Supreme Court Justice David Souter Expected to Retire

This is an article by FoxNews that suggests Supreme Court Justice David Souter may retire at the end of this term, due to the fact that he has not hired any law clerks for the next term. With an almost filibuster proof majority in the Senate, President Obama can put someone as far to the left as he wants, without having to worry about his appointee being rejected.


WASHINGTON--National Public Radio, among other media outlets, are reporting that the justice plans to retire by the end of the court's current term.

Eight justices are known to have hired the four law clerks who will work with them in the next term — making people speculate that Souter, 69, is not be hiring clerks because he isn't planning to be in Washington in the fall.

A retirement would give President Barack Obama his first chance to nominate a justice and the next few months would bring Senate confirmation hearings.
This is concededly an unusual way to signal that a retirement announcement is imminent, but one former senior government lawyer who declined to be named because he practices in front of the Supreme Court said, "It's getting late, even for Souter."

For the last three years, at least, the identities of Souter's clerks for the upcoming term have been known by now. Gossipy legal blogs actively seek out the names of the clerks — recent graduates of the nation's top law schools who go on to lucrative careers and, sometimes, the Supreme Court.

Clerkships are highly sought and applicants have been known to interview with multiple justices in the hopes of landing a job at the high court.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens were clerks when they were younger.

The First 100 Days: A Review of the Obama Administration

**This post will analyze the later 50 days of President Obama's Presidency thus far. To see information from the beginning 50 days, click here.**

The hundredth day of the Obama Administration has arrived, but don't get too excited. This whole hundred days frenzy, emphasised by the media, is only considered a hallmark holiday by the new administration. However, these first 100 days have been significant. The American People have seen bickering, partisanship, and lots of spending. So where is the change we were promised?

The first one hundred days, have been marked by some as, "The most expensive 100 days the American People have ever seen." One cannot argue with the facts. President Obama, along with the help of Congress, has doubled our national deficit in just three short months. The President has signed the biggest spending bill in history, and proposed a $3.6 trillion budget. The budget is expected to double the federal debt in five years, and triple it by the year 2019. In all, President Obama has proposed, and signed, about 5 trillion in new spending. On the Economy, the President deserves a C.

In Foreign Policy, President Obama has led the U.S. in a new direction. Obama has set a time table for a withdraw in Iraq, and set U.S. sights on winning Afghanistan. In his overseas trip to the G-20 Summit, and NATO Summit, he surprised many by his actions. He apologized for America's arrogance, stated the U.S. would take concrete steps towards a nuke free world, and said the United States is not a Christian nation. He bowed to the Saudi Arabian King, and in his Latin Americas visit, shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The President has declassified memos that include authorized methods of interrogation by the Bush Administration. It allows the enemy to prepare for these methods if captured, and threatens National Security. All in all, the President deserves a grade of a C, in foreign policy.

In my opinion of Obama's Foreign Policy, I think it is good that we are focusing more on Afghanistan. President Obama made the right choice. After the surge, security in Iraq has increased substantially, and the need for combat troops is decreasing. Although setting an exact date for withdrawal may not be the best strategy. President Obama's mission in his overseas trip was to improve our moral standing in the world. That's fine, but there are better ways to go about achieving that moral standing. One could tell Europe this is a fresh start, and that the United States is listening to their concerns. There is no need to apologize for the United States' actions. It makes America look weak. Bowing to a foreign dignitary does not make people feel all warm inside either, but rather offended, even if it was done out of respect. The most powerful man in the world bows to no one, and especially when the King did not bow first, or at all for that matter.

To show that I keep an open mind to President Obama's ideas, and do not oppose him for the sake of opposing him, I would like to express my favorable thoughts on our new President: I created the Political Sentinel to keep up with the far left, and to provide the Conservative side of issues. Inevitably, the President will make his way into the center of these debates. Ideologically, I oppose the President strongly. Although on a personal level, I admire him. Mr. Obama made the choice early in his lifetime, to get an education, and use it to help others, not himself. That alone commends my respect. Finally, I have enough of a challenge running my own life; I cannot imagine having the burden of running the country on my shoulders. I am willing to cut the President some slack, but only to a certain extent.

