CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Markey so fearful of Gomez he goes negative right out of the box

Democrat U.S. Senate hopeful, the very Liberal Congressman Edward Markey,  launches a negative ad just two days after winning the Democrat primary in the campaign to fill the now vacant Senate seat formerly held by John Kerry.

The despicable Markey ad, features Gomez's face directly next to Osama Bin Laden's. It's hard to imagine how worried and desperate Markey must be to do that to a former naval aviator and Navy SEAL. Markey's ad is pure swift boating -- a tactic the left relentlessly rails against. The Markey ad brings back memories of the controversial Max Cleland ad that became a Liberal/Progressive cause célèbre during the 2008 campaign, but even that ad didn't do what Markey campaign has done.

So why does Markey feel he has to resort to such gutter tactics at the start of his campaign against Republican nominee Gabriel Gomez? Perhaps it is the newest polling on the Gomez/Markey race. According to a new Emerson College poll released Thursday, Gomez trails Markey by just six points -- 36 percent to 42 percent. The new poll is in line with Public Policy Polling revelation that its first general election Massachusetts Senate poll results look like a single digit race.

A single digit race is remarkable considering the two-to-one registration advantage Democrats enjoy over Republicans in Massachusetts.

The Emerson College poll also  suggests that Independents are breaking for Gomez at a nearly two to one rate -- 46% to 25%.

In addition to the polling, perhaps Markey is trying to change the subject from his failure to take Gomez up on his challenge to Markey to accept three debates. As Gomez puts it:

"Ed Markey launched his mudslinging campaign with negative political attacks.  He will do and say anything to avoid talking about what matters most – out of control spending in Washington and putting people back to work.

As a professional debater, Congressman Markey has debated every day for almost 40 years, why stop now?  Why is Congressman Markey afraid to stand before the people of Massachusetts and deliver his negative attacks in person?"

There is no other reason why the Markey campaign would take such a negative tone right out the box unless they were fearful of losing. That's because Markey is a relic of the past, a 36-year Congressman that first went to Washington when Gomez was playing Little League baseball, and never left.

Massachusetts voters are overwhelmingly Democrat but they still echo the rest of the American public that is fed up with the way Washington works. Ed Markey is the epitome of Washington and that's why he is on the verge of losing this race.

Connecticut further suppresses Constitutional right to bear arms

Early this morning, in the dead of night – 2:26 a.m., Connecticut's House of Representatives voted to pass a repressive 139 page gun control bill. The vote was 105 to 44, with two absent. Of the 98 Democrats present, 13, and 31 of the 51 Republicans present voted no. The state Senate approved it Wednesday evening, by a 26-10 vote. Two of 22 Democrats and eight of  the 14 Republicans voted no.

Connecticut's new restrictions on citizens Constitutional right to bear arms is said to be a response to the horrific murders of 20 children and six adults in Newtown's Sandy Hook  elementary school last December. Sadly, nothing in the 139 page bill would have done anything to prevent the killings. Nor does it do anything to prevent another such incident.

The legislation will only further suppress the Constitutional right of law-abiding Connecticut citizens to bear arms thereby making them additional victims of a young madman. As reported by J.D. Tuccille, according to a summary prepared by Connecticut's Bipartisan Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety, the bill, the so-called "Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety," includes the following provisions:

