Change. That is what President Barack Hussein Obama promised America. Obama continually said that he intended to change the bitter, hostile tone in Washington, D.C. It was promised to us, the American people, that electing Obama would bring bipartisanship and a new respectful tone to our nation's capital. However, Obama then chooses old Clinton political hack, Rahm Emanuel, for his Chief of Staff. While famous for his political savvy and his Patton-esque personae, Emanuel is a legendary head case, once said to have delivered a pollster a dead fish, sending a message that he didn't like the results of the poll. It is safe to say that Obama's #1 officer is hardly the agent of change that is needed as it pertains to bringing "nicey-nice" back to D.C. This is akin to placing Teddy Kennedy is charge of Liquor inventory at the local 7-11.

Now, I know what most of you are thinking: It's only been 6 months, give the guy a break. Fair enough; however, Obama is going around the globe, whining about the past administration instead of taking ownership and telling people what his solutions are going to be for the future. How is going globetrotting and blaming Bush going to change the bickering or even further his agenda? All this does is show that Obama is not a leader but a complainer. Sure, Bush made a lot of blunders, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, immigration amnesty, increased spending and increased government, vis a vis adding Homeland Security. However, going around the world and whining like a little child is no solution. And, by the way, where was all the good that the USA has done for the world for the last 100 years? Why was any of this ever mentioned? This "appology tour" eroded bipartisanship and made Obama look like a snotty nosed kid.

So, Obama and his acolytes promised change, and by God, I demand it! With that in mind, here are five things that the Left must do in order to keep their promise to Americans and not look like the "say anything to get elected" party that we all know too well.

1.Get rid of, or force changes to, the current democratic leadership. Trade Reid and Pelosi for an old hockey puck bag and a six-pack of Schlitz. Leaders lead, right? Proof that things aren't Eden in D.C.? Heath Shuler (D - NC), one of the eleven that voted against the Nancy and Harry's Porkasaurus Bill of 2009, said that Pelosi failed miserably in her attempt at bipartisanship. Even a democrat sees this bipartisanship for what it really is: fantasyland.

2.Someone needs to advise Obama to quit the "Blame Bush" world tour, state what he will do to help Americans and lead this country into prosperity. Being so involved in the past is not a quality you want in a leader, especially one that says he is interested in a bipartisan and respectful Washington, D.C. While you always want to look at history as an aid, Obama uses the past as his whip.

3.Absolutely refuse to implement Reconciliation, a move Obama intends to utilize that would basically render a filibuster null and void, in order to jam Obamacare down our throats. When the republicans thought about using this same procedure during Bush's court appointees, the Left went hysterical. Max Baucus (D-MT), says, "I think this [Reconciliation] gets in the way … If we jam something down somebody's throat, it's not sustainable."

4.Akin to #2, Obama cannot continue this insane notion of holding a prior presidential administration responsible for actions they took in order to the protect their country, something that both Bush, Obama and every president swears under oath to do. Think of it. If presidents are now supposed to double think their strategy in order to avoid prison time, how many lives can be put in danger for making the wrong but "safe" decision.

5.Democrats and republicans must want this. If the liberal bloggers on the Internet are any indication, they might speak for the need of bipartisanship out of one side of their mouth but on the other side they trash people like 14 year old Willow and 18 year old Bristol Palin, call people like Rush and Sean all of the most despicable, hateful names in the thesaurus and constantly beat the dead horse that is "Bush is a war criminal." C'mon. There are some very serious freedoms that Bush and Cheney trampled on; however, Obama promised to be better than this - above the frey. Where is he now?

Blowhard's Ravings 1.1: Can We Get the President a Teleprompter, Please!

Am I the only one who has noticed that every time our president, Barack “Can I Just Eat My Waffle” Obama, says things - absurd things like he toured all 57 states or that the friend of Israel is Israel or Iran is small country and therefore no threat to the U.S. - he is sans teleprompter? Interesting isn’t it? While Obama is surely a more gifted speaker than Bush, the things that come out of BO's mouth sometimes seem Bush-esque. Or is it honesty coming through? Face it; nobody really knows who this man really is. Nobody ever really bothered to vet him. Why? The liberal media was in the tank while thrills were going up everyone’s leg. The more I hear Obama speak off the cuff he more he divulges more of his personality than he wants to let on.