That being said, my grade for the President so far, is a C. To many Conservatives, I am being too generous to our new Commander-In-Chief. Obama has made choices which many on the right disagree with. However, Republicans must keep an open mind in order to not be classified as the party of opposition in 2010. History shows that in a midterm election, the party of the President usually loses seats, so Republicans must offer up legitimate solutions to issues, so that in 2010, the Republicans can make big congressional gains.

Presidential Press Conference

Today marks President Obama's 100th day in the White House. He also gave his third prime time Presidential Press Conference. Below is the full video of the event.

Pushing The Pause Button On Blogging

Hello everyone, and thanks for reading the blog! For the next week and a half, I will be studying for my college level (AP) tests. So I will maybe post a few things, but not much. Look for an over view of President Barack Obama's first 100 days next week. Other than that, enjoy your week!

Torture: A Moral, or Political Issue?

Americans have quite the wide range of opinions on, and definitions of, torture. Some say water boarding is torture, others say yelling is torture. This post will analyze the "torture" techniques used by the Bush Administration, and whether it is a moral, or political issue for the Obama Administration.

President Obama has flip flopped on the issue of prosecutions of former Bush Administration Officials. When over the weekend, and Monday, both the President and his Chief of Staff said the administration would not look into prosecutions of former Bush Administration officials. One reason for the flip, could be the pressure of liberal interest groups.

MoveOn.org has started a petition to Attorney General Eric Holder to look into prosecution. However, one must remember the reason MoveOn.org was founded. In the late 90's the group formed to send a message to the Republican Congress to move on, and not investigate President Clinton's wrong doings in the White House.

A second reason for the flop, may be for strictly political reasons. The release of the memos were not at random, but were released to get the public eye off the tea parties, and once again lay blame on the Bush Administration. One thing the Obama Administration does not understand however, is the damage this can, and will bring to their administration, and our country. Bush lawyers are now looking at prosecution for giving legal advice. Although the methods, at the time, were legal. Not only that, but leaders in Congress were given a full briefing on the enhanced interrogation methods. If pursued, there is no telling where this would stop. Releasing interrogations to the public, are basically telling our enemies what to expect if captured. That's why the United States Military has water boarded their own, because they want soldiers to know what to expect if captured. The United States has lost much leverage over these terrorists. Also, interrogators will be cautious in digging for information. They will not be investigative enough, due to the fear of prosecution.

Finally, the definition of torture is not defined clearly. The way we are headed, raising your voice to a detainee will be considered "harsh" interrogation. Interrogation methods authorized at the time: water boarding, sleep deprivation, placing a prisoner in a room with a caterpillar, removing religious items, solitary confinement. In my opinion, that is not harsh enough tactics to use against men who have plotted, and succeeded, to kill thousands of Americans. Especially when American Soldiers captured prisoner in Iraq, and Afghanistan, are subject to their fingers be chopped off, and the use of blow torches, meat cleavers against them.

Bottom Line: The political popularity of releasing the memos, does not out way National Security.

The American People Deserve Better From Their Media

On April 15th, frustrated Americans came out to protest the out of control government spending. As news networks emphasized, the blame comes from both parties. However, those in the mainstream media took it the wrong way. They portrayed it as an Anti-Obama, Anti-Democrat, movement. Take a look at how they portrayed the tea parties.

This is the reason I created The Political Sentinel. As you can see at the top right of my page, I mention how corrupt the media is, and this proves it.

CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS are not news networks. They are opinion networks. These tea parties were not Anti-Obama, Anti-Democratic rallies. People gathered around from all ideologies. They protested government spending in general. BOTH parties are at fault for this economic mess we are in.

This is why Americans are protesting:

This video does fall short when it comes to blaming the Bush Administration, and the Republican Congress when Republicans were in the majority. The conservative president, and congress, had a chance to cut back government spending, but instead went on a spending free for all.

The bottom line: These protests are not a political spectacle, they are an obligation of every American Parent to stop the generational theft from their children.

Tax Day Tea Parties a Sham? I Think Not

This is a video, highlighted by Nearly Nobody's News, that shows the heated debate on the tax day tea parties happening today. Liberals are calling these events a sham, manufactured, and a fraud.

By no means am I excusing the enormous amount of deficits of previous Republican administrations, but when making an argument that Democrats are fiscally responsible, one must consider the following:

-President Obama proposed a $789,000,000,000 stimulus bill, that adds $800 billion to the deficit, and spends most of the money two years from now, when America is predicted to be out of its recession.

