The most telling comment in the piece is how Obama has talked about “going Bulworth” and just saying what he actually thinks. This is a reference to the Warren Beatty/Halle Berry film about a California senator who decides to tell everyone what he believes, no matter the consequences. The New York Post has taken it to mean Obama wants to come out and admit he’s a socialist, which the Bulworth character is. This could be true, but it also reveals a problem with our political system.

Politicians have a problem with being 100-percent honest. Big surprise, but a David Axelrod quote following the Bulworth revelation is even more telling. Axelrod told The Times, “But the reality is that while you want to be truthful, you want to be straightforward, you also want to be practical about whatever you’re saying.”

It’s not that politicians can’t tell the truth, it’s that they don’t think the public wants to know the truth.

The sad part is…they’re probably right.

More people would rather be told that things are “going to be okay,” instead of hearing the horrific reality of the situation.

The 2012 election is a perfect example of this. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were vilified for discussing the nation’s $16-trillion in debt. Columnists like Paul Krugman claimed the nation’s debt isn’t an issue, while Obama told David Letterman “we don’t have to worry about it short term.” Letterman asked only one follow up but that shouldn’t be surprising. He’s not Jake Tapper.

When Romney spoke his mind in the “infamous” 47-percent quote, he was said to “not represent all Americans” and to have “written off half the nation.” Obama, again, told Letterman about how he wanted to represent the “entire country,” but didn’t talk the substance of Romney’s quote, why he may have said it or the context.

Guaranteed: more people saw Obama make those comments than any of Romney’s speeches on the debt.

However, it’s not just Romney who was vilified. Ron Paul was called a “dangerous man” for some of his positions. A look at the jokes the late night talk show hosts said about Paul, shows they saw him more as a “crazy uncle” and not a real candidate. Now, Paul is a horrible messenger from time to time (see his Chris Kyle tweet and his September 11^th comment) but he’s at least willing to speak his mind and tell the truth. Something refreshing in politics.

As much as people claim to want the truth, the reality is much different. The truth hurts and people prefer “flowers and sunshine” to reality. There’s a difference between pointing out problems and solutions, and just telling people it will be okay. This is why politicians use double-speak and seem distance. A majority of people don’t want reality.

There is a way for conservatives and libertarians to break through this. Outreach. Real outreach, not the failed attempt of Project ORCA by Romney’s team during 2012. Get out in the community and be with people. See what they experience. Explain to them how freedom and liberty is important and show them how it can make their lives better. Support what Deneen Borelli and Wayne Dupree are doing in the Black community and what “True the Vote” is trying to do with the Hispanic community. Talk to friends. Engage them.

And keep politicians accountable. It’s not always pragmatic to change one’s mind. Sometimes it’s simply political. Get them to explain why they do what they do. Get them to tell the truth.

It’s the only way to prove Axelrod and his ilk wrong.

And to make sure Bulworth isn’t “just” a movie but reality.

When: Saturday, May 18th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Adrian Moore from Reason magazine joins us us to discuss the IRS scandal and how it might affect US policy in the future. Should the IRS even be involved in looking at any group whether it’s conservative, libertarian or liberal. Also expect talk on the Department of Justice and the AP, plus Taylor’s review of Iron Man 3.

Rand Paul was called someone who was “bullsh—tting,” a “politician” (which he is), someone who supported “the militarizing of police” and someone who needed to get away from neoconservatives because they were “rotting your brain.” Even Matt Drudge threw up the clever headline, “RAND LEARNS TO LOVE THE DRONE!”

However, people are ignoring the second half of his quote. Paul specifically said it was different if a drone wanted to go over someone’s hot tub or yard just to look at you. Even when Cavuto asked what if police were searching for a criminal and accidentally found something “bad,” Paul didn’t budge. He said no one should be looking into someone’s backyard and didn’t want surveillance when there wasn’t “probable cause.” Paul made it very clear police must have a warrant to use a drone, unless there was a “killer on the loose” or someone “running around with a gun.”

