I'm a Pundit Too

Speech For The April Fools Day Rally At Dutch Ruppersberger's Office

2010-04-19T20:41:00.001-04:00

Thank God we live in a country where we can gather together to let our elected officials know that we are not happy with their job performance. Throughout the past year and a half they have tried to ignore us, marginalize us, and discredit us while they pushed through bailouts, a fake stimulus, Cap and Trade, and the Health Care debacle. We, as their employer, refuse to sit idly by and watch these career politicians pass legislation that erodes our freedoms and violate the constitution. John Adams wrote in 1776, “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” If we, as citizens of this great country do not hold our elected officials accountable for their actions and votes, then who will? We certainly cannot entrust them with that responsibility.
Elections have consequences, and we are experiencing the consequences of the past several elections. Elections where we watched as the same career politicians were elected to fix the problems that they created. The time has come to remind Dutch and the rest of the bureaucrats in DC and Annapolis whom they work for. This coming election is about more than Dutch Ruppersberger, it is about the future of our country. The national debt that they have rung up is astounding and they show no signs of stopping. Last year alone they had a $1.5 trillion deficit. This year is projected to be just as bad if not worse. Their solution is to throw more of our money at the problem and hope that this time a government solution will work for the first time in human history. We need to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of the free market. The Federal Government needs to remove the burden from the backs of the taxpayers and small businesses; and then get out of the way.

Dutch and his cronies in DC told us last year that the government was the only one to save us from the declining economy. Now that we have had 10% unemployment for months, why should we trust that they now know how to fix the problem that they created? November provides us as voters the opportunity to send a crystal clear message to the career politicians in our state house and our Congress. We can tell them that business as usual will no longer be accepted. If you vote for legislation that increases our debt, increases our tax burden, decreases our freedom, violates the constitution, or threatens our sovereignty, you will be unemployed after the next election. My name is Troy Stouffer and I am not a career politician nor do I want to be one, but I would love the opportunity to serve you in Washington DC. Thank You!

How Much Can They Ignore?

2010-01-21T20:59:00.000-05:00

On January 19, the people of Massachusetts actually elected a Republican to the United States Senate. Senator Scott Brown was elected to a seat that was held by Senator Teddy Kennedy from 1962 until his death late last year. The Democrats and the media have tried to spin the Brown win as everything from a result of a bad candidate, Martha Coakley, running a bad campaign to the voters of Massachusetts electing a Republican because they hate Bush. They can spin it however they want to help them sleep at night, but the fact remains that Brown was elected because the majority of the public have rejected the President’s socialist takeover of the Health Care system.

I find it a bit ironic that Brown’s election night victory comes a day before the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s Inauguration. In the ensuing 364 days leading up to the special election in Massachusetts, the President and Congress have taken over the banks and two of the “Big Three” automotive companies, spent $787 billion on a “stimulus” bill that did nothing to stimulate the economy, and tried to takeover the Health Care system. In a practical sense, the first year of “Hope and Change” has come up extremely short. Unemployment has risen above 10% and the latest numbers have “surprised the experts” by rising even more. The Democrats lack of accomplishments over the past year ought to make next week’s State of the Union speech very interesting.

Some speculation in the wake of the Massachusetts humiliation has suggested that the Democrats did not go “progressive” enough in their drive to destroy our economy. MSNBC political pundits suggested on Tuesday evening that the Democrats should now push forward with every liberal ideal. They believe that the best course for them is to completely ignore the will of the people for yet another year. Isn’t that what they have done for the past year? They ignored the public on Cap and Trade, the bailouts, and Health Care Reform. The poll numbers for the President and the Democratic controlled Congress have been a gradual decline since early summer and now they are in real danger of losing their majorities in both houses of Congress.

Will the Democrats pay attention to the results in Massachusetts or will they dismiss it as insignificant? Some early signs show that they will stay the course. After raising the national debt ceiling by $290 billion in a quiet vote on Christmas Eve, the Democrats are poised to raise it yet again by a stunning $1.9 trillion. The national debt ceiling will be $14.29 trillion and that is only expected to last until the end of the year before it will need to be raised again. That coupled with the President’s plans to takeover all student loans, leaves the voters to wonder, when will they stop? The answer to that question is when they are voted out of office and sent home to learn what real life is all about. In November, I believe there will be a surprising amount of politicians updating their resumes and looking for a new career.

The Panic In Massachusetts

2010-01-14T22:39:00.000-05:00

The Health Care Reform bill is continuing to plummet in the polls as more and more information is revealed to the public. The Democrats have refused to listen to the American people on virtually every issue that has arisen over the past year. As a result, they have lost the Governor races in Virginia and New Jersey, and now the U.S. Senate seat that was occupied by Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts is now poised to be won by a Republican.