-President Obama signed a $400,000,000 dollar spendulus bill, filled with massive amounts of pork.

-President Obama has proposed a $3,600,000,000,000 budget, filled with more than 8000 earmarks.

-Projections of deficits created by his budget for the next ten years total over $9.6 trillion (Four times the size of President Bush's deficits)

-Deficits under President Obama would never go below 4% of the total economy, a number economists say is unsustainable. Even Peter Orzag, White House Budget Chief, agreed.

-The President said his budget would cut the deficit in half, by the end of his first term. The CBO projects the deficit to be $139 billion larger than expected.

-The CBO projects higher revenue levels for the federal government. Although instead of using the extra money to pay for the deficits, President Obama will use it for a down payment to his universal health care plan.

So when one talks about fiscal responsibility, one must admit that in less than 100 days in office, the Obama Administration has doubled the deficit. It is being disingenuous to say that the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. The truth is, in Washington, there is no fiscal responsibility. The total federal debt is the responsibility of both parties. To show you some scary statistics, watch this video highlighted by The Conservative Cloakroom. It will blow your mind, and might convince you to attend one of these tea parties.

I admit, it was a big step when in two years of the Clinton Administration, there was a surplus. But that deserves a golf clap. That is only one step of many, when it comes to eliminating the federal debt.

Finally, it is not a sham to protest this out of control spending. It is almost an obligation of the American people. The more America spends, the more money we owe to the Chinese. It weakens our power on the world stage when the Chinese can blackmail us with our own debt. The American People must stand up today and tell the Congress, and the President, that they work for us. And our message to them, is to stop spending our money.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

GM: Governmental Motors?

**Publishers Note- This is Don's first post**

General Motors, an American icon, is close to a complete financial collapse and close to being taken over by the U.S. Government. Chrysler is right behind them and Ford is in only slightly better shape. There has been much discussed over the past few months on what got GM, as well as the other American car companies, into their current financial situation. All of us have heard it was caused by bad management, the unions, making cars that people don't want, or bad quality products. Other causes have been discussed, but I believe these to be the main ones.

First, bad quality products, This is something that may have been true in the past, but is hardly true today. J.D. Power and Associates just came out with their 2009 Vehicle Dependability Study, and Buick was tied for first with Jaguar, knocking Lexus down to the number 3 spot. Toyota is 4th, Mercury is 5th, Infinti is 6th, Acura is 7th, Lincoln is 8th, Cadillac is 9th and Honda rounds out the top 10. Half the cars in the top 10 are American (Jaguar is owned by Ford, or at least it was until recently). What about those high quality German brands such as BMW, Mercedes? Both Ford and Chrysler are rated higher. The sad reality is the American car industry has increased its quality significantly over the past years, but the average American consumer would never believe a Buick is better than a Lexus. Who is to blame for bad quality, management or the unions? They can both take credit for that.

Second, building vehicles people don't want. It is said over and over that the 'Big Three' build too many trucks and SUV's that people do not want. The number one selling vehicle in the USA for the past thirty-two years has been a Ford F-150 pickup truck, and that includes last year when gas cost over $4.00/gallon. The number 2 vehicle still isn't a car, it's a Chevy Silverado pick-up truck. This might explain why both Nissan and Toyota have started to build and sell full-size pick-up trucks in the United States. Last year GM manufactured and sold around 9 million vehicles, the same as Toyota. I guess these people were never told they really didn't want these vehicles.

Third, unions and management. These two entities really need to be discussed together, as they go together hand-in-hand. The health care for life, and pension costs that the 'Big Three' are saddled with, were negotiated and agreed on by both management and the unions. At the time many of these decisions were made, the cost of health care was relatively low, and it allowed management to keep the direct employee compensation lower and it helped keep employees. The unions viewed it as good for their workers and a win-win solution. Everybody was happy. No one could foresee the cost of health care ballooning like it has in the past 20 years. Management didn't pay close enough attention to outside competition coming into the market. The unions have been too concerned about saving positions in stead of making their members more productive and thus their companies more competitive. Management began to rely on their financing arms as a major profit centers and their truck divisions as another. Hindsight is always said to be 20/20, but in reality it is even better than that. It is always easier after the fact to say how something should have been handled.