• A "dangerous weapon offender" registry: Anybody convicted of any of more than 40 enumerated weapons offenses (mostly gun offenses) or another felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon will have to register with the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. The list will be available only to law enforcement, and registrants will remain on it for five years, not life, but they must update their addresses with state authorities, just like sex offenders.
• Universal background checks: "Immediately upon passage, no pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun can be sold to any Connecticut resident until the buyer undergoes and passes a national criminal background check -- whether such sale is private, at a gun show, or through a dealer"
• Expanded "assault weapons" ban: Bans more than 100 specific weapons in addition to those already illegal in the state, as well as any weapon that has just one of an expanded list of "military-style features." Currently owned weapons are grandfathered, though under tight restrictions.
• Ban on "large capacity magazines": New state limit of ten rounds. Grandfathers existing magazines subject to registration, though such magazines can never be loaded with more than ten rounds outside the owner's home or a shooting range. Acquiring a new large capacity magazine after the ban, or failing to register an existing one, becomes a class D felony.
• Eligibility certificates to purchase rifles, shotguns or ammunition: Certificate applicants must "undergo a firearms safety training course, be fingerprinted, and undergo a national criminal background and involuntary commitment /voluntary admission check."
• Enhanced firearms storage requirements: Owners must securely store firearms if "any resident of the premises where the firearm is stored is ineligible to possess a firearm" or "poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals."
• Restrictions on firearms possession by those with mental illness: Expands restrictions on those who have been involuntarily committed from 12 to 60 months and imposes a six-month ban on firearms possession on those who voluntarily admit themselves to a psychiatric facility.

That's right, Connecticut's new gun control bill requires that large capacity magazines be registered with the state.

Connecticut lawmakers were obviously afraid of the reaction of gun rights supporters. Not only did they pass the bill in the middle of the night, they avoided the usual public hearings and committee referrals by considering the bill under an "emergency certification." As  J.D. Tuccille also points out, that means noone got to "raise objections, such as pointing out that that the new law would not have done anything to prevent the Sandy Hook massacre:

The guns Adam Lanza used were registered to his mother. She qualified to own firearms under the old rules and there's no reason to believe the new restrictions would have barred her ownership of guns in any way. She still would have passed the checks and earned her certificates. At 20, Lanza would be too young to purchase rifles under the new law, but, again, he used his mother's guns. Some reports speculate that Adam Lanza feared that his mother might have him committed, or move him out of state to attend a special school, but nothing of the sort had yet happened, so he wouldn't have fallen under the law's mental health restrictions.

Perhaps some of the magazines he used would have fallen under the new law, but even if these proposals had moved forward a year ago, those magazines would have been grandfathered. So would the weapons used, even if they didn't make the cut under the new law.

The gun rights advocates, who greatly outnumbered gun control supporters in demonstrations held at the Capitol Wednesday, wasted their time. The lawmakers weren't about to listen to their objections. The only thing they accomplished was highlighting the state officials' fear of the dissenters when Gov. Malloy's scheduled appearance at an autism awareness event was canceled.

The only thing that would have changed things at Sandy Hook would have been an armed person at the school. The feel good legislation passed by the Connecticut legislature would have not prevented the Sandy Hook killings and does nothing to prevent another such massacre. The new law only makes us all less free.

Sen. Ted Cruz' CPAC 2013 keynote speech: Conservatives are winning

Image credit: Photo by Grant Miller/www.ericdraperphotography.com via The American Conservative Union

Sen. Ted Cruz closed out Saturday the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference ("CPAC"), with a terrific keynote speech.

Sen. Cruz began by responding to Sen. McCain's derisive comment calling Cruz and Rand Paul wacko birds:

"When Rand and I first heard that we thought maybe that was a new kind of drone.

If standing for liberty and standing for the Constitution makes you a wacko bird, then count me a proud wacko bird."

Cruz said his biggest surprise since coming to Washington has been the defeatist attitude among so many Republicans that have been in Washington a long time.

He let the CPAC crowd in on a "dirty little secret" the main stream media won't pass on:

"For the last three weeks, conservatives have been winning the political debate in Washington."

Senator Cruz cited Rand Paul's recent filibuster, sequestration implementation, and Cruz’ amendment to repeal funding for ObamaCare -- unanimously supported Republican Senators of evidence of his premise.

The main theme of Cruz' speech was how Conservatives can continue to win. Cruz said Conservatives must (1) defend the Constitution and (2) champion growth and opportunity.