Remember Joe the Plumber? While running around campaigning for president, Obama did a little quaint impromptu meet and greet in Ohio. While going around shaking hands and kissing babies, along comes the Plumber and asks the most famous question of the 2008 Presidential elections, “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” If that was the most famous question asked during the elections than Obama’s answer is the most telling, “You’re going to be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Spoken like a true socialist.

And there is Obama speaking in the very liberal California city of San Francisco in April of 2008. He was there campaigning in the primaries. Concerned for his chances in Pennsylvania (polls showed him behind Clinton), Obama offers up this gem: "In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Spoken like a true elitist.

Finally, there is the now famous Dr. Henry Gates. To quickly summarize the evidence:

1. Gates arrives home and can’t get into his home as his front door was previously jammed from a prior break in.
2. Gates jimmies the front door lock to no avail.
3. Neighbor sees this and calls the police.
4. While the police were on their way Gates walks behind his house and lets himself in the back door.
5. Sergeant James Crowley arrives and asks what is going on and for Gates to show ID. When he gives the ID to Crowley, Gates begins to claim racism.
6. All through this encounter with Crowley, Gates is unhinged, uncooperative and downright rude.
7. Crowley ends up arresting Gates for disorderly conduct. This was Crowley's only mistake. This arrest was directly related to Gates behaving like a loon, not disorderly conduct.
8. Obama gets on television and snipes, “I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that." And yet Obama, the president who is highly influential, comes out against the police and in favor of race baiting and demeaning the police. Of all the things to be against as president of the United States, the police should not be one of them.
9. Obama, as a seasoned and well honed race baiter, uses this “identification” strategy at every turn. This Identification Strategy is bunching everyone into categories, thereby setting the groundwork for pitting one class versus the other in order to get his way. Gay? Straight? Asian? African-American? These are all liberal classifications.

Summary

Barack Obama and his advisors finely crafted his image by telling his touching story of poor boy going to college, becoming a lawyer and helping communities through his agitation – oops – community organizing. Here we have a guy that turned his back at making a living as a highly paid litigator for communist agitation - again, oops - community organizing. Real sweet isn’t? When his voting record was examined it showed him being to be the left of Comrade Bernie Sanders, a self avowed socialist. Yet, Obama and his acolytes promised that he would govern from the middle and that these socialist attacks are unfounded and rude. Now, throughout the entire political nominating process we hear Obama tell people that he will take your hard earned money and “spread the wealth” with it. And then as President he takes over the auto industry, he spends $3.37 trillion over the next 10 years on a stimulus bill that is really a payback to his buddies, he wants Cap and Screw to pass (with a price tag that could reach $4,500 per household) and Obamacare that will cost $1 trillion and still leave tens of millions uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This my friends is a socialist and those that do not see this are blind or just too far into their Kool Aid-Induced Hypnosis (KAIH) to separate fiction from reality. All these speeches were WITHOUT HIS USE OF TELEPROMPTERS, ladies and gentlemen. Obama needs to come clean about his true political philosophy before it is too late. After all, too many more of these inadvertent "truth-fests" might make him unelectable in 2012. If so, what a glorious year that will be.

Blowhard's Raving 1.0: No Taxation Without Adequate Representation

As a conservative Libertarian I am most interested in the protection of our individual rights and freedoms as well as to absolutely guarantee that Americans receive the best representation on the planet. Are we truly represented like the Framers, especially, James Madison, envisioned? Well, do you feel that your representative hears what you have to say when writing him or her? For me, I have sent many emails and a few letters to my representatives here in Michigan. You want to know how many responses, other than the “we received your email” form letter … NONE. ZIPPO. NADA.