This is very similar to what he said during his 13 hour filibuster and the comments he made afterward. It’s also part of the no domestic drone strike legislation he and Texas Senator Ted Cruz co-sponsored. Drones can only be used on “dangerous criminals” and people who poses an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury” to another person. So Paul is being consistent.

There are still problems with how Paul worded what he said. The definition of a “dangerous criminal” may mean someone like the Boston terrorists, who engaged in an active shootout with police. But, as Paul pointed out in his filibuster, the Fusion Center of Missouri considers “dangerous criminals” as people who have pro-life bumper stickers, people who may want more border security, support third party candidates or might be in the Constitution Party. Unless the “dangerous criminal” terminology is strictly defined, the use of drones by governments on American soil could end up being as slippery of a slope as warrant-less wiretapping. Even with the strictest of definitions, it may not be worth it, despite how awesome the technology is.

By making broad comments on an issue, Paul giving potential political enemies more ammunition against him. It also disappoints his supporters and those who consider him a “political hero.” Plus, the liquor store example is a bad example, which Paul realized. He made it clear in a statement he released Tuesday. After all, hindsight is 20-20.

There may be ways to figure out how people in the private sector (i.e. farmers) could use drones, without raising questions about privacy. Drone countermeasures are already being developed and sold to those who can afford it. That may be the ultimate solution.

But in the end, Lucius Fox may have it right when he raised questions about technology Bruce Wayne developed in The Dark Knight. Even when it was obvious Batman could use a city-wide tracking device to find the Joker, Fox said, “No one should have it,” because the tracker could be abused.

It may be time for us to listen to Lucius Fox on drones. Cool technology, but not worth using.

President Obama made a very interesting decision on Wednesday by not only appealing to people’s emotions, but also openly demonizing and mocking the NRA and the U.S. Senate for not passing the Manchin-Toomey plan. It is several tactics defined by Saul Alinsky in “Rules For Radicals.”

The first is openly ridiculing the NRA, gun owners and the Republicans (and Democrats) who voted against the measure. By saying, “… instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill…but that didn’t matter. And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators (emphasis mine).”

Obama is trying to put the NRA, the GOP and gun owners into a box. It’s an attempt to make them ‘the bad guy,’ and out of the mainstream. He does this again with the, “90 percent of Americans want background checks.”

This doesn’t tell the entire truth. There are several Quinnipiac polls showing 90 percent surveyed want background checks, but the question is too simple. The survey doesn’t say who should be doing the checks, whether it was national, state or local. It simply asks whether background checks should be done. This is an important distinction supporters of gun control bills aren’t discussing.

However, gun rights advocates haven’t explained this. They are instead going on the defensive, which is what Obama hoped. The NRA is only using the “background checks will do nothing to stop crime,”strategy and raising fears about a national gun registry. These are valid concerns, but won’t work long-term because people will get tired of hearing it. As Alinsky says, “A tactic that drags on too long, becomes a drag.”

It’s also helping Obama marginalize them even further. The President can now use another Alinsky rule of, “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Obama can now bring out legitimately hurting families, like those in Newtown and Aurora, to have them push gun control. This tactic puts a face on those who have suffered in horrific tragedies. It makes it easier for the President to point at the NRA and say, “these people are keeping children from being safe.”

However, there are ways to use the personalization for gun rights. The best way to do this is bring out the Lone Star College student, who said on live TV, he wished he could have been armed when someone stabbed 14 people. Or have 15-year-old Sarah Merkle talk about gun rights. Or Mark Mattioli who lost his young son at Sandy Hook discuss why new gun laws won’t work. These can be effective push backs against Obama.

Obama isn’t going to back off on the push for gun control. While his original attack may have gotten an alternative he was looking for in the Toomey-Manchin plan, that thankfully failed. He, along with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are going to come up with new plans.

The NRA and gun rights supporters need to come up with their own plan, using new tactics, to beat it off. Encouraging people to the ballot box is one thing. TV and radio spots work as well. However, it’s important for gun rights supporters to remember to use Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites to get the word out.