Cruz talked about the campaign finance, the administration's disregard for religious freedom, the campaign to restrict gun rights, called for repeal of the National Defense Authorization Act ("NDAA"), in highlighting the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments, as well as Article VI of the Constitution.

With regard to championing growth and liberty, Cruz focused on the difference in how Presidents Obama and Reagan dealt with severe recessions and the contrasting results. To ease the "ascent up the economic ladder," Cruz said we need to:

• Repeal ObamaCare
• Repeal Dodd Frank
• Eliminate corporate welfare
• Build the Keystone pipeline
• Reign in the EPA
• Audit the Fed
• Stop quantitative easing
• Abolish the U.S. Department of Education
• Champion school choice
• Stand with Israel
• Stop sending foreign aid to countries that hate us

The Senator also mentioned how he thought about his family's story as he was being sworn in as a U.S. Senator:

"In 1957, my father came from Cuba. He had been imprisoned, he'd been tortured in Cuba. And he came to Texas with nothing, with $100 in his underwear, didn't speak a word of English, washed dishes, making 50 cents an hour.

As I was standing on the Senate floor, I couldn't help but think if someone had come up to that 18-year-old kid as he was washing dishes and suggested to him that 55 years hence, his son would be sworn into office as a United States senator representing the great state of Texas ... that would have been unimaginable. That would have been beyond anything he could possibly have conceived. And yet there was my father, sitting in the gallery, looking down as I took the oath of office."

In closing, Senator Cruz said we face a choice:

"We're here because we're not willing to give up on America. We are facing a fundamental choice, a choice that cuts across all issues. It is a choice between surrendering or standing up now to defend our liberty. On guns, do we surrender, or do we stand up now? On drones, do we surrender, or do we stand up now? On spending, do we surrender, or do we stand up now? On debt, do we surrender, or do we stand up now? And on the Constitution, do we surrender, or do we stand up now?"

It was an impressive and inspiring speech, delivered without the aid of Teleprompter or notes. I encourage you to take a half hour and watch or listen to the speech. It is available below.

Sen. Rand Paul wins CPAC 2013 Straw Poll

Sen. Rand Paul wins the CPAC 2013 Straw Poll, narrowly beating Sen. Marco Rubio:

• Rand Paul - 25%
• Marco Rubio - 23%
• Rick Santorum - 8%
• Chris Christie - 7%
• Paul Ryan - 6%
• Scott Walker - 5%
• Ben Carson - 4%
• Ted Cruz - 4%
• Bobby Jindal - 3%
• Sarah Palin - 3%
• Other - 34%
• Undecided 2%

There were 23 candidates on the ballot and 44 write-ins.

President Obama continues to be very unpopular among CPAC attendees -- 96% disapproval. In 2012 Obama did better receiving 79% disapproval in the straw poll.

Half the straw poll participants were young people between 18-25 years old.

Rand Paul became very popular among conservatives after his 13-hour filibuster against the Obama drones program last week. He is now seen by many as a leader of  the future Republican Party.

Don't read too much into the straw poll results. They are worth little more than bragging rights.

Media deal that may cost Taiwan a free press awaits approval

The United States, with an eye on the rise of China, is supposedly shifting its foreign policy focus back to the Pacific. As it does so, the U.S. should encourage freedom of the press throughout Asia as a part of this Obama strategy pivot.

So why does Obama's State Department remain completely silent as Taiwan, one of our strongest allies in the region, gets pushed toward a media merger deal that would give communist China freshly-purchased power over the independent nation's press? 

Want-Want China Times, headed by media tycoon and close friend of the Chinese Communist Party Tsai Eng-Meng, has been seeking approval from Taiwanese regulators for a merger deal that would effectively give it control of half of Taiwan's print media industry. Eng-Meng is already distrusted by the Taiwanese for his close ties to Beijing, and his tendency to use his media empire in Taiwan to advance his own mainland business interests.

Many in Taiwan fear that Eng-Meng, should his proposed media deal succeed, will use his new influence to push Taiwanese public opinion toward unification with the mainland. Students and journalists alike have been protesting for months, but the clock is ticking toward the March 27th deadline. The future of Taiwan's independent media is at stake.