Currently GM is paying three people in retirement for every one they actually have making cars. The "Big Three's" labor cost is $25.00 more per hour than their competitors. This is due to the pension and health care costs mentioned above. These costs add an average of $5,000 to the cost of every vehicle. The only way any of the American car companies can compete and survive is to be able to eliminate these legacy costs. Sadly, the only way that is going to happen will be either bankruptcy or the government taking over the pension obligation. The goverment can assist these companies, but we don't want or need the government to run them. I will quote from Bill O'reilly, "If the unions don't bend, we won't lend."

The President Has Become A Divisive Figure

This is an article written by Karl Rove, published in the Wall Street Journal.

The Pew Research Center reported last week that President Barack Obama "has the most polarized early job approval of any president" since surveys began tracking this 40 years ago. The gap between Mr. Obama's approval rating among Democrats (88%) and Republicans (27%) is 61 points. This "approval gap" is 10 points bigger than George W. Bush's at this point in his presidency, despite Mr. Bush winning a bitterly contested election.

Part of Mr. Obama's polarized standing can be attributed to a long-term trend. University of Missouri political scientist John Petrocik points out that since 1980, each successive first term president has had more polarized support than his predecessor with the exception of 1989, when George H.W. Bush enjoyed a modest improvement over Ronald Reagan's 1981 standing.

But rather than end or ameliorate that trend, Mr. Obama's actions and rhetoric have accelerated it. His campaign promised post-partisanship, but since taking office Mr. Obama has frozen Republicans out of the deliberative process, and his response to their suggestions has been a brusque dismissal that "I won."

Compare this with Mr. Bush's actions in the aftermath of his election. Among his first appointments were Democratic judicial nominees who had been blocked by Republicans under President Bill Clinton. The Bush White House joined with Democratic and Republican leaders to draft education reform legislation. And Mr. Bush worked with Republican Chuck Grassley to cut a deal with Democrat Max Baucus to win bipartisan passage of a big tax cut in a Senate split 50-50 after the 2000 election.

Mr. Obama has hastened the decline of Republican support with petty attacks on his critics and predecessor. For a person who promised hope and civility in politics, Mr. Obama has shown a borderline obsessiveness in blaming Mr. Bush. Starting with his inaugural address and continuing through this week's overseas trip, the new president's jabs at Mr. Bush have been unceasing, unfair and unhelpful. They have also diminished Mr. Obama by showing him to be another conventional politician. Rather than ending "the blame game," he is personifying it.

The question that will worry the Obama West Wing is whether the views of independents come to look more like Democrats or Republicans. Recent opinion surveys show that support for his policies among independents is slipping.

On both Mr. Obama's performance and policies, independents are starting to look more like Republicans. For example, the most recent Fox News poll (taken March 31 to April 1) found that Mr. Obama's job approval among independents has fallen to 52%, down nine points from the start of March and down 12 points from late January. Over the same period, the number of independents who disapprove of Mr. Obama's performance has doubled to 32% from 16%.

The same poll also found that 76% of independents worry that government will spend too much to help the economy; only 12% worry it will spend too little. Independents oppose Mr. Obama's proposed budget by a 55%-37% margin.

If independents continue looking more like Republicans, especially on deficits, spending and the economy, Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats could be in for a rough ride.

It was the concern of independents and "soft partisans" about national debt and spending that gave rise to Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential election. More significantly, independents angry about deficits and spending were the key swing bloc in the 1994 congressional races, where Republicans picked up eight Senate seats and 54 House seats, winning their first House majority since 1955.

Declining support for the Obama agenda among independents may further unnerve congressional Democrats, especially in the House. Sixty-nine Democratic congressmen represent districts carried by Mr. Bush or John McCain in two of the last three presidential contests. Forty-eight of these districts were carried by Mr. McCain last election. If independent support continues slipping, many of these Democrats will be fingering worry beads as the mid-term election approaches.

Perhaps that's why 20 House Democrats voted no or abstained on the president's budget resolution, joining all 198 Republicans in not supporting Mr. Obama's budget framework. Nineteen represent GOP-leaning districts -- and at least 16 are vulnerable to Republican challengers, including 14 freshmen or sophomore congressmen.