It might help if there weren’t hundreds of thousands of constituents for every one U.S. Representative. Maybe if each congressional district contained no more than 30,000-40,000 constituents for every U.S. Rep., our congressmen and congresswomen would be better equipped to respond to EVERYONE instead of lucky few. One of the very few times that our Representatives hear us was during both the Immigration bill and the recent Obamacare socialized medicine debacle. In both cases, the congressional switchboards went apoplectic with activity, eventually shutting down due to massive activity. It is a shame that the only time our representatives respect their constituent’s wishes is when there is massive outrage. What would life be like in America if our reps ACTUALLY heard from most of their constituents and governed accordingly?

James Madison, considered by many to be the "The Father" of the Constitution, argued for a small government that did not take an active role. This view was most undoubtedly due from his own view of Great Britain and how he wanted to avoid big government that Great Britain represented. With that in mind, Madison proffered to start the newly formed United States of America with 65 United States Representatives in totality. This relatively low number of representatives was to control the size of the congressional districts. Madison felt that, these 65 Reps wasn’t a static figure. To the contrary, Madison argued that every ten years there should be a census, in order to adjust taxes and representatives across all the states proportionally, the number of representatives of each district will adjust according to population increases/decreases within each district.

For example, Congressional District X had 3 U.S. Reps and 90,000 people according to the 1990 census. Now, the 2000 census shows that Congressional District X has 120,000people, a 30,000 increase, with still just 3 U.S. Reps. According to Madison, District X would now apportion 1 more rep, giving the district a total of 4 reps for 120,000 people or a ratio of 1:30,000. Under this method of apportionment, Madison showed that, if done in this manner, representation would be spread out equally amongst Americans at a 1:30,000 ratio thereby assuring Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, “One man, One Vote.”

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

Now, let’s flash forward to 2009. Do we have properly apportioned representatives that Madison and the Constitution required? Hardly. Where Madison’s idea of apportionment on population would, every ten years, change the number of congressmen in order to keep the 1:30,000 ratio. Today, due to a 1929 congressional bill, government was forever to have a set 435 congressmen, period, no care to as to how large the districts become. Out of this entirely arbitrary set number of 435, congress adjusts representation accordingly. For example, the 1990 census shows that California had 52 U.S. Reps and a population of just shy of 30,000,000. The 2000 census showed an increase in population to the tune of 4,091,548. While using Madison’s goal of 1:30,000 apportionment, California would have added 136 representatives. Under the current mode of apportionment, California got just one. ONE! Adding just one stinking rep for 4 million additional people is appalling.

Summary

1. There are just too many people in congressional districts without proper representation. Having 200,000-700,000 people per one U.S. Representative is the epitome of under representation. How in the world can one man adequately represent hundreds of thousands of people? Would you let you child swim in a pool with 10,000 other children while there’s just one lifeguard?
2. James Madison argued that having a low ratio of congressmen and constituents would lead to superior representation where the people and the rep would not be so estranged from one another. This “close” feeling between each would cause the congressman to take an active role with his voters.
3. No taxation without representation was a key and vital philosophy within James Madison’s “nation founding” mental framework. As such, Madison thought that a ratio of 1:30,000 was just large enough to foster good and fair representation. Currently, in 2009, we have an immense and highly under represented ratio of 1:690,000
4. While technically in violation of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 or “One Man, One Vote, because there is at least one representative in all states, the districts are considered properly apportioned.

Final Remarks

As you can see from the facts presented, we Americans need to be more vocal and demand to be properly represented. Americans went to war over no representation, should we not march on Washington, D.C. over under representation? Look at what this close-knit “country club” of 435 members has wrought: Bridges to nowhere? Stimulus bills? Obamacare? I would wager that it would make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to pass “pet projects” and other such nonsense if there were 1,600 reps rather than 435. Food for thought, for those of you who still think the House impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton was a right-wing witch hunt, would the Republicans have had the needed 801 votes (simple majority) if there were 1,600 congressmen voting? It would have definitely been a more daunting task.