Republican Scott Brown has closed in the polls against Democrat Martha Coakley. Two weeks ago, Brown trailed in the polls by nine points, but Coakley’s ineptitude and the growing discontent with the horrendous policies of the Democrats in Washington D.C. have turned the tide of public opinion to the point where Brown leads in some polls and is tied in others.

The prospect of losing a “safe” Senate seat in Massachusetts has caused an all out panic within the Democrat party. The Democrat National Committee has had pour money into Massachusetts in hopes of saving the seat and ultimately their plans for destroying our health care system. If Brown wins next week, he will effectively kill the prospect of passing the current bill that is being worked out in conference. I believe that the type of fraud on display in Minnesota last year will be pulled out again if this race remains close after Tuesday’s special election. We will again hear of boxes of ballots “found” in the trunks of election workers cars. The Democrats know what is at stake in this election and they will stop at nothing, legal or illegal, to ensure that Coakley wins that race.

The Massachusetts race is highlighting the discontent with the extreme lack of representation in Washington D.C. The American people have watched Congress spend $1.4 trillion in deficit spending, bailout automotive companies and banks, pass legislation that will destroy our health care system and hamstring our economy, and pass a stimulus bill that has caused our unemployment rate to climb above 10%. The voting public is fed up with our elected representatives ignoring our wishes to blindly follow their party leadership steer our country toward ruin.

2010 will be a remarkable year. The politicians that have played a part to the budgetary idiocy of the past year are in for a very rude awakening in November. I believe there are no safe seats in the midterm elections. Every seat is available to won by a citizen legislator. Voters are tired of career politicians who seek only to extend their power and their careers, instead of actually representing their constituents and following the Constitution. 2008 was the year of “Hope and Change”. 2010 will be the year “We the people” change the Congress.

The Love Sacrifice Of Leonard And Ray Ethelyn Stouffer

2009-12-30T10:15:00.001-05:00

I had planned to write a summary of 2009 with my thoughts, but the events of the past week in my family changed my plans. I hope that you will forgive my abandoning of politics for this week.

After 72 years of marriage, Leonard and Ray Ethelyn Stouffer simply refused to be apart. At 7:10 P.M., December 29 my grandmother passed away, followed shortly thereafter by my grandfather at 9:35 P.M.

Early last week, my grandmother was placed under hospice care and a hospital bed was moved into the living room of their apartment. I saw them both on the morning of Christmas Eve and they were happy and talkative. On Christmas night my grandfather had a heart attack and was rushed to the hospital where a catheterization was performed and revealed that three arteries were completely blocked and a fourth had minimal blood flow. The cardiologist believed that he had less than a week to live. He was moved back to their apartment to be near the love of his life.

They were both awake enough last evening to realize that they were together again. When the nursing staff pushed their beds side by side, my grandfather reached out and took his bride’s hand and held it. He tried to talk to her but she was not awake enough to respond, so he tried to get into her bed with her to hold her. He eventually settled down and rested.

As his wife’s breathing became more labored, his breathing remained steady. At just after 7 we noticed that her breathing had changed. My father took her hand and she took her last breath. At just after 9 the funeral director left the room with my grandmother, and my sister, Lisa, noticed that there were tears in the corners of my grandfather’s eyes. We also noticed that now his breathing had changed from steady to labored. My father took his hand told him that he loved him and that his wife was waiting for him. A few minutes later he opened his eyes and looked at my father and took his last breath.

This has been a long hard week of emotions. It is painful to lose any loved ones, but it is also painful to watch loved ones suffer. It has been particularly difficult to watch my father suffer the loss of both of his parents in such a very short time. The grief will subside, but I want to remember the love that they shared and his strength and love for his wife. By all accounts, he probably should have gone first. His heart should have given out first. I believe that he held on and stayed conscious enough to know when she had passed away. He refused to leave his wife behind. Their love was their bond and he would have found a way to survive as long as his bride lived.

As I left the retirement home this evening, I was struck by the love and the love sacrifice that my grandparents displayed the last few days and their entire married lives. I also realized that they were just following the example of the love sacrifice of Jesus Christ. At Christmas we celebrate the birth of Jesus. The day that God sent his Son to earth to become a love sacrifice for all of us. He endured our rightful punishment so that we would have the opportunity to accept His sacrifice and receive eternal life in Heaven.
Ray Ethelyn and Leonard Stouffer are together in Heaven. They have met their Savior face to face. My prayer tonight is to follow their example of love in my own marriage, but more importantly to follow my Savior’s example of love. Is He your Savior tonight?

Welcome To The Era Of Ignorant Arrogance

2009-12-17T21:32:00.000-05:00

As the Senate winds down with their plan to further destroy our economy with healthcare reform, they have thrown away any semblance of transparency or desire to actually reform healthcare. The pressure is turned up for every day that we get closer to Christmas. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid desires to pass any bill, whatever the cost, before Christmas to present to President Obama. All of this maneuvering is to enable the President to point to at least one accomplishment when he delivers his State of the Union speech in late January. After all it isn’t exactly a great accomplishment for the President to point to 10% unemployment, his historic spending deficits, or even the newly increased debt ceiling.