It’s not over, and while Obama is president, the fight for gun rights may never end.

This needs to be avoided with Benghazi. The whole truth has to come out. There is too much conflicting information. The Pentagon appears to be blaming the State Department. The State Department blames the CIA and the White House. The CIA appears to blame the Defense Department, the White House and State Department. The White House has been noticeably silent. A special investigation team needs to look into which information is true and which isn’t.

Capitol Hill doesn’t always appear interested in doing this. It seems more interested in keeping the status quo and avoiding accountability as much as possible.

This probably started with the Warren Commission looking into the assassination of President Kennedy, but the best example is the Watergate investigation. That was shut down after President Ford pardoned President Nixon to get the case over with as quickly as possible. Ford was hoping to keep Nixon’s name from being dragged any further through the mud. It may have been noble reasoning, but was ultimately irresponsible.

It also set a dangerous precedent the presidency has been willing to go along with time and time again. In the Iran Contra scandal, President George H.W. Bush pardoned Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger before he could go up to trial. In the end, only Oliver North and John Poindexter were tried and convicted. Both convictions were thrown out on appeal and independent counsel Lawrence Walsh declined to continue the investigation.

During the Whitewater scandal, both Bill and Hillary Clinton were able to avoid charges. President Clinton was later impeached for lying under oath, but that related to the Monica Lewinsky affair. A part of the failure of the Whitewater investigation could be because ex-Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, Webster Hubbell and Susan McDougal refused to cooperate with Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Clinton later pardoned McDougal. Another part is the decision by the Clintons to fight the Whitewater investigation tooth and nail, instead of cooperating with it. Starr’s successor, Robert Ray, admitted he was pressured to come up with a deal with President Clinton so he wouldn’t be indicted further.

These examples make it seem like there’s no accountability in the White House. Instead, it shows presidents are willing to use their political positions to either protect themselves, their friends or their previous bosses from accepting responsibility.

Congress is no better.

During the investigation into Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson, Congress criticized the Justice Department for their “aggressive raid” on Jefferson’s office. Wisconsin Congressman James Sensenbrenner wanted to hold hearings on whether the FBI had trampled on the Constitution for their actions. Jefferson was later convicted of bribery and sentenced to 13 years in prison.

After Peter Schweizer’s fantastic 2011 book on insider trading in Washington DC called “Throw Them All Out,” Congress was criticized for not passing strong enough insider trading prevention laws. Schweizer himself criticized the SEC for not indicting any members of Congress during the hearing on the law. Congresswoman Maxine Waters was able to avoid ethics charges for helping OneUnited Bank get money from TARP. These are examples of members of Congress deciding not to police themselves and hold each other to the highest standard possible.

These types of situations do nothing to end the notion that Washington politicians are more interested in protecting their own, instead of working for the people who elected them.

The good news is there are people in Congress who want the truth to get out. California Congressman Darrell Issa, South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy, Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul have all been at the forefront of the Benghazi situation demanding answers. This is a good thing. Their calls for an investigation even have House Speaker John Boehner demanding answers. There need to be more people like Issa, Gowdy, Chaffetz and Paul willing to do this.

Congress has to investigate the situation involving Benghazi, regardless of who wins the presidency. Ignoring it would deny the truth not only to the families of the four killed but also the American people, who have been lied to.

Mitt Romney has made the prevention of President Barack Obama’s sequestration plan one of his primary campaign talking points. He’s probably done this for two reasons: it plays well with voters in Virginia and veterans, but it also helps with those who want the U.S. to have the strongest military possible.

There’s nothing wrong with the U.S. having a strong military; the Constitution says the country must be able to defend its borders. However, the country is dealing with $16-trillion in debt which means some cuts have to happen. It’s here where Romney is wrong on an increase in defense spending.

For the sake of America’s financial future, there have to be cuts to defense and changes to how the Pentagon doles out cash. Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz wants the State Department to start prioritizing spending. The Defense Department needs to do this as well. The way to figure this out is through Senator Rand Paul’s suggested audit of the Pentagon.