Taiwanese government regulators announced earlier this week that they have received all the necessary paperwork in order to review, and then approve or deny, the merger - but there's the possibility the government will lay down to the big business interests pushing the deal and allow it.

Secretary of State John Kerry, if he and Obama plan to maintain the strong U.S.-Taiwan alliance and reaffirm U.S. support for an independent Taiwan, should publicly urge regulators to shutdown the merger. Such a stand would send a strong signal to Taiwan, to China, and the world that our support for freedom of the press does not stop at the water's edge.

Fort Hood hero: President Obama 'betrayed' shooting victims

ABC News reports that Sergeant Kimberly Munley, one of the two then police Sergeants who stopped the deadly shooting at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009, says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of:

"Betrayed is a good word. Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of. In fact they've been neglected."

During the shooting that many consider a terrorist attack, Major Nidal Hasan, an Army psychiatrist and a practicing Muslim of Palestinian descent, shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire and mercilessly shot 44 soldiers preparing to deploy to Iraq and one civilian killing 13. Munley was shot three times in her confrontation with Hasan.

You can watch video of the shootings aftermath below:

Initially, Obama tried to capitalize on the heroic actions of Munley and her partner Sergeant Mark Todd. They were included as guests in the First Lady's box for the 2010 State of the Union address. A few months later they were again honored by Obama at the 2010 National Association of Police Organizations TOP COPS award winners ceremony in the Rose Garden.

Despite the fact that there is extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the victims were denied  Purple Hearts and the government shooting has been treating the incident as "workplace violence" instead of "combat related" or terrorism. You can read a redacted report on the FBI's investigation of Hasan's ties to al-Awlaki here. Al-Awlaki was killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011.

To add insult to her injuries Munley was laid off from her job with the base's civilian police force last year.

Last November, Munley and 147 other plaintiffs sued the U.S. government, Hassan and the estate of Anwar al-Awlaki seeking damages and a ruling that the shooting was a terrorist attack. Such a finding would clear the way for them to receive benefits available to those who injuries are classified as "combat related," which aren't available as the result of workplace violence. You can read the lawsuit here.

According to ABC News, former Sgt. Munley now believes Obama used her for political advantage in arranging for her to sit next to Michelle Obama during the President's State of the Union address in 2010. Munley says she  wants to help the others who were shot that day and continue to suffer.

"We got tired of being neglected. So this was our last resort and I'm not ashamed of it a bit."

Something to think about as you watch tonight's State of the Union political theater with its shooting victim props.

A day with the Hoover Institution

The Hoover Tower at Stanford University. Image Credit: The Hoover Institution

Monday I was privileged to participate in the Hoover Institution's Media Colloquium at Stanford University.

Perhaps you, like me, are aware of but unfamiliar with the Hoover Institution. The Institution is considered a Conservative think tank, and according to Wikipedia is "influential in the American conservative and libertarian movements." It supports individual, economic, and political freedom; private enterprise; and our form of representative government based upon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

During the Colloquium,  along with a couple of dozen other journalists, I spent a very interesting day exploring foreign and domestic policy issues facing President Obama and the 113th Congress, with a number of accomplished academics. We discussed the economy, the national debt, the fiscal cliff, the sequester, taxes and too big to fail with Michael Boskin and Kevin Warsh; Obama's reelection and dissociation theory with Shelby Steele; the future of Conservatism, and his new book Constitutional Conservatism: Liberty, Self-Government, and Political Moderation, with Peter Berkoowitz; national security issues including cyber and drone warfare with Amy Zegart; and the Middle East and Iran's nuclear ambitions with Abbas Milani.

The discussions were all intellectually stimulating and very interesting. It's been some time since I have been immersed in an academic environment. The experience caused me to appreciate my education in Political Science, International Affairs, Economics, Administration and the Law, but wishing for more. It will provide me material and new sources, which I believe will improve my reporting.

