On MSNBC this morning, when asked by Joe Scarborough whether the media missed the story on former "Green Czar" Van Jones, Chief White House correspondent and political director for NBC News, Chuck Todd defended the dearth of media attention as proportional to the importance of the role. Joe Scarborough pushed back, reminding Todd that even the left of center, New York Times had admitted the oversite. Todd stood by his assessment, stating in essence that there are so many people (Obama appointees) doing so many things that following the background of each one is just not that valuable. Really?

The newly created job of "Green Czar" put Jones in charge of $80 billion of the $787 billion in "stimulus" funds. I am not sure what is more shocking, that the appointments of such radical individuals is being made at all or that the major media are largely falling down on the job of scrutinizing these people.

The major media have nearly 100% ignored these arguably extra-constitutional appointments. It is one thing to appoint a specialist to dig into a problem in blue ribbon panel fashion, like a drug czar for instance, but quite another to put someone in charge of billions of tax dollars. Certainly, money is power and $80 billion is a lot of power. For anyone in the media to defend the laziness, flat dereliction, or deliberate obfuscation by saying that control of $80 billion is really not that important is beltway arrogance at its worst.

This kind of major media arrogance breeds suspicion. We are suspicious of the people who make these appointments and the media who choose not to discuss them. I did a fairly through search of the Whitehouse website looking for the page that proudly displays their Czar Dream Team. I hoped to see pictures and bio maybe in a nice complete listing. I hoped to get a total for the number of czars. No luck.

So it is not surprising that this has become a red state/blue state country. In the midwest we still think $80 billion is a lot of money. We would like to know about the agenda of the people spreading it around. What are they buying with our money? Who is getting incentivized and who is getting denied? What behavior are you seeking to create with that money? And by the way, what the hell is a "green job" anyway?

The Constitution of Missouri includes more provisions addressing the property rights of citizens than that of any other state. The careful restrictions it places on the use of eminent domain show that, in ratifying the Constitution, the people of the Show-Me State intended to prevent the abuse of eminent domain to benefit private parties. Despite these protections, however, few states today have so dismal a record of eminent domain abuse as Missouri. And, in 2008, despite the constitutional and statutory restrictions on the government’s ability to take one person’s home, business, or house of worship and give it to another private owner, the Missouri Supreme Court chose to expand the power even further, placing the property rights of all Missourians in even greater jeopardy.

Among the brave new government programs, like TARP bailouts, and auto industry takeovers, Cash for Clunkers was another program that defied logic. There were several arguments to "justify" it, few of which seem to have panned out. One of the worst performers was the argument that it would save vast sums of money wasted on poor fuel efficiency.

This from a friend of mine:

I guess I must be on the wrong page…
A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that's 224 million gallons / year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day's US consumption.
And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.
So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.
How good a deal was that ???

They'll probably do a great job w. health care though!!

As author Keith Gosney alludes, the health care math used by the President is similarly challenged. He will expand access, add 42 million new insureds, and no one will be rationed out, no provider will be reimbursed less, and the budget will not be blown. Sounds "fishy".

The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition announces “Hall Pass on That,” the alternative to President Barack Obama’s September 8th address to school children across the nation. The group asks that schools who choose to participate in the president’s September 8th program offer an alternative to students and families who do not wish to view, or have their children view, a partisan address or participate in activities that did not follow proper educational protocol or obtain parental consent.

Dana Loesch, Nationwide spokesperson for the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, announced the launch of the Hall Pass on That website: http://www.hallpassonthat.com to provide parents who oppose the Department of Education’s proposed presidential program. “We are suggesting several action steps parents can take if they do not approve of their children participating in a partisan presentation conducted without their consent.” The four steps propose by the Coalition:

1. Contact the child’s school to find out whether or not your school is participating in the president’s September 8th program.

2. If your child’s school is participating, ask what alternatives there are for the children of families who wish their students learn about the establishment of the country respective to the Founding Father’s intentions. Discussion can focus on the Constitution, the definition and actions of a republic, and the responsibility of elected leaders to their constituents.

3. Ask if the school can excuse your child from the presentation and instead receive a DVD of the address and copy of the activity directives to be evaluated by parents at a later date.

4. Request meeting with the school board, superintendent, and principal to inquire as to why parents were excluded from the decision-making process of this event.

Katrina Pierson, member of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, described some of the tools available http://www.hallpassonthat.com: “We will provide alternative lesson plans to the ones initially sent out by President Obama’s Department of Education. Those plans, which people can download from the site, were uncomfortably partisan with no real focus on how our officials serve the people, not vice-versa. Our alternative lesson plans also focus appropriately on the role of parents in the education plan for every child.”

Yes, presidents have spoken to schoolchildren before, but when circumstances required it. President Ronald Reagan addressed students after the Challenger shuttle disaster was witnessed live by millions of schoolchildren; George H. W. Bush addressed students as part of the effort to counteract the growing drug use by schoolchildren.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan issued directives to principals of locals schools, bypassing the school boards and superintendents of those districts – but most importantly, bypassing parental notification or consent. Conservative parents are further concerned as the material issued by the Department of Education focuses on the president’s partisan agenda. The responsibility of this nation’s government to its people is completely obscured by questions that strictly detail response and submission to the president’s wishes.

Parents are also concerned as the entire program was crafted with help from the president’s White House Teaching Fellows, some of whom are activists with documented hostility towards the very tenants of our republic.

The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition cannot afford to extend this administration the courtesy of any doubt when it comes to the education of our children and our schools are not the place to present one-sided agendas, especially without parental consent.