would be extensive and essentially make it impossible for the average person to own or posses a fire arm.

How will this play out? When will it happen? I dont know.

What I do know is the media is complicit in refusing to ask this question during the 2008 campaign and continuing to be silent in asking for specifics.

The bigger question at large is how bad will this impact Congressional Democrats in 2010 elections and how power hungry the Obama administration truly is.

What do I mean by this?

Lets look at the recently passed “stimulus” package dubbed “porkulus” by many of us in the grass roots. While we aren’t quite sure what is in the bill at this point (even though it is now signed and into law), we do know at one point there were provisions which the government sought to control social parts of our lives which would be unthinkable in our past.

Whether we are discussing the provision to limit CEO salaries (even amongst companies who do not take TARP monies), disallow prayer groups in dorm buildings of universities and colleges which take the money or regulate speech on the internet.

The same would could apply to those seeking loans from banks who are nationalized.

If your a church and want to build? Hope you embrace “tolerance” as defined by what ever political administration is in office or controlling Congress.

Local gun shop looking to expand? Hope you support the latest anti-gun regulations.

How about opening up a restaurant? Double check mom’s recipes to ensure the level of transfat meets the government’s standards.

Wanting to run for office as an opposition candidate? Too bad.

Obviously while some of these are slight exaggerations, I would hope that one would get the idea. If the government gains control of the country’s purse via nationalization of banks, then it may also determine who can and cannot get loans solely based upon a political whim, however wrong it might be.

This is one of the reasons why when the Soviet Union was initially formed the banks were taken over by the government in addition to declarations of universal health care and housing being a “right.” (sound familiar?)

Of course the system collapsed shortly thereafter which resulted in a complete communist dictatorship.

To be clear, I am not saying the end result will happen if the Obama administration takes these sames steps. However, history proves that when a government takes the steps we are seeing now, bad things happen - not good.

We should be very skeptical of what we are being presented with and question the government every step of the way to ensure that our freedoms and liberties are preserved with every law that is passed.

If we are not, then we sell our futures for a price much lower than anyone can imagine.

What ever happened to the vision of our founding fathers which propelled this country to greatness over the past two plus centuries? I guess just too out of date.

Do I give him props for being a man and owning the problem? Yes.

However both Rodriguez and Bond should never, ever be portrayed in the same light as Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth and Roger Maris.

In fact I would take things a step further and restore the Maris record as the only legitimate one Year home run title. The same would apply for Hank Aaron’s career record.

Can we strike A-Rod, Bonds, McGwire or Sosa’s deeds? No. What is done is done.

However, we can restore the integrity of baseball by denying those years as legitimate records and stamping the all mighty asterisk for all to see.

Similarly, baseball should address the steroids era openly and use the opportunity to educate kids about how destructive they are.

If the records are allowed the stand untainted and offered as legitimate play then it will tell our kids and those in society that cheating is okay; when it in truth it aint.

This certainly is not the case with KY3 “political reporter” David Catanese.

Over the past few weeks Catanese posted a series stories in support of Sarah Steelman with mysterious sources and little else than what message she might be brandishing during a campaign, including a couple digs and Congressman Roy Blunt who figures to be the lead Republican candidate.

To be sure, Steelman is doing nothing to discourage the reporting. In fact, she could very well be inciting the stories in an effort to keep her name in the news cycle during an off year.

The bigger question, though, is the lack of analysis by Catanese of the noncommitment by Steelman.

A “GOPer who favors Blunt” offered the following insight into the situation to make the point that any sort of announcement issued late yesterday might be solely for name recognition.

*If Steelman was going to commit, why the delay? Apparently she pulled this during past Lincoln Day events and used planted information as a way to general quick attention which otherwise would be elsewhere.

*All those meetings in Washington, D.C. - outside of the RNC meeting who is she really talking to? For someone who supposedly has an astounding grass roots organization why might she be headed to Washington for?