I will have more about the Colloquium in the days ahead as I continue to contemplate what I learned. For example, I intend to write about Berkowitz's new book as soon as I finish reading it. You can get a peek at Berkowitz's conclusions in his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Conservative Survival in a Progressive Age.

As I mentioned above, I've long-been aware of but unfamiliar with the Hoover Institution. My participation in the Colloquium not only enlightened me as to the wisdom of some of the Institution's fellows, I also got to know and respect the staff. If you are in need of information the Institution might have, I would encourage you seek assistance from the appropriate Hoover Institution contact. They are good people.

Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, I received an honorarium for my participation.

Will Democrats sell your political opinions to credit card companies?

by Lois Beckett, ProPublica, Feb. 5, 2013, 7 a.m.

For years, state Democratic parties have been gathering information about individual voters' political leanings. They have noted down the opinions voters shared with canvassers — which candidates they said they supported or their positions on policy issues.

Now, the record of what people told Democratic volunteers may go up for sale — and not just to political groups. Democrats are looking into whether credit card companies, retailers like Target or other commercial interests may want to buy the information.

State Democratic party leaders formed the National Voter File Co-op in 2011 to sell their voter data to approved groups like the NAACP. The goal was to recoup some of the money local Democratic parties spent collecting and updating their local voter lists, which include voters of all parties.

Much of the data the co-op sells comes from the government and is already part of the public record — information such as voters' names, addresses and party affiliation.

But local Democratic parties also have information about voters' views and preferences collected over many campaign cycles. (We wrote about Minnesota's data-collecting "Grandma Brigade" last month.) Some states have used this raw data to create sophisticated estimates of how likely any voter is to vote for a Democrat, support Barack Obama or have certain opinions, say, on abortion or gun control.

As the co-op moves into its second year of selling data in an already crowded marketplace, it's looking for new potential clients — and companies who may use the data for commercial purposes, as opposed to political ones, are on the list.

"That's one of our growth areas," said Drew Brighton of TargetSmart Communications, which helps administer and market the Co-op's data. "Over the next six months, we are going to go ahead and make the rounds with some corporate prospects."

Brighton said retailers, for example, might be interested in figuring out if their customers are primarily Democrats or Republicans. "People want to know who shops in their stores," he said.

Democrats involved with the co-op do not know what companies might be most interested in buying their voter data.

"What the co-op is doing is saying, 'Look, there's a wealth of information here, that could potentially benefit your corporation or your business interests,'" said Ken Martin, a member of the co-op's board, and the chairman of Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

"Everything is on the table, nothing's off the table. It's up to us to figure out what [data] there's a market for, and whether there's a comfort level among state parties for selling that information," he said.

Each state Democratic Party will have the final say over whether to sell their voter information for commercial purposes. If state party leaders aren't comfortable with selling proprietary data to a certain client, they can opt out.

Individual states have different laws about how their public voting records can be used. Many states mandate that public voter rolls can only be used for "political purposes," and some states explicitly ban using voting records for "commercial purposes." The co-op and its clients must abide by these rules.

But state political data laws do not apply to the information about voters that the party itself has gathered.

"Generally, information freely provided to the party by the voter, or data about who participated in a primary [that the party collects] is not subject to any prohibition on it being sold," said Karl Sandstrom, a former vice-chairman of the Federal Elections Commission and an attorney for the co-op.

This means Democrats are free to sell the opinions voters give to campaign canvassers to credit card companies or marketing firms.

Whether they will choose to do this isn't certain. Martin, the Minnesota Democratic chairman, said that party leaders will have to weigh the risks of any potential deal.

"Obviously, we know we could make money off our file, but it always comes back to the question of, at what cost?" Martin said.

He said he would evaluate commercial deals on a case-by-case basis.

"I'm not opposed to selling the data if it's a corporation who shares our values and is going to do some good work with that data."