The best example of how wasteful the Pentagon can be is a look at military auctions websites. Listings include a stroller, weights, a driving simulator, a Piper Arrow IV aircraft, a Vantage Motor Scooter and a 1978 Corvette. The weights make sense because soldiers need to be in shape. The driver simulator makes sense as well, because it’s cheaper to use a simulator than wreck a vehicle. But having a motor scooter or a Corvette in our military inventory makes zero sense whatsoever. Here is where cuts help the military prioritize spending and eliminate waste.

There can also be reforms into how military contracts are handed out. Citizens Against Government Waste has done an excellent job at pointing out some of the problems, including analysis on defense issues (anyone remember the $640 toilet seat?).

Just because spending cuts happen doesn’t mean the U.S. military can’t recoup some of the money lost. The simplest way is to go through some of the surplus warehouses, find things which are valuable and sell them. Michelle Ray has told the story of how someone she knows made a 200% profit minimum by stripping the copper from spools of wire and selling it. If private citizens can do this, why can’t the military?

The military could also save money by selling aircraft and weapons it doesn’t use. Obviously there are concerns about Iran getting a hold of some technology; however, completely scrapping the entire F-14 Tomcat fleet in 2006 makes zero sense. The sale of the airplanes to Israel or Brazil or Taiwan would help offset some of the cuts. A similar solution could be devised for our fleet at sea.

Military cuts don’t have to mean gutting the armed forces. Senator Pat Toomey has proposed a plan which reduces spending in all areas and yet still makes sure the military is strong. A strong military ensures the country can defend itself from foreign threats the natural borders with the Atlantic and Pacific oceans can’t. It also makes sure our bases and embassies across the globe are protected from threats.

But as former Joint Chief of Staff chair Admiral Mike Mullen has said, the national debt is the greatest threat the U.S. has. Spending and the growth of government need to be stopped.

This means no sacred cows. Not if there’s going to be a financial future for the U.S.

**A CDN reader sent us a response to this article in which he disagreed with the author – you can see the response HERE.

This obfuscates the problem. It’s not a campaign issue, but a policy issue. It’s still not known why there wasn’t enough protection at the compound, who denied requests for additional security and what intelligence agencies did or didn’t know at the time.

It also doesn’t answer why both the administration and the State Department decided to blame a non-existent “movie” on the attacks, when they apparently treated it like a terror attack from “Day One.” Despite the best efforts of the Administration and their surrogates, both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice lied to the American people in various speeches and media appearances on the matter.

The biggest issue is how the original conflict came to be. According to “The Washington Post,” the Arab League and Libyan rebels requested U.S. involvement in March 2011 but the White House was divided. It was Clinton who convinced Obama to launch the airstrikes after several meetings in Europe.

Where was Congress in all this? Nowhere. The administration did the Libyan action without congressional approval. The President did inform Congress of what was going on, but there was no vote on the matter. The only congressional action was the Senate approving the non-binding resolution about a “No Fly Zone.” Outside of that, Congress wasn’t involved.

According to the U.S. Constitution in Article One, Section Eight, only Congress can declare war. The president doesn’t have the power to unilaterally make military decisions.

This is why Libya is an issue because it violated the Constitution.

Situations like this have gotten the U.S. in trouble before. The Korean War wasn’t approved by Congress and neither was the Vietnam War, despite the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Both conflicts ended badly for the U.S. with little or no gain. It’s possible the administration believed Libya was similar to the 1999 action in Yugoslavia but that obviously wasn’t the case. The September 11^th attacks proved it.

A truly unconstitutional war has been compounded by a completely avoidable death. Saying it’s being exploited for political means only forwards the belief the administration is hiding something. Axelrod may be being a loyal soldier, but he’s showing the Obama Administration is behaving like poltroons for not tackling what happened in Libya head on.

It’s why Romney and Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson can talk about the attacks without it being exploited.