With just a week before Christmas, the final version of the 2000+-page bill has not even been released to the full Senate for them to read. The majority has rushed this bill to try to get it passed for not only the President’s own selfish reasons, but also because the longer this monstrosity of a bill sits out there, the less the American public supports it. As a matter of fact, there is less support among the public for this reform bill, than there was for Hillary-care back in the early 1990’s. The severe lack of support for this reform bill is more than likely the catalyst for Reid’s desire to keep this bill hidden until it is passed.

Even the amendment process is too politically charged for the majority to allow an amendment to be read aloud on the Senate floor. The admitted socialist from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, proposed an amendment to the bill that would supersede the entire reform bill and replace it with a socialist health care system. When Senator Cobourn of Oklahoma asked that the clerk on the floor read the 767-page amendment, Sanders came down to the Senate to break Senate rules and end the reading and remove the amendment. The break in rules came when Sanders removed his amendment and ended the reading. The problem is that once the bill reading had started, only unanimous consent can end the reading.

It is a rare moment when I praise Senator Olympia Snowe, but I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with a recent statement that she made. “I don’t see anything magical about the Christmas deadline if this bill is going to become law in 2014.” Her words ring very true. What is the rush to pass this disastrous bill if none of the reforms actually take effect until 2014, conveniently after the 2012 elections? Of course the urgency of the matter has become the party line for all Congressman who have supported it. My own embarrassment of a Representative, Dutch Ruppersberger, explained in his form letter reply to my query about his vote that the urgency of the matter played a very large role in his decision to vote for it. I suppose that when a bureaucrat sees his political career coming to an end, his urgency may be a bit skewed. I believe it is time to end the era of ignorant arrogance.

The Obama Deficit Lie

2009-12-10T22:47:00.000-05:00

President Barack Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders have hypocritically promised since taken office in January that are going to be “deficit hawks”. We have not even reached the one-year anniversary of the Inauguration and the same Democratic leaders are raising the debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion. The national debt is already nearing $12.1 trillion and the economic geniuses in DC have realized that their historic deficit spending has made it imperative to raise the ceiling.

The federal deficit for last fiscal year that ended at the end of September was around $1.4 trillion. To put that into perspective, the federal budget for all of 2008 was $2.9 trillion. To be fair, and to prevent my left-leaning friends from hyperventilating, some of that deficit belongs to President Bush, but in the first 2 months of this fiscal year the Obama administration has spent $296.7 billion in the red. Project that out for the next 12 months and the 2010 federal deficit will be about $1.8 trillion. Of course we have to consider that the “emergency” stimulus spending has not really even started to be spent.

Based on President Obama’s penchant for socialist government, you can guarantee his response to the crippling deficit and ever-increasing debt will be to raise taxes. His tax increases will be “targeted” towards only the “rich”, but it will soon become apparent that the definition of rich will be continually redefined until the majority of the middle class will be hit as well. Of course the net result of his tax hikes will be an even bigger hit to the economy than his disastrous policies have already been. "There is no such thing as government money - only taxpayer money." William Weld

The bureaucrats in Washington have expelled so much hot air making promises about deficits, bailouts, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and health care that if I believed in the global warming hoax, I would be worried about a real life Day After Tomorrow. Thank God the carbon dioxide being spewed out in DC has no effect on our climate. Unfortunately the idiotic economic policies coming out of Washington will have lasting effects that our children and grandchildren will feel. To borrow a line from the President’s campaign, “It is time for Change!”

Thank You Veterans!

2009-11-10T23:24:00.000-05:00

Last Thursday as the country watched in horror the extreme cowardice of Major Nidal Hassan at the Fort Hood Army Base, I was reminded of the sacrifice that the men and women of our armed forces make each and every day. Since our great country’s inception, men and women have put their lives on the line for the cause of freedom. More than 1,314,000 lives have been lost in the 233 years since our forefathers declared their independence from tyranny.

I have the honor of visiting Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center on a weekly basis to perform the duties of my job. As I walk the corridors of these hospitals, I see the men and women who have lost limbs in combat and I am humbled and inspired by them.

Veterans Day grew out of Armistice Day that commemorated the end of World War 1. In 1954 it became Veterans Day to honor all veterans from all wars. 22 years ago, I was standing at attention in Navy Boot Camp listening to our Company Commander vent her anger and frustration at some local radio personalities who failed to show the proper respect for the meaning of the holiday. Sadly, not much has changed in the past 20 years.

Today we observe Veterans Day and for many people, this is a day that they will not even realize is a holiday. They will probably wonder why the bank is closed at lunch or why their mail didn’t get delivered. To many it is merely a nuisance vice a sobering reminder of the honor, integrity, courage, and patriotism those veterans from every generation of our nation’s history have displayed.