We don't yet know the price Democrats will pay for Mr. Obama's fiscal radicalism. But we do know that no presidential hopeful in our lifetime has made bipartisanship more central to his candidacy and few presidents have devoted as many eloquent words to its importance. Yet no president in the past 40 years has done more to polarize America so much, so quickly. Mr. Obama has not come close to living up to his own standards. It took him less than 11 weeks to achieve the very opposite of what he promised. That, in its own regrettable way, is quite an achievement.



Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123923500880003227.html

Destined To Repeat?

The following is video of Glenn Beck's special entitled, "Destined To Repeat?". He makes the point in this special, that people who don't know history, are destined to repeat it.

Click for: Part Two , Part Three , Part Four, Part Five

House Bill Allows 'Victims' of Global Warming to Sue Businesses, Federal Government

This is an article from The Washington Times. It highlights a provision in a bill authored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cali), and Edward Markey (D-Mass), that allows "victims" or "soon to be victims" of global warming, to sue businesses, and federal government.

WASHINGTON- Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who "expect to suffer" from it - from beachfront property owners to asthmatics - for the first time would be able to sue the federal government or private businesses over greenhouse gas emissions under a little-noticed provision slipped into the House climate bill.

Environmentalists say the measure was narrowly crafted to give citizens the unusual standing to sue the U.S. government as a way to force action on curbing emissions. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees a new cottage industry for lawyers.

"You could be spawning lawsuits at almost any place [climate-change modeling] computers place at harm's risk," said Bill Kovacs, energy lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The bill was written by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, and Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat. Both lawmakers declined repeated requests for comment.

The Waxman-Markey blueprint, including the lawsuit provision, has just been released, and the Senate is drafting its own energy bill. But Mr. Waxman has set an accelerated schedule for passing the bill through his committee by Memorial Day and President Obama lists an energy overhaul bill as one of his top priorities.

David Doniger, senior counsel with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the measure is similar to a landmark environmental ruling from the Supreme Court allowing states to sue the federal government for damages from climate change - largely on the basis of lost shorelines from rising sea levels - but did not set grounds for people to file lawsuits.

"The [Chamber of Commerce] is trying to say the global-warming legislation is scarier than global warming itself," Mr. Doniger said. "It's part of a menu of scare tactics they are compiling."
Under the House bill, if a judge rules against the government, new rules would have to be drafted to alleviate the problems associated with climate change. If a judge rules against a company, the company would have to purchase additional "carbon emission allowances" through a cap-and-trade program that is to be created by Congress.

The measure sets grounds for anyone "who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part," to government inaction to file a "citizen suit." The term "harm" is broadly defined as "any effect of air pollution (including climate change), currently occurring or at risk of occurring."

It would allow citizens to seek up to $75,000 in damages from the government each year, but would cap the total amount paid out each year at $1.5 million, committee staff said. It is unclear whether the provision would actually cap damages at $75,000 per person, because the U.S. law referenced does not establish payouts by the government.

The $1.5 million cap reflects a compromise reached with House Republicans in a 2007 version of the measure introduced by Mr. Waxman, committee staff said. Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey wrote the measure into a broader climate plan introduced last week, although it was left out of a bill summary that committee staff provided at the time.

Republican committee staff said the measure has the potential to muddle the judicial system.
"Perhaps a more accurate title of the bill would be 'The Lawyer Full-Employment and As-Seen-on-TV Global Warming Act of 2009,' " said Larry Neal, deputy Republican staff director for the House committee.

Democratic staffers said the measure provides guidance to the courts on how to apply existing Clean Air Act provisions. Private citizens can sue the government based on harm caused by pollutants currently regulated under the Clean Air Act - including nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide - but they lack standing to sue for damages resulting from climate change.

Regulating carbon dioxide has been a hard slog for environmentalists, and some energy analysts say that the Waxman-Markey bill and parallel efforts by the Obama administration constitute a multifaceted attempt to achieve the goal by regulation if legislative attempts fail.

The "citizen suit" would allow people to force government action on climate change, seemingly a redundancy in a bill that would achieve that goal if passed. But environmentalists have been cautious in their tack, arguing that many environmental protections on the books were not vigorously enforced under the Bush administration.