This mantra is something frustrated conservatives and libertarians need to hear. These are frustrating times. President Barack Obama still leads in the polls and the Republican Party seems ready to toss grassroots activists out with the dirt they were grown in. It’s too easy to pack it in and say what a Hillary Clinton aide said to a reporter.

Now’s not the time.

Now is the time to keep fighting. It’s not over.

There are plenty of conservative and libertarians running for Congress who can help get the United States back to the limited, Constitution-following government it’s supposed to be. The latest Reason magazine should be read by all, because it includes a group of candidates out there who are libertarian(ish) and up for election. These include Ted Cruz in Texas, Justin Amash in Michigan, Jeff Flake in Arizona and Mia Love in Utah.

Another must read is a column by Mark Kreslin discussing “The Liberty Movement” and how more people appear to be interested in liberty. Kreslin believes more people are getting interested in liberty and could start participating in activism like they did with the Tea Party in 2010. He may be right. But it won’t happen if there aren’t others willing to fight along side with them.

Obama hasn’t won yet, and may not win at all. Even if he does, people still need to be engaged. They need to educate potential voters, talk to them about why freedom and liberty are so important to American life and how a broken system can be fixed. US News published an op-ed discussing the importance of economic freedom. It’s something people need to send to others. It’s education.

The Constitution is important and our leaders need to learn to pay more than just lip service to it. It means being active. It means participating in rallies, making phone calls, talking to fellow libertarians and conservatives and educating ourselves. There are plenty of books by Ayn Rand, Senator Rand Paul, Matt Kibbe and Yaron Brook which can help in education. Being properly prepared for debates and discussions are important. Planting a seed in someone’s mind goes a long way than just yelling and screaming buzzwords. It has to be done.

Keeping the U.S. from declining more may (may) even mean sucking things up and voting to elect Mitt Romney in November. But that’s a decision only individual voters can make.

It’s not time to give up. If we want freedom and liberty to stay alive, we can’t give up.

It’s time to fight.

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism” – Ronald Reagan to Reason Magazine, July 1975

Both Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham made salient points this week by telling Republicans they needed to “shut down” if President Barack Obama is re-elected. The comments show a problem Republicans have had in convincing the Tea Party to support Mitt Romney.

It also shows the Republican Party has failed to listen to what has long been considered their conscience: libertarians.

What people have forgotten is the rise of the Tea Party wasn’t just a rebellion against the increased spending in late 2008, early 2009. The origins of the Tea Party can be traced all the way back to several of President George W. Bush’s decisions, including the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security and the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina.

This series of responses started shaking people, waking them up from their long slumber. They realized the U.S. was running into major problems, the government was expanding too quickly and things needed to be cut. The Tea Party rallies, and the candidates which followed, were proof people were starting to pay attention and getting active. Libertarians were starting to be heard.

But what’s happened since then?

Certainly, the libertarian caucus in US Senate has grown from South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint. It now includes Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Mike Lee and Ron Johnson. Hopefully, reinforcements are coming with the possible election of Ted Cruz, Connie Mack IV, Richard Mourdock and Jeff Flake. But that’s only nine out of 100 senators.

The House looks no better, with Michigan Congressman Justin Amash replacing Ron Paul as probably the most libertarian member. South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy should also get praise for fighting for reigned in spending and cutting the government. Arizona Congressman Trent Franks has been considered libertarian at times, but that’s only three out of 435. Plenty of Republicans pay lip service to libertarian ideals (see: House Speaker John Boehner and, to a lesser extent, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan) but don’t follow through.

The fact is Republicans need to listen to libertarians, especially in terms of government growth and the budget. The party which claims to be for “limited government,” allowed massive expanses during the Bush Administration. The original stimulus package may have been avoided if Congress had waited.

To be fair, libertarians have to take blame as well. The rise of social conservatism may have been held back a bit if libertarians did a better job at pointing out why some social policies are best left to states. There’s a reason why the Libertarian Party is known more for wanting to end the War on Drugs, instead of reduced spending, smaller government and more freedom. Organization and activism have also been major problems the Libertarian Party has failed to solve. This could be the reason why there are libertarians considering a vote for Mitt Romney, instead of Gary Johnson.