*Steelman lost by almost 20,000 votes in a primary which she won big in Southwest Missouri. If Roy Blunt runs, how can steelman over come such a deficit and lose her strongest part of of Missouri? In Southwest Missouri - Steelman beat Hulshoff by 11% in districts with Roy Blunt grass roots organizations%, outside she won by 26%.

*Finally, my source believes Steelman will not run. To do so would be “self-destructive.”

I would tend to agree with most of the comments made by my political source. I would add that I believe Steelman is getting played by Catanese and maybe even local talk show host Vincent David Jericho.

While both want separate things (Catanese wants Carnahan elected and Roy Blunt gone), Jericho dislikes Roy Blunt in a very unhealthy way - both are trying to shape the battlefield for their own purposes.

I would argue that in both cases, but especially Catanese, little is discussed in the way of policy; its all hype. One doesnt run a state wide race for the United States Senate via Face Book as he would want you to believe.

*updated to reflect accurate GOP primary numbers.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank is reported as saying that restrictions on executive pay “would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. Companies.”

If you believe this is limited to solely Congressman Frank, think again.

Financial weekly says that Frank and the Obama administration “seem to be in synch” when it comes to plans for executive compensation.

In fact, it states that newly minted Treasury Secretary Geithner mentioned last month he would consider “extending at least osme of the TARP provisions and features of the $500,00.00 cap to U.S. Companies generally.”

Would some one mind telling me what gives them the right or the authority? Certainly not the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Both spell out that government has no business in such matters.

I warned people both locally and abroad what would happen and much of it was chalked up as political hyperbole.

Hate to say it, but I was right. The question is what can we do to stop the march not just to socialism - but to an indirect form of communism.

In fact each and every time government has asserted its self as the absolute answer to our problems it failed us. Whether it be Johnson’s “Great Society” or Jimmy Carter trying to institute price controls on oil in the seventies. Even FDR’s New Deal worked only to a limited fashion.

In any event, I would like to focus today’s reading on “Common Sense” by Thomas Payne.

It was a pamphlet who set the colonies ablaze and gave the Continential Army a moral shot in the arm during their darkest days. It is also a work which is still relevent today and some how is being ignored by many educational institutions.

To be sure, Payne explains the role of government in American pyschie for the past two centuries.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

To be sure, contrary to what Obama stated during the campaign last year, government in our society was never “cool. Americans always saw government as an impedement to our society and embraced its increase begrudingly.

Has our society changed? Does it now embrace euro-socialism and neomarxism which flies in the face our of principles? I dont know.

What I do know is that rereading Common Sense at this time in our history is both refreshing and reinvigorating to understand were we as a nation came from.

Instead of confronting issues and meeting them head on with solid policy we get a daily feed of precisely calculated buzz words and balanced press releases. The result? You tell me.

What concerns me is this continued theme involving the election of the RNC head with a back drop that lauds the exclusion of groups ranging from Christians by North Eastern elites to alienating of legal immigrants through candidates brandishing credentials which never existed in the first place.

Where is the inspiration? Where is that extra umph which Bob Dole and Newt Gingrinch was able to provide during Clinton’s tenure in office?

Ladies and gentlemen right now this party has absolutely no soul, nor do I believe that its leaders want one.

If there was such a desire candidates would be talking to America at large and engaging the common themes which stretch across demographics and engaging us - not just talking past us and bridging over to what ever talking points are cobbled together during morning staff sessions.

Likewise, I believe it may take years in the wilderness until this happens.

Whats more, do people really understand what the underlying problem is and why it is so pearlous for America to continue with the issue that is raised in the article.

No, I am not talking about the problem which the article directly talks about. What I am concerned about is a bit deeper and is very disconcerning.

I should note this isnt the first time Pelosi has pulled something on this order. Remember the first “one hundred hours” of the 110th Congress?

What we are seeing is something very similar and really questions why the House of Representatives exists any more.