Environmental lawyers played down the significance of the provision.
The measure would not guarantee payouts from the government or successful lawsuits, Mr. Doniger said, but would set the bar for people seeking to force the government to act on climate change.

He likened the measure to tort laws regarding cigarette smoke or cancer-causing chemicals, in which the harmful effects are not seen for decades.

"If this pollution isn't curbed, it isn't just today or tomorrow you have problems, it's also 20 to 30 years from now," Mr. Doniger said.

Expansion of the Clean Air Act to allow "citizen suits" on climate change has been a goal among environmental groups and moderate to liberal Democrats for many years - although the measure has never succeeded.

But amending the Clean Air Act is "potentially a big gamble" because it opens other sections of the act to modification during the bill-drafting process, said a Democratic energy lobbyist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of ties to committee members.


If you disagree with this provision, contact your congressman or congresswoman and tell them to vote NO to the expansion of the Clean Air Act!


Source: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/10/climate-bill-could-trigger-lawsuit-landslide/?page=2

Protest Out Of Control Government Spending

Next Wednesday, is you guessed it, tax day. Many Americans on this day are going to "Tea Party" protests, to show their frustration with all the unecessary government spending.

Click here to find a tea party near you.

The Tax Day Tea Party is a national collaborative grassroots effort organized by Smart Girl Politics, Top Conservatives on Twitter, the DontGo Movement and many other online groups/coalitions.

The Tea Party protests, in their current form, began in early 2009 when Rick Santelli, the On Air Editor for CNBC, set out on a rant to expose the bankrupt liberal agenda of the White House Administration and Congress. Specifically, the flawed “Stimulus Bill” and pork filled budget.

During Rick’s rant (see video below), he called for a “Chicago tea Party” where advocates of the free-market system could join in a protest against out of control government spending.

A few days later, grassroots activists and average Joe Americans began organizing what would soon become the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party effort.

On February 27th, an estimated 30,000 Americans took to the street in 40+ cities accross the country in the first nationwide “Tea Party” protest.

Organizers of the February 27th events pledged to continue on with an even bigger and better protest to follow the first. With April 15th being “Tax Day”, it was decided to schedule the second round of Tea Party protests to ride alongside the tax deadline.

And with that, the “Tax Day Tea Party”, the second round of the Nationwide Tea Party protests, moved into reality.

Obama Living In Fantasy Of Nuke Free World

In a speech today in the Czech Republic, President Obama says the United States will take concrete steps to a world without nuclear weapons.

The only problem with nuclear disarmament, is there is always a country who will not participate. The idea of a world free of nuclear weapons diminished when the United States and Russia first developed these weapons. There is too much of a risk to disarm now, when we have about 2500 more nukes than anyone else. We do not have exact numbers of other countries' nukes. So no one can be sure whether each country is keeping its end of the deal. The increase vulnerability of the United States is not worth the political popularity it may bring. President Obama knows that the United States cannot actually carry out this policy, and is just saying it to please the world. I Hope.

Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan Seen as Future of GOP

This is an article from FoxNews about Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, Ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. Earlier this week, he offered up an alternative Republican Budget, but was rejected by House Democrats.

He's young, charismatic and conservative.

The Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank in Washington, has anointed this rising GOP star "the leader of the future of the conservative movement."

No, it's not Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty or House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.

The man supposedly tasked with carrying the hopes and ambitions of an entire political party is Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

At 39, Ryan has become the go-to-guy on policy.

"I'm the man of the hour because I'm the top Republican on the House Budget Committee," he told FOX News in an interview.

Republicans are desperately seeking a new generation of leaders as it attempts to recover from two devastating election cycles that stripped them of power in Congress and the White House.

Ryan could be the man to lead the party back to power.

Elected to Congress in his 20s, he's a self-described nerd.

"I've been reading federal budgets since I was 22-years-old," he said. "That's kind of a weird thing to admit. It kind of makes me look like a dork."

A husband and father of three children, Ryan's got a knack for simplifying complex budget concepts.

"When my kids are my age, the federal government will have to tax 40 cents out of every dollar just to pay for the federal government we have today at that time," he said. "You add the Obama budget ambitions on top of it, it gets even worse. You will destroy this country's prosperity."

Ryan displayed his knack for numbers by crafting a House Republican budget plan that would have cut taxes and radically overhauled Medicare. The plan, a stark alternative to blueprints offered by President Obama and his Democratic allies, would have frozen overall spending on domestic programs passed by Congress each year and repealed most of the spending in Obama's recently passed economic stimulus bill. But Democrats rejected his plan Thursday.

Still, Ryan is comfortable zinging the White House budget director by day and hobnobbing at the White House with the chief of staff and treasury secretary by night.

He's confident, not cocky -- he picks up his own dry cleaning -- but he's clearly being groomed.

Ryan, however, is wary of party elders. Like last year's GOP presidential nominee, John McCain, he fancies himself a reformer, blaming "them" -- the nameless Republican old guard -- for abandoning principle and shrinking the party.

"A lot of them have retired. A lot of them have lost their elections, and so the way I see it is we've got a younger breed of reformers in the party," he said. "That breed has got to take over and become a reform party."

Ryan is promoting, not bending, conservative principles to expand the party.

"If you believe in freedom, liberty, self-determination, free enterprise, I don't care if you're a Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic, Christian, gay, straight, Latino, black, white, Irish, whatever. Join us."

Written by Carl Cameron.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/03/wisconsin-rep-ryan-seen-future-gop/

"North Korea Should Stop The Launch"- President Obama

In just hours, the world expects the North Koreans to launch a missle capable of reaching Japan, and the United States.

This video clip, Highlighted by The Conservative Post, shows the lack of response from President Obama, to countries who threaten U.S. Allies, and the U.S. itself. America must stand strong against countries who threaten its allies. President Obama has to stop worrying about giving the politically correct response, and tell North Korea if they launch the missile, it will be shot down, and include a strong response from the United States and its allies. This response is weak, appeasing, and reminds me of Hitler taking over the Sudetanland. The British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin appeased Hitler by signing the Munich Agreement, stating he may have the land, in exchange for the promise to not invade anymore countries. As we all know, Hitler took over most of Europe and a good chunk of the Soviet Union. The bottom line is, if we give a weak response to North Korea, we are giving them the green light to go ahead and do it again. Except next time, it will not be a test missile. It will be the real thing.

Pay Your Taxes, Or He'll Nominate You

No Joke! It has happened once again. Another Obama cabinet nominee has failed to pay their taxes. If there is one thing the Obama administration has done poorly in, it's the vetting process. The second nominee for the position of Health and Human Services Secretary is Democratic Governor of Kansas, Ms. Kathleen Sebelius. It is reported that she has failed to pay $7000 in back taxes. Sound familiar?

Someone in the administration has dropped the ball. Not just once, not twice, but five times. It almost seems like a requirement for joining the Obama Cabinet. Lets review the growing controversy over the tax-evading Obama Cabinet.

-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, failed to pay over $34,000 in back taxes. When the public learned of the tax evasion, Obama stated that the economy was in to bad of shape for his Treasury Secretary nominee not to be confirmed. He was confirmed, but not without controversy. Now lawmakers on the hill are calling for him to resign, due to lack of specifics in his plan to get the banks rolling again.

-Democratic Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson. He is the only nominee who stepped down, without tax problems. He removed himself from consideration after it was discovered he was being investigated by the FBI for alleged fraud in handing out state contruction contracts.

-Fmr. Senator Tom Daschle was the first nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary. He failed to pay taxes on a car and driver, totaling in value of over $120,000. It was reported that he paid his taxes back only after learning he would be nominated for the position. He then removed himself from consideration.

- Nancy Killefer was the nominee for Chief Performance Officer. She failed to pay $946 in taxes. Some may say, that is not enough to keep her from being confirmed. Although it is enough to send you to jail for tax evasion. She removed herself from consideration.

- Ron Kirk was the nominee for U.S. Trade Representative. Calls for him to step aside arose when it was reported that he failed to pay over $10,000 in back taxes earlier in the decade. He was confirmed by the Senate, and is now the new U.S. Trade Representative.

The bottom line is, no one is above the law. The law requires each citizen to pay taxes, or else face jail time. All of the nominee's that re payed their taxes, never had to pay any penalties for being late on the payments. Obama signed an executive order in his second day in office setting up ethics rules for his administration. One may ask how ethical they are, when five of his nominee's have failed to pay taxes.