Dean Acheson was in policy anti-c*******t and the principal architect of the "containment" policy. He refused to disavow his friendship with Alger Hiss, but he did not condone his espionage. I cannot find a biography of Acheson that mentions Soviet documentation that he was also a Soviet spy. J.Edgar Hoover and Sen Joe McCarthy might have woven stories with such claims of a vast network in the Truman administration, but biographers like Robert Beisner and Douglas Brinkley do not mention Soviet proof of his treachery.

David Duke, the self-proclaimed "racial realist". Former KKK member (also formerly a Democrat). Self-declared.

Neo-N**i JT Ready, Arizona multi-murderer (5/2/2012).

Neo-N**i Arthur Jones, Republican candidate for Illinois 3rd House Representative. Self-declared.

Notable Republican members of the KKK:
Edward L Jackson (1873-1954), 34th Governor of Indiana
Charles Morley (1869-1948), 24th Governor of Colorado

But the t***h is you can more easily find Democrat notables in the KKK.

Robert Hanssen, Young Republican, 22 year FBI agent and Soviet spy (1979-2001), convicted of espionage 7/6/2001.

Richard Armitage (Valerie Plame classified status revealed). Bush Deputy Secretary of State. Maybe inadvertent. Lewis Libby (Chief of Staff to Cheney) convicted in the cover-up.


CW Whalen Jr., six-terms as US Representative from Ohio's 3rd.

George Aiken. Gov Vermont (1937-1941). US Senator (1941-1975).

John Sherman Cooper, Kentucky, US Senator, Anmbassor

Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, Jacob Javitz. There was plenty of Republican opposition to "Lyndon Johnson's War".

Who is the Democrat? Is this Al Gore or John Kerry?

Never heard an elected Democrat say that is what they are doing. This is something the opposition says -- about Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, GW Bush. Would Nixon's creation of the EPA or normalization of relations with China count?

Why would any Republican work to protect people who v**e for Democrats? You need to break this down to something that can be answered (like Republicans who have advocated immigration reform).

FYI: If anyone doubts this, I was curious who amongst the Obama Cabinet member these 8% might be. There have been 37 people to serve in these senior position, so 8% is only 3 people. Currently there are 20 at Cabinet level (this count Chief of Staff), so 8% is 1.6 people? I am going with the 37 people since it makes more sense mathematically.

Chuck Hagel (current Defense) is clear a businessman (Vanguard Cellular) before entering politics at age 50.

Penny Pritzker (current Comerce) has plenty of experience at Hyatt, banking and real estate.

Sally Jewell (current Interior) worked for Mobil Oil and Rainier Bank (and its successor) for 20 years, eventually as both COO and CEO.

More questionable:

Eric Shinseki (current Veteran Affairs) spent 38 years in the military raising to the rank of 4 star General (Army Chief of Staff). Seems pretty experienced, but his "business experience" might be limited to board of director position at Honeywell, etc.

Jack Lew (current Treasury, previous OMB and Chief of Staff (but counted only once as a person appointed not three appointments)) had time as a VP at NYU and two years as COO at Citicorp.

Michael Froman (US Trade Rep) was Managing Director at Citicorp. But he also work at the Treasury Dept for many years.

Steven Chu (first Energy) worked at Bell Labs for about a decade (during which time he did Nobel Prize winning work as a physicist). He was also a professor (Stanford, USC) and the director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

William Daley (2nd Chief of Staff) was a lawyer and a banker (JP Morgan).

Several others were lawyers in private practice, but I think you introduction precludes them. Ernest Moniz (current Energy) and Peter Ozszag (first OMB) were in academia, not business. Some have career in the Departments they now head (did head): Eric Holder (Justice, also a judge), Timothy Geithner (first Treasury, also Federal Reserve Bank president), Lisa Jackson (1st EPA, 16 years at EPA) and Shaun Donovan (HUD). And some in closely related departments: Rand Beers (Homeland Security, 42 years Foreign/Civil Service, State Dept) and Robert Gates (first Defense, 26 years at CIA/NSC). But as you say this is not business. It is arguably if "business" is the best qualifier for all Cabinet positions, but that accounts for the percent usually being at or below half.

So, I think I found the most likely 3 of 37 (8%). But even with the other 5 questionable ones, that is only 8 of 37 for 21%, still well lower than any other president on your list.

So, the holding of the Supreme Court was that ACA provisions were Constitutional because it enacted a "penalty" and not a "tax"? I thought the ACA revenues to be collected by the IRS (when a person elected to go without insurance (with premiums paid to privately operated insurance companies)) was ruled to be a federal tax. The IRS collects all forms of federal taxes (income, excise, estate, gift), doesn't it? The ACA is considered an "indirect excise tax" in the Supreme Court ruling, I thought. Am I wrong?

Didn't Al Capone go to prison for not paying federal taxes? Surely the Feds are not without tools to compel people to cough up the cash!

I understand your preference to leave partisan politics out of this. The second link does a good job of tracing this problem back to the 1997 enactment of the Tax Payer Relief Act (with every Republican Rep and Senator except one and 80% of the Democrat congress members v****g for it). The $1.8B cited in the Watchdog article was the amount from the 2009 investigation (for 2008 presumably, or cumulatively 1997-2008); the $4.2B figure was for a single year (2010). This is definitely not a new "plot to destroy America" as some posters might be inclined to believe with only a cursory read. This is part of why we have been debating immigration reform for so long.

The concept of the Additional Child Tax Credit payments in excess of tax liability is also an illustration that the idea of "redistributing wealth" predates the Obama years. As mentioned above, this is a nearly universal enacted piece of tax legislation from 16 years ago (when Republicans ruled both houses). While the Watchdog article focused on the unintended incentive for i*****l i*********n and fraudulent filings, the ACTC is a federal payment for parenthood (or adoption of other dependents). I would think there will be complaints about free-loading by "welfare mothers" who are citizens and legal immigrants as well (but maybe the $400 (1997) - $1000 (2010, I think) per year per child are a reasonable "compassionate conservatism" amount of safety net government support).

How minimalist are your requirements for local/State government? Police/Court/Corrections? Schools? Property deeds? Public roads? Water/Sewage? M*****a? Foreign Relations (between sovereign States)? Industry safety? Product safety? Public safety network? Parks-Recreation?

I believe I am in agreement with your partner. Liberty is c*********d to gain the benefits of Governed society. (Coincidentally, it was the subject of my recent weekly blog, http://thebickerstaffblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-freedom-to-v**e.html). To gain cooperation from others, you need to agree to cooperate also. There are forms of government that permit more participation by the individual in deciding what liberties to curtail in others (and themselves), and perhaps that feeling of some control causes more frustration in the lack of total control/liberty. It is easy to complain about being powerless when the power is seized from you, but much more second-quessed when you yourself bargained away the power (of some decision-making) for some other benefit that could only be achieved by compromise.

You have not explained your view of the criminal conduct involved in the three cases yu cited by title. I provide my view of Fast and Furious, B******i, and the IRS-501c4. Throwing around encapulating handles like "Contragate" does not explain why somebody (or half of Americans) might believe there are crimes broken and by whom.

I will make this simple for you to convince me. Please explain Obama's criminal involvement in the B******i incident -- incompetence does not count as criminal. Political posturing is not criminal either -- if it was, DC would be emptied out.

Eric Holder was exonerated of any wrongdoing in the Fast and Furious Operation in September 2012. Obama was never considered any more involved than George W Bush under whom the "Project Gunrunner" began. This operation was essentially a continuation of the 2006 Operation Wide Receiver attempt to capture higher profile players in the gun trafficking.

B******i was an attack on an American consulate. Obama was not in the attacking crowd and did not give support to the attackers. A lack of significant pr********n and a haste to "explain" what we knew might be incompetent, but there was criminal. Again, the Bush administration missing the signs that the 09/11/2001 attacks were coming might be similarly incompetent (and that might be push at), but that is not impeachable either.

The IRS' responsibility for evaluating 501c4 "social welfare" organization applications increased (following Citizens United decision) as staff was cut. The "be on the lookout" list was a shortcut. The investigations are ongoing, but as of now the evidence is of a errant field operations gone awry. However, this is the one seed for impeachment if Obama was involved. The evidence has not yet been found, only speculated about. I have not seen the poll that says "over half of Americans" believe Obama had any role in what the IRS did to establish the "social welfare" content of these political action committees.

You are talking about criminal offenses. There is a lot of hyperbolic talk about policies, mannerisms, and failures that annoy people who would ratther have a different president, but your claim that over half of Americans believe there were impeachable offenses against Obama. Since as of November 2012, over half of them chose to put him back in office, I was asking to see a set of charges that "half of Americans" believe. How about you give me your top 2.

I accept. I will call him Mr. Obama, Barack Obama, or simpy Obama and the folks on your side will end the Obummer, Ollegal, etc derisive nicknames. It seems like an acceptable compromise to polite discourse amongst us, even if you continue to hold your contempt and express it in verbs, adjective, adverb, and nouns linked int this neutral proper name. Similarly the use of respectful references like Speaker Boehner would be dropped along with disrespectful monikers like Bonehead.

Wow, what a step forward this would be for civility on this site. Thanks for the offer.

Pick from what? Remember incompetence and unpopularity are not treason nor high crimes and misdemeanors.

What criminal offense has Barack Obama committed while serving as the President of the United States?

Impeachment is not a political process like a recall e******n. It is a criminal filing. Please specify those charges of treason and high crimes and misdemeanors to which "over half of America" agree.

What would happen if Americans were taught that defaulting on their loans is okay??? Well, I guess we might become a Muslim nation that did not believe that people should give or take loans with interest. But even Muslims make "free loans" with the expectation of getting the money lent back.

Did you notice the claim at the bottom that in numeracy the 3 point difference (out of 500) between Ireland's 256 and the USA's 253 was not significant. It would appear to imply that the 6 point difference between Poland's 260 and the USA (or between Italy's 247 and the USA) is statistically significant (typically at least two standard deviations for a 95% confidence, thus the implied standard deviation is only 1.5 points). That strikes me as an incredible small variance from a sample of 5000 in each of 23 countries. It would not make sense for only 5000 people across 23 countries because the would imply about 220 people per country with over 50% (112) of Americans unable to read/answer the background questions. Do you really believe that about 70% of Americans tested scored a 251, 252, 253, 254, or 255 out of 500 math questions. If 4999 (minus the 112 not scored) scored exactly 253 and one oddball American score 403 (deviation of 150), the standard deviation would be over 2. I would have expected a standard deviation closer to 5% of the mean (maybe 13-14) which would make the USA have statistical significant difference outside the range of 227-279 (i.e. inseparable "statistically" from any country below the top 6).

But then I may be that oddball scoring 403 (I had a 800 on the SAT/Math). Perhaps Americans really are dumber (or poorer test takers) than the Polish. After all, it is in writing and nobody cannot lie (mislead, be wrong) in writing.

If their parents had gone to a bank to finance their college education, would you consider that the bank had the rights of a s***eowner to them? Are you suggesting that the government should just pay outright for student's tuition and other expenses? Why is it appropriate to advocate that people do not repay their contracted obligations? Isn't that what you are complaining that Federal government is not doing?