Wal-Mart, for instance, would not make the cut, he said.

Whether corporations are interested in buying the co-op's data remains to be seen. Wal-Mart did not respond to a request for comment about whether it would be interested in buying information about its customers' political beliefs.

Consumer data companies like Experian already peddle information about individuals' political beliefs and donation histories — and also link this information to their consumer habits. This November, Experian Simmons released a study breaking down the political leanings of shoppers at J. Crew, Lady Footlocker, and more than 100 other major retailers.

But the fact that selling voters' opinions to companies is even an option for Democrats is another example of how rapidly the data industry is evolving — and how little information individuals have about how their data is being shared.

In his "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights," released last year, President Barack Obama argued that when companies collect personal data from consumers, they should only share it in ways consumers expect.

If a company decides it wants to share personal information in a new way, Obama suggested, it should notify the consumers who are affected and provide them with choices about how their data is used.

Although Obama pledged to work with Congress to make the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights into law, that hasn't happened yet.

Joseph Turow, a privacy expert at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication, said the possibility that Democrats might repurpose voters' opinions for commercial marketing is problematic — particularly because they had collected that information through "a relationship of trust" with voters.

Both Democrats and Republicans have long traded information about voters' opinions with outside political groups. Long-time Republican activists have created a new group, the Data Trust, to manage the Republican National Committee's data and coordinate data exchanges between the RNC and conservative and issue advocacy groups.

Asked if the Republican Party sells the party's proprietary data to retailers or credit card companies, RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowsi wrote, "Absolutely not — hasn't happened in past and won't in [the] future."

The Obama campaign's own closely guarded trove of voter information will be used to mobilize support for the president's agenda through a new nonprofit advocacy group, Organizing for Action, led by top Obama aides.

It's not clear what other groups may be given access to Obama's voter data. Organizing for Action did not respond to a request for comment. Staffers have said that passing on the campaign's voter information to an Obama-focused nonprofit reflects the wishes of the president's supporters, although supporters were not asked directly about how the campaign should treat their data.

Sandstrom, the lawyer for the state Democratic parties' National Voter File Co-op, said he doubted the co-op would actually end up selling voters' opinions for commercial uses, calling it an "abstract concern."

Democratic Party chairs were not eager to weigh in on the issue.

Last week, ProPublica contacted 11 Democratic state party chairs — some of them newly elected to their positions — about the National Voter File Co-op. Party chairs in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, Nevada, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin declined or did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

New Hampshire Democratic chair Ray Buckley, who leads the Association of State Democratic Chairs, also declined to comment.

Obama losing his gun control campaign

Only 39 percent back Obama's repressive gun control agenda

New polling from Washington Post-ABC News and Pew find that President Obama's campaign to repress the Second Amendment right "keep and bear arms" is faltering.

On January 22, 2013, Pew released polling results that found the public followed news about Obama's gun control proposals closely and the reaction is mixed. Only 39 percent think Obama's proposals are about right, while 31 percent think the proposals go too far. Or, as Politico put it, "39 percent back Obama gun plan."

Of course there is the usual partisan divide. A 57 percent majority of Republicans say the proposals go too far, and 25 percent say they are about right. A 55 percent majority of Democrats (55%) say the proposals s are about right, and 10 percent  say they go too far. Independents are more evenly divided -- 36 percent say the proposals are about right, while 33 percent say they go too far.

There is also a gender divide with Men more likely than women to say Obama’s gun control proposals go too far -- 36 percent vs. 26 percent.

It is important to note that despite the "modest" up tick after Newtown, support for gun control remains lower than before Obama took office. In April 2008, 58 percent said it was more important to control gun ownership, while 37 percent  prioritized protecting gun rights. In a poll released January 14, 2013 Pew found that 51 percent say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 45 percent  say it is more important to protect gun rights.

The new Washington Post-ABC News poll, released today, finds that support for Obama's gun control  package is lower than it was for some of the same steps polled in an ABC/Post poll earlier this month, before Obama's repressive gun control package was announced.