Ultimately, it may not be in the best interests of libertarians to leave the GOP. It’s possible libertarians will have to suck it up and keep trying to convince party leaders, elected officials and local activists why they’re right. Certainly the Koch brothers believe this and Rand Paul as well. For this to work, conservatives will have to be willing to listen and both sides will have to reach a consensus. It does nothing for Republicans to simply brush off libertarian concerns as a fringe element, or “hobbits,” but to ultimately sit down, look at what’s being said and move forward. There really are libertarians out there who want Republicans to succeed.

The solutions may be slightly different, but it should be a lot easier for conservatives and libertarians to come to an agreement. Certainly a lot easier than conservatives and liberals.

But if Republicans lose in November, what then? Will the party start listening to libertarians or blame them for their own failure? If it’s the former, things may turn out okay. If it’s the latter…the Republican Party may be doomed.

Democrats have shown just how far off the sanity cliff they’ve gone in their video to open the Democratic National Convention.

Just to repeat, the narrator says, “Government is the only thing that we all belong to…we’re together as a part of our city, or our county or our state. Or our nation.”

There’s no spinning this. It’s worse than, “you didn’t build that.”

By saying, “government is the only thing that we all belong to,” Democrats are going beyond liberalism. They are taking their platform to corporatism.

Phrases like “we’re all in this together” may seem like they were meant to look good on paper and to voters. But combining it with the phrase, “government is the only thing that we all belong to,” goes into statements someone like Mussolini or Hitler or Lenin might make.

In fact, based on their praise of The New Deal, it’s possible they might even rise from their graves and cheer the DNC’s video.

According to Wolfgang Schivelbusch’s book “Three New Deals,” both German and Italian newspapers loved the tone President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used in the 1930s. One German newspaper said Roosevelt’s speech demanded “collective good be put before self-interest.” Schivelbusch also discusses how Hitler saw Roosevelt’s ability to discuss self-sacrifice and duty as something which were “quintessential” to how Nazi Germany did things.

Isn’t what the Democrats of today are discussing something similar? Hasn’t the tone taken by the President echoed this line of thinking? When Obama tweets how donors “own a piece of this campaign,” or tells an union group, “think about everybody who depends on you,” it’s simply corporatism.

It’s making people think they’re no longer individuals but part of a group that operates as a whole.

Obama is banking people will want to be in the middle class. Be part of that amazing group of people who just have enough to live and save, but not enough to be in the upper class. By shuffling everyone into that group it makes him look like a benevolent leader who’s looking out for their interests.

The greatness of America and the states we live in, is that we’re individuals. We can take whatever job we want, live whatever life we want and if someone wants to make $20-thousand, $200-thousand or $2-million it doesn’t matter. Or as Clint Eastwood put it last week, “politicians are employees of ours!”

Saying “government is the only thing that we all belong to,” is dangerous and wrong. It shows how far Democrats, not Republicans, have gone in their ideology.

It’s not what America was created to be. And certainly not what it should become.

There are still a few questions regarding Ryan’s voting record in the House. He supported TARP, the auto bailout and the taxes on AIG bonuses. He also supported the NDAA and the PATRIOT Act. These are things conservatives and libertarians don’t support because they expand government power and ended up supporting crony capitalism.

Ryan’s defense of the some of these votes are very interesting. In a 2010 interview with The Daily Caller, Ryan points out voted against the original auto bailout because he didn’t want them to get the money. His reasoning for eventually voting for the bailout was because it was limited money at $17.4 billion.  As Ryan put it, he was concerned it would become a “slush fund” with no limit if it were connected to TARP. It’s a strange reason, considering that Ryan eventually voted for TARP, however he deserves a bit a credit for his original no vote.