First there is a story burried in a story regarding Charlie Rangel’s proposal to bring back the draft. You heard me right, Charlie Rangel is trying to push a bill to bring back the military draft.

I am guessing that it will die on the floor or might not even make it passed committee level, but thats the besides the point.

In an article posted by “The Hill” Charlie Rangel mentions some sort of legislation which requires mandatory service with two years of college free. Let me repeat that. Charlie Rangel mentioned that there may be legislation which requires our kids to do national service.

But Rangel told The Hill that he recently heard talk about rewarding mandatory service with two years of college credit.

“That doesn’t make sense,” he said. “People shouldn’t have to join the military to get an education.”

This first surfaced shortly after Barack Obama’s election and then was scrubbed from his website. Now Charlie Rangel is mentioning it again. I am going to be blunt. This scares the hell out of me (pardon the language).

I thought the only place which required youth service was places like Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union. You could argue Isreal too, but the situation is completely different in that it fights for its life on a daily basis.

Just when I thought reports like this and this were crazy, Charlie Rangel seems to add some credibility.

Just when you think things couldnt be any crazier, new Governor of Missouri Jay Nixon decides to confiscate cell phones from elected officials meeting with him. Did I mention that Nixon installed cameras in the office?

Thats right Jay Nixon not only is confiscating cellular phones of elected officials seeking to meet him but; but also installed a camera inside the governor’s office.

Is it just me or are these acts of those who simply cannot gain enough control over their lives and need to manipulate yours as well. Wow.

Not only did this motion break with more than a hundred years of tradition in the House of Representatives, but it severly restricts any voice or rights which the minorty has.

I asked Congressman Blunt a few questions on the matter. Here is out Interview.

AoI: Some media outlets labeled the motion to recommit as a tool to simply “sending a bill to be buried.” Could you clarify exactly what the motion to recommit does in the House of Representatives and why Republicans used the tool in the 110th Congress? How does this differ compared to the rules of the 110th Congress and those of the past?

Blunt: Over 100 years ago the Minority insisted on including MTRs in the House Rules after Speaker Joe Cannon ruled the House with virtually no input from the Minority. There are two types of MTRs – promptly and forthwith – Democrats did away with the promptly MTRs. Promptly MTRs send the bill back to committee for changes. Forthwith amends the bill right then. Now, during this past Congress many bills never even went through committee, instead they were written at a conference table in the Speaker’s office. Republicans used the tools last Congress with success to alter legislation for the better.

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann offered a promptly motion to recommit on housing legislation that would make illegal immigrants ineligible for financial assistance. Democrats pulled the bill, reintroduced it incorporating Mrs. Bachmann’s motion and the legislation passed. When the House debated legislation to reauthorize and expand Americorps, Congressman Randy Kuhl offered a promptly motion that barred murderers and sex offenders from receiving grants under this program. Once again Democrats pulled the bill, but it came up again just six days later and failed on its own merit – not because of Republican motions to recommit. And one more example would be Congressman Pete Hoekstra’s attempt to create an estimate on the impact of gasoline prices on our national security. This time Democrats didn’t pull the bill. They defeated the motion, passed the underlying bill and a few days later passed Mr. Hoekstra’s motion to recommit.

Not once was this century-old rule used to bury or kill anything. Rather it was the minority’s attempt to restore the legislative process.

AoI: In a speech given after her swearing in, Speaker Pelosi demanded action on a list of issues ranging from healthcare to national security. Is there any indication that she wants to work in a bipartisan manner?

Blunt: It is going to be very interesting. President-elect Obama has signaled that he wants to legislate in a bipartisan fashion. Now it’s time to see if he can convince his party to follow his new leadership philosophy or if business as usual will reign supreme.

Question: Are any tools left for Republicans to voice opposition or act as any meaningful check against bad legislation or hidden ear mark drops?

Blunt: There are not a lot of options left, but we can still offer forthwith MTRs. While it won’t restore the legislative process, it will allow a small sliver of opportunity for us to improve bills.