In an article on the new ABC News/Washington Post poll, the Washington Post reports that most congressional Republicans and some Democrats oppose restrictive new gun control measures, such as an assault-weapons ban. The Post also notes that recent polls have shown broadly positive sentiment for the NRA, and that a modest plurality thinks the NRA is too influential:

"A plurality of all Americans, 38 percent, think the organization has 'too much influence' over the country’s gun-control laws. Twenty-four percent see the NRA as having 'too little' sway, while 30 percent say it has the right amount."

In the accompanying video, Duke University Professor Michael Munger explains why the NRA is so influential.

Even the New York Times reports on how Democrats are now worried that Obama's gun control campaign is going "imperil" the rest of the Democrats' agenda. And former President Clinton recently reminded Democrats what happened the last time the Democrats acted against gun rights and passed the so-called assault weapon ban:

"Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban 'devastated' more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms — and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress."

With six Democrats up for election in two years in states where Obama received less than 42 percent of the vote, some Democrats might have to choose between their own constituents and Obama’s misguided gun control agenda.

A quick look back at Obama's first term

"Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government." -- Barack Hussein Obama, Inaugural Address January 20, 2009

There were many things that were disappointing about President Obama's first term. 

The good folks at Reason TV take a look at some of the disappointments in a new video retrospective of Obama's rhetoric versus reality including:

• Trillion dollar deficits.
• Obama's failure to submit a budget on time.
• The Senate's failure to pass a budget in nearly four years.
• Irresponsible spending.
• Failed stimulus.
• Crony capitalism like Solyndra.
• Failure to keep the ObamaCare transparency promise.
• Failure to keep his promise to reform immigration during his first year.

You can watch the video below:

There was much to bedisappointed about during Obama's first term. But the most disappointing thing about Obama's first term was the irresponsible and out of control spending.

Today, the national debt is $16,432,631,489,854.70. It was $10,626,877,048,913.08 when Obama became president. That is an increase of more than a 5.8 trillion dollars during Obama's first term.

In 2004, when the deficit was $413 billion and the national debt was $7,419,244,676,835.15 or $7.4 trillion, Obama said the "monstrous federal deficit" was an "enormous problem." On July 3, 2008, presidential candidate Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic." Nevertheless, President Obama added more than $5.8 trillion to the national debt in four years.

President Obama has promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first time at least five times:

1. February 23, 2009: Obama Pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.
2. February 24, 2009: Obama pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.
3. May 26, 2009: Obama pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office
4. December 8, 2009: Obama pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.
5. February 14, 2011: Obama pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.

Despite his promises to cut the deficit in half by the end of his "first" term, Obama has racked up the largest deficits in U.S. history:

• FY2009: The federal budget deficit was $1.413 trillion, the highest in U.S. history. ("Monthly Budget Review: November 2011," Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)
• FY2011: The federal budget deficit was $1.299 trillion, the second highest in U.S. history. ("Monthly Budget Review: November 2011," Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)
• FY2010: The federal budget deficit was $1.294 trillion, the third highest in U.S. history. ("Monthly Budget Review: November 2011," Congressional Budget Office, 11/7/11)
• FY2012 The federal budget deficit was $1.090 trillion, the fourth highest in U.S. history. ("An Analysis of the President’s 2013 Budget," Congressional Budget Office, 10/5/12)

You shouldn't be shocked by Obama's failure to reduce the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. He did warn us there would be "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come."

The president and his Obamacrats need to get serious about the irresponsible spending. Obama has not submitted a single budget on time. And when Obama's budgets are submitted they are so "unserious" that for the last two years they haven't even received a single vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate. And the Senate hasn't passed a budget in 1,365 days, almost four years. Congress has failed to adequately address the problem by continuing raise the debt limit and borrow more and more until we now have a $16.4 trillion national debt. Can we continue down this road and avoid bankruptcy?