The vote Ryan probably regrets the most, is the one to put a tax on the AIG bonuses. It’s a key example of politicians reacting to a situation, instead of responding to it.  Ryan himself admits he was angry and made a “snap judgement” on the bill. He makes a good point at saying TARP was becoming a new avenue of crony capitalism. This has been pointed out several times in Peter Schweizer’s book, “Throw Them All Out,” which everyone should read. It’s nice Ryan says he made a mistake, even if hindsight is 20/20.

The decision to vote for TARP is one of the most interesting, and logical, defenses out there.  Ryan says it was to keep an even bigger government agenda from sweeping the nation, as well as, preventing a Depression. His key worry was to keep from happening, “a complete evisceration of the free market system we have…” This argument is actually something not many politicians have used.

In fact, it sounds a bit like the justification behind the Louisiana Purchase.

According to Harlow Unger’s book on President James Monroe called “The Last Founding Father,” President Thomas Jefferson wanted Monroe to tell the Spanish and French what American traders believe about New Orleans and Louisiana. As Jefferson said, “They have a natural…right to trade freely through the Mississippi,” and authorized $9 million to buy New Orleans. Congress authorized only $2 million. Monroe ended up paying $15 million.

Jefferson wasn’t sure whether to approve the purchase because he believed it violated the Constitution. As Unger writes, he apparently had problems the Constitution, “did not grant the government authority to acquire foreign territory…” Jefferson decided to approve the measure because Napoleon was going to back out of the sale.

Ryan’s defense of the TARP bill sounds a bit Jefferson’s defense of the Louisiana Purchase. Both sacrificed their constitutional beliefs to make sure something worse didn’t happen. In Jefferson’s case it was losing out on Louisiana and New Orleans and possibly never getting a shot at it again. In Ryan’s case, it sounds he was worried about another New Deal coming which would have increased the government even more.

It’s not an argument most of the Tea Party would agree with, but Ryan does a better job at saying why TARP should have been passed than John Boehner does.

Someone should ask Ryan about his votes for the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA. This type of information is important and we need to hear why Ryan did what he did.

To steal a line from Dan McLaughlin, Paul Ryan is a good pick for Mitt Romney because, while he’s not a complete Tea Party pick, he does hold more Tea Party values than Chris Christie. He’s also got a defined budget which isn’t perfect, but better than what the Democrats have. Which is nothing.

Paul believes the Fed should be audited because of how much cash it churns out and the fact interest rates have stayed low.

He’s long been pushing for this, but the calls grew louder after a 2010 New York Times article revealed the Fed had given out over a trillion dollars to a variety of sources during the 2008 crisis. Banks like Barclays and Citigroup, along with businesses like General Motors and Harley Davidson all received money. Even some foreign central banks, including Britain and Japan, received cash in hopes of keeping the market stable. Several businessmen, including an aide to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, all received loans as well.

Without the taxpayers, or Congress, knowing it had been done.

The banks and businesses who received cash were either able to “’take the money and run’ or realize they were being funded by the federal government, instead of their own cash. To quote, of all people, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in1995, “it is taxpayers’ money that is being used.” And the taxpayers had no idea this was being done.

This is extremely troubling and something everyone, not just conservatives and libertarians, should be concerned about.

This isn’t a private company, which can, within reason, do what it wants to with its own money. This is the federal government.

The big question is why people should care about this. For one, it’s your money being used. At a time where the U.S. deficit is 15-trillion dollars and showing no sign of stopping, an audit could show how the books are being kept.

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, may complain this is “politicizing monetary policy,” but I don’t think so. This is the federal government, which should be held accountable by the people.

Peter Schweizert has already detailed how some Congressmen and Senators have used their power to make personal gains from legislation. An audit of the Fed would reveal whether the same thing is being done by either the reserve chair or members of the Federal Open Market Committee.

The solution now is to lobby the U.S. Senate to take action. Which means calling, emailing and writing them. Several times a day if necessary until it comes up for a vote. The legislature is supposed to represent its constituents. Lobbying Senators can show people actually care about an audit being done.

After all, it is your money. And we need to know what it’s being spent on.