The members of our armed services, both past and present, are a rare breed; they truly are the bravest and finest that our country has to offer. They deserve our admiration and respect. The United States of America is a great country because of our freedoms and we are free because of the sacrifices of our veterans. At the funerals of veterans, a flag is presented to the family of the fallen with the words, “On behalf of a grateful nation.” Those should be our words every day of the year to our veterans. Today I stand and salute the veterans from every branch of service that have come before me, and those who have dutifully followed after me. I humbly say, “On behalf of a grateful nation, thank you!”

Thousands Draw A Line On The Capitol Steps Over Health Care

2009-11-05T21:22:00.000-05:00

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to try to strong-arm through her plan to destroy our health care system, even in the face of overwhelming signals that she is fighting a losing battle. In the process she has continued her annoying little habit of breaking promises to the American people. She had promised to not hold a vote on the “health care reform” legislation without posting the final language of the bill online at least 72 hours prior to the vote. Apparently she is afraid that the final version of her 2000 page behemoth will further outrage the voting public.

The public has made their frustration and anger known all summer long, all the while congressional leaders have pretended to not hear them. The public outcry has prolonged the debate from something that the White House expected to be passed quickly and quietly by mid summer into an eternity for lawmakers. After the congressional switchboards were jammed with phone calls demanding that their elected representatives listen to them, the bureaucrats ignored their constituents. After millions of emails clogged the politicians’ inboxes, they sent out their canned responses claiming to represent their constituents. Tired of the unprecedented arrogance filling the Capitol Building, thousands of people showed up on the steps of the Capitol to hold a rally against the destruction of our health care system. After the rally they stood in line for hours to enter the Capitol to meet their elected representatives face to face. They wanted to ask one simple question, “Are you going to vote for this health care reform bill?” Several reports emerged showing the arrogance and superiority complex from which members of Congress are suffering. They could not spare even a few moments to “lower themselves” to the level of the common man.

It is most surprising that House leaders are pressing forward this week, of all weeks. Tuesday showed a dramatic reversal of the political leanings of the country. Democratic stronghold New Jersey saw their incumbent Governor Jon Corzine lose to Republican Chris Christie by 5 percentage points. New Jersey is a state that President Obama won easily by 20 points just one year ago. Virginia saw a political drubbing when Republican Bob McDonnell beat Democrat Creigh Deeds by 19 points. President Obama again won Virginia a year ago by 6 points. Right on cue, the White House downplayed the results saying that the outcomes had absolutely nothing to do with the President or his socialist agenda. The problem is that the President and his minions spent a lot of time and political capital in both states campaigning for both losers.

Whether or not the President or Ms. Pelosi are able to twist enough arms on Capitol Hill this weekend to pass their health care debacle is yet to be seen, but the damage has been done. The voting public has awakened to the fact that after the numerous bailouts already this year, the government now owns or controls 30% of our economy. They also see that if the power hungry bureaucrats are successful in destroying our health care, they will add another 18% of our economy. That will give them power over nearly half of our economy and they are just starting to erode our economical freedoms.

The War That The White House Does Want To Fight

2009-10-22T23:33:00.001-04:00

Over the past few weeks the White House has openly declared war on the Fox News Channel. It has been going on since before the election when the Obama campaign refused to send campaign staff to appear on Fox. Now the senior staff and even President Obama have openly criticized an entire news organization. The President was asked about the squabble during an interview with NBC on Wednesday. He responded that he is not losing much sleep over it, and that he believes that the American people are more concerned with the war in Afghanistan and unemployment.

It is interesting that the President would choose to bring Afghanistan and unemployment. The Labor Department reported that in September 23 states saw a rise in unemployment. They also reported that 43 states lost jobs in September. The national unemployment numbers reached 9.8% for the first time in 26 years. It could be that my memory is failing me, but I seem to recall an unequivocal promise from the administration before the “stimulus” package was passed that if Congress passed the bill that no one read, unemployment would not go higher than 8%. Now economists are predicting unemployment above 10% and it will be at least the middle of next year before we start to see any type of turn around. Of course, those predictions could be proven wrong if the administration decides that they just haven’t spent enough money; money that we do not have. It has gotten so bad that Congress had to raise the federal debt ceiling to $13 trillion.

Afghanistan is another ignorant remark to make because the President is continuing to drag his feet in deciding whether or not to send the 40,000 requested troops. The administration is still trying their tired excuse of blaming Bush and Cheney for their woes. The problem is that they were fully briefed on Afghanistan during the transition time before the Inauguration. Obama had claimed all along that we were following a flawed strategy in Afghanistan and that he had the solution. He even picked his own commanding General to lead our soldiers in Afghanistan, but now he can barely seem to find the time to talk to the man. He refuses to make a decision on sending troops because he is terrified of angering his radical left-wing base by sending more troops. The problem is that the longer he waffles, the more danger our troops will face. This decision should be based solely on the intelligence from the commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, and not by Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. This is a military strategy decision, not one to be made for political gain.

The administration has decided that going after Fox News is one of their top priorities. Shouldn’t they be trying to repair our flailing economy? Or speaking to General McChrystal about getting him the resources and troops he needs to fulfill his mission? I suppose they could be using their war on Fox as a way show that they do know how to fight a war. Unfortunately for the administration, they are losing that war. Every time they send some administration lackey out to bash Fox, the ratings for Fox climb. By the way, recent surveys have shown that independents and Democrats make up more than 50% of the Fox news audience.

The Inevitable Vietnam-Afghanistan Comparison

2009-10-08T21:17:00.000-04:00

At nearly the same time that the ground war began in Iraq, the Democrats began comparing the war in Iraq to Vietnam. They claimed that Iraq was an un-winnable war. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that we had lost the war, while our troops were still in combat. The bureaucrats in DC tried everything they could to drive down public support for the war. It took them about 4 years to finally depress the American people on the war. President Bush remained resolute in his commitment to our troops in battle and peace in Iraq. Against growing, outspoken negativity by the Democrats, Bush installed General Petraeus as the commanding General in Iraq and fully supported the General’s plan for the “Surge” in Iraq. The result was the declining insurgency and the Iraqi government and security forces standing up to take control of their own country.

President Obama campaigned on the belief that we should never have been in Iraq and that we should be committing more troops and resources to Afghanistan. He believed that Afghanistan should be the center of the fight with Al Qaeda. He promised that as President he would recommit the fight to Afghanistan, sadly he seems to have a very short memory. In August General McChrystal, the General that he personally picked to lead the troops in Afghanistan, asked for a minimum of 40,000 more troops to prevent the country from slipping into chaos. Nearly 2 months after the request, the President has yet to decide whether or not to support our troops with sending the additional forces.

It wasn’t until 60 Minutes aired an interview with General McChrystal, where the General answered a seemingly innocuous question about how often he speaks to the President. The answer touched an embarrassing firestorm for the administration. The President had spoken to his General only once since he sent him to Afghanistan 3 months ago. The President’s reaction was an extremely obvious and rushed set of meetings on Afghanistan.

Since the Democrats were so eager to compare Iraq to Vietnam, I thought it would be appropriate to point out their folly. Their bureaucratic reaction to Afghanistan is precisely the kind of mistakes the politicians of 35 years ago made. The Vietnam era politicians decided that they knew more about fighting a war than the commanders on the ground in the theater of war. It is eerily similar to the idiocy of the DC politicians of today. They are more interested in holding hearings to discuss every possible contingency than to actually support the brave men and women that they claim to care about.

President Obama needs to realize that his role as Commander in Chief is not a political position that he can waffle back and forth on the decisions that affect our troops. It is time for him to grow up and actually make a decision and stand by it for better or worse. He needs to decide if he is going to support the best and the brightest our country has to offer and give them what they need to win the war. Or decide that this is not a battle he thinks is worthy and pull our troops out of there. Although I believe that it will be disastrous for him to pull out of Afghanistan, it would be better than sacrificing our military men and women while he “phones in” his duties as Commander in Chief.

President Obama Thinks He Is Still In The Illinois State Senate

2009-10-01T21:09:00.001-04:00

Throughout the Presidential campaign, the legislative record of President Obama was looked at in an attempt to understand how he would lead as President. There was a common theme through out his time in the Illinois state Senate; it was his penchant for voting “Present”. I suppose it should be no surprise that he has continued that them during his tenure in the Oval Office.

He has become very non-committal when it comes to actually making hard decisions or backing up his flowery rhetoric. During his speech to Congress a few weeks ago, he announced a new plan for health care reform; unfortunately he has yet to deliver any such plan to Congress. He claimed that there would be no coverage of illegal immigrants in “his” plan, but yet the plan being worked on in the Senate had an amendment proposed to require a picture ID to receive the government option of health care. The amendment was voted down along party lines in the democratically controlled Senate.

Last week the U.S. General in charge in Afghanistan, that President Obama put in place 2 and a half months ago to implement “his” plan, was on ABC’s 60 Minutes during which he was asked how often he speaks to the President. His answer was shocking at first, but in light of the President’s history it was to be expected. He has spoken to his hand picked General once since he put him in place. If President Obama had downplayed the importance of Afghanistan then we could expect that it would not be that important to him, but he talked at length throughout his campaign about how important Afghanistan was in the “overseas contingency operations”(War on Terror to the rest of us). In August General McChrystal requested 40,000 more troops so that Afghanistan would not slip into failure. Is it too much to ask for the President to call his commander in Afghanistan when he provides such a grim assessment? Maybe the President was busy talking to David Letterman or taking in one of the weekly concerts at the White House.

Last week the President went before the United Nations to apologize yet again for the arrogance of his country. Also performing his stand up routine before the U.N. comedy club was Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad took the opportunity to deny the Holocaust and then later told the Iranian press that the U.S. President agrees with him on the U.S. being a “bully”. President Obama even said at the U.N. that the U.S. would no longer tell other countries how they should act. I can’t help but wonder how he will negotiate with Iran over nuclear weapons if he will not be telling them to not build nuclear weapons. It was also revealed last week about another nuclear enrichment facility that was previously undisclosed. The international response was surprising in the fact that embattled British leader Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were much more forceful and decisive with their response than President Obama. Sarkozy even pointed out “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions. President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.” For generations the French have been a joke on foreign policy issues and their penchant for surrender, now President Obama is looking to them for leadership.

President Obama has shown that he will make a decision when it concerns stealing our freedom, making a television appearance, or “sacrificing” by flying to Copenhagen to pitch for the 2016 Olympics for his cronies in Chicago. The American people expect the President to lead our country to prosperity not to wait for the international community to decide what he should do. His lack of leadership or ability to make any decision, along with the Congressional plan to slip the behemoth socialist health care reform into an unrelated bill as an amendment just to get it passed will surely spell disaster for our country. The United States of America will recover from Jimmy Carter Part 2 after 2012 when the current crop of bureaucrats in Washington are sent packing back to Chicago to cash in on their Olympic scam.

The House Celebrates Constitution Day In Typical Hypocritical Fashion

2009-09-17T21:18:00.001-04:00

222 years ago 39 delegates gathered in the city of Philadelphia to sign Constitution of the United States of America. On September 17, 1787 our Founding Fathers created the greatest and freest nation on the face of the earth. I find it extremely ironic that the House of Representatives decided this week to limit free speech on the floor. Their actions this week were in response to South Carolina Congressman, Joe Wilson, calling out “You Lie!” during President Obama’s speech last week before a joint session of Congress. Wilson immediately apologized after the speech for his outburst.

While I felt that it was probably not the best opportunity to point out the false claims of the President, I agreed with Wilson’s sentiment. I was not alone in agreement, the Nancy Pelosi led House agreed with Wilson by passing an amendment to the Health Care reform bill that specifically states that illegal immigrants are not to be covered under the reforms.

The House also decided to dole out the moral equivalent of wagging their hypocritical finger at Wilson for having the audacity of speaking the truth about the President. They formally rebuked Wilson and laid out new rules covering what is not permissible to be said about the President in the chamber. No member of the House may refer to the President as a “liar” or a “hypocrite”, or describe his veto as “cowardly”, or describe him as “intellectually dishonest”, or refer to any alleged “act of sexual misconduct on the President’s part”, or describe the President as “giving aid in comfort to the enemy”.

I find it interesting that the Democrats took such offense to Wilson’s remark. Especially when considering their own rather sordid history of debasing a President and our troops from the floor of both chambers. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stood on the floor of the Senate after 9/11 and demanded to know what President Bush knew and when he knew it. She questioned whether or not our President knew about the 9/11 attacks before they occurred and did nothing about it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Bush a total failure. California Representative Pete Stark called Bush a liar from the floor of the House. Senator Harry Reid declared that our military had lost the war in Iraq from the floor of the Senate. Pennsylvania Representative Jack Murtha accused our military of murder and rape in Iraq. President Obama claimed our military was air-raiding villages for the war on terror.

The actions of the House this week are just another tactic to divert attention away from the failing Health Care reform. They have also intensified the calls of racism for anyone who opposes the President. What the administration and the Democratic leadership fail to realize is that there is a growing tide of discontent against the plans for health care. As of this week, the approval ratings for the health care reform have reached their lowest point at just 42%. That approval is even after the latest “major” speech by the President to both chambers of Congress. If the administration pushes forward in the face of the growing objections of the public, it will be the end of any hope for reelection for the President. As for Congress, I believe their fate has already been sealed. Their will be a surprising amount of Democrats looking for new professions after next years midterm elections.

Is The President Lying, Or Is He Just Clueless?

2009-09-10T22:19:00.000-04:00

Since January 20, President Obama has made more than 110 speeches or remarks concerning his push for Health Care Reform. On Wednesday evening the President addressed a joint session of Congress to once again plead for support for his unprecedented and unconstitutional power grab. His speech was heralded both before and after as providing clarity on the details of his proposal. Not surprisingly though the speech was basically a rehash of everything he has said over the past 8 months.

He continually perpetuates the same tired lies that his administration and the congressional leadership have been pushing since the debate began. He claimed that, “We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people.” Are these the same hardships that the citizens of Canada and the United Kingdom endure under their state-controlled health plan? DO we have 4000 women giving birth in stairwells, bathrooms, and broom closets as they do in the United Kingdom because there are not enough rooms for these women?

He claims that the reforms will not cover illegal immigrants, but yet 2 separate amendments were offered up in the House that added specific language to exclude illegal immigrants. Both amendments were voted down along party lines.

He claims that they are open to any and all reasonable ideas on reform, but yet the President last met with any Republicans on the issue of health care reform in April. That would be a full 3 months before the push started in Congress. The Republicans have offered options that would call for Health Savings Accounts, Tort Reform, and making health insurance portable among other ideas, but yet none of their options have been made part of the bill.

He claims that abortions will not be paid for with government money, but yet again the President is not being truthful. Again amendments have been offered that specifically added language to the bill that forbade abortions being paid for with tax dollars. Predictably, the amendments were defeated along party lines. In fact, they added an amendment that required that at least one insurer in the federal plan would cover abortions.

He claims that the reforms will be deficit neutral, but this claim has been proven time and time again to be false. The Congressional Budget Office looked at the proposal and concluded that the proposal would add at least $245 billion to the deficit. Of course, after his economic policies have added $9 trillion to the deficit, I guess it is easy to discount $245 billion as being insignificant.

The President is trying to sell the health care reform to not only the American people but also to his own party. The President does not need a single Republican to vote for this bill for it to pass, but yet he is trying to sell the notion that the evil Republicans are standing in the way of his socialist utopia. He has been unable to convince his own party to back him unconditionally in this fight. What he fails to realize is that the American people do not want this reform. They have read the bill and we know what is in the bill. We do not want to give away our rights and freedoms so that he can build a socialist legacy. His assertions throughout his speech are patently false, so we are left to assume he is either grossly misinformed about on which Congress is working or is boldly lying to the American people. Maybe it is time his health care proposal takes the blue pill instead of trying to revive it once again.

Why Not Try "Cash For Real Change"?

2009-09-03T20:31:00.000-04:00

Over the past 12 months we have seen unfettered spending out of Washington D.C.. The reasoning for the fiscal recklessness has been attributed to the declining economy. The “drunken sailors” in our nation’s capital believe that the best way to stave off a recession is to spend our tax dollars on a myriad of government programs to spur economic recovery. They have bought into this misguided notion to the point of quadrupling our budget deficit, but yet our economy still lags. They have bailed out banks, automobile manufacturers, and labor unions. They have spent more than $1.5 trillion dollars over and above any budgetary spending and have proposed spending another $4 trillion in next year’s budget along with at least another $1 trillion in deficit spending.

Along with their disastrous economic policies, the politicians are trying to further hamstring our economy with an ill-advised “Cap and Trade” plan. The plan will in effect cause the price of energy, which is your gas and/or electric bill for the government Kool-Aid drinkers, to skyrocket. Not only will your energy bill dramatically increase, but also the cost of virtually every product or service that you currently buy. To put it simply, after you spend more money to heat/cool and light your house, you will have to spend more to buy food, drive to pick up the food, and clean up after your food is consumed. The House of Representatives passed this bill with an overwhelming public outcry against it.

The self-proclaimed smartest people in the world are trying to pass a “Health Care Reform” bill that will bankrupt private insurance, raise all of our health care costs, decrease the quality of health care, and help struggling labor union’s retirement accounts. Again they press on in the face of overwhelming public opposition.

The American public has grown weary of politicians who pass legislation without reading the bill, which they did for a massive stimulus bill passed earlier this year. The voters have educated themselves on what the legislation actually says and have begun to demand answers from their elected representatives. Recent polls by Rasmussen Reports shows that 57% of voters would like to replace every member of both houses of Congress, while 42% of those polled believe that just randomly picking names out of the phone book would be more productive than the current Congress. Public opinion is showing that very few members of Congress, regardless to which political party they belong, are safe in their re-election bids next year. Those numbers will drop even further if Congress passes their freedom limiting Health Care bill.

I have a proposal to replace every member of Congress, even those in the Senate who are not up for re-election in next year’s midterm elections. I propose “Cash for Real Change”. I think we should pay every member of Congress $1 billion to leave Washington immediately and never return. The $535 billion it would cost pales in comparison to the more than $1.5 trillion this Congress has already spent. I think we should then replace the new billionaires with citizen legislators that have never served in political office at any capacity. Before the new Congress can begin any legislative work, they will attend classes on the Constitution. The classes will not try to decide what the founding fathers intended or what they would have done if they lived in 2009, the classes will concentrate on what the Constitution actually says. After the new Congress understands what their duties and responsibilities are under the Constitution, they will now begin to undo the constitutional damage the current crop of political reprobates have done.

The Democrats ARe Becoming Desperate Over Health Care Reform

2009-08-27T22:10:00.000-04:00

As I returned from vacation last weekend I became aware of the desperation of the Democrats and the White House over their socialist takeover of our health care system. After weeks of plummeting poll numbers and running scared at town hall meetings the administration and the Democratic leadership have resorted to the same tired tactics they have used for years. The politics of fear and race baiting has returned in full force in a feeble attempt to resurrect the health care power grab.

The Colorado Democrat Party headquarters in Denver was vandalized this week and immediately state party officials attempted to spin in into an attack by political opponents of the health care reform proposed by their party. Unfortunately the facts of the case tell a slightly different story. One of the two vandals was caught shortly after the attack and his name is Maurice Schwenkler. He worked in the 2008 elections for a Democrat running for the Colorado state house. He has a history of working for liberal 527 groups and was arrested for unlawful assembly outside of the Republican National Convention in 2008. Of course the Colorado Democrat Party Chairwoman was quick to back away from her initial statements accusing Republicans of the vandalism.

New York Governor David A. Paterson blames racism for his unpopularity in the sate of New York and added that President Obama will be the next victim of racism. They believe, or are at least trying to convince the public, that the reason for the disapproval among the voting public is that we are not comfortable with a black man in power. They want us to forget that the health care reform proposal is an unconstitutional power grab and will further drive our country into economic disaster. Governor Paterson is presiding over a state that is in dire economic straits, but he wants us to believe that it is not his fault but the fault of his racist political opponents. I have been called a racist more times in the past year than in my entire life; all because I have not supported Barack Obama. I have not and will not support any candidate or politician that I do not agree with on the issues. Was I a racist when I supported Michael Steele for Lt. Governor and Senator in Maryland? I supported Steele based on the issues, but because he is a Republican, the left believes that he has betrayed his race.

President Barack Obama said last week that there is a “right wing conspiracy” to defeat his health care reform proposal. It is interesting that he would use those words to describe the opponents of socialized medicine. It is interesting because Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referenced a “vast right wing conspiracy” while she was the First Lady to explain the accusations of infidelity against her husband President Bill Clinton. Of course a few weeks later her husband had to admit his extra-curricular activities with a White House intern. I know the same is true in the current reference to a conspiracy. The facts are that the current health care reform will ration medical care, raise costs, reduce the quality of care, and will give the federal government unprecedented and unconstitutional power over our lives. I do think it is funny that they will try to pin this on the Republicans, but yet they do not need a single Republican to support it for it to pass either chamber of Congress.

The most disturbing, but not surprising ploy being used by the Democrats to force through this debacle is the death of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy. No more than 2 hours after his death, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was calling for the reform to be passed as a tribute to Kennedy. They are hoping that they can guilt the “Blue Dog Democrats” into supporting the legislation despite the growing dissatisfaction with the proposal. It is ironic that they would seek to tie this reform to Kennedy who sought out the best treatments and doctors available for his disease, but he would not have had that opportunity if the current proposal were passed into law. The attempt to capitalize on the Senator’s death does bring to mind a similar attempt in 2002 when the Democrats tried to turn a memorial service for Senator Paul Wellstone into a political pep rally. The result was a defeat for the Democrats. The early reports of the coverage of Kennedy’s death have shown that the ratings numbers are very low, which points to the public’s cynicism over the political class trying to push this albatross onto our backs.

A side note to the death of Senator Kennedy; in 2004 Kennedy sought to have Massachusetts law changed so that a vacant U.S. Senate seat would be filled by a special election to be held within 5 months of the vacancy. He fought to have it changed because he was worried that Senator John Kerry would win the presidency and Republican Governor Mitt Romney would fill the vacant seat with a Republican. Now that there is a Democrat in the Governor’s mansion, Kennedy wrote a letter state legislators before his death to have the law changed so that Governor Deval Patrick could fill the vacancy immediately. I believe the frenzy to change the law and name a replacement will be more entertaining than any of the mind-numbing reality TV shows currently on the air.
As the summer recess winds down, the race baiting and fear mongering from the administration will continue to heat up and the politicization of Senator Kennedy’s death will reach nauseating levels. I fully expect President Obama to turn the eulogy on Saturday into a campaign-style stump speech for health care reform in memoriam for the good Senator. I also believe that the American public has wised up to the empty promises of the President. They see the economic trouble in which the country finds itself. They hear the reports that the federal deficit has quadrupled since President Obama was sworn in as President. The heard the administration admit that their estimates of the federal deficit’s growth was off by $2 trillion to a total of $9 trillion. They are unable to understand why we need to rush this legislation through now, when it will not even take effect until 2013. The more the public learns about the health care reform proposal, the lower the approval numbers drop for the President and the Democrats. The problem for the White House and the Democratic leadership is that they have sold themselves for this reform to the point that they are unable to stop now. I believe that 2010 will be a very bad year to be a politician in D.C..

The Dog Days Of Summer Are Hard On The Politicians

2009-08-13T20:55:00.000-04:00

August is turning out to be a very hot, and uncomfortable month for the White House and especially the Democrat-led Congress. Members of Congress have been met with outrage and frustration over the rush to socialized medicine. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the White House have tried to spin the opposition as anything from Nazi-like to “Astroturf”. Throughout it all the public has continued to voice their displeasure over the sudden and severe hearing loss that has gripped Washington DC.

President Obama’s approval rating has dropped to a new low for him, down to 47%. His Presidential Approval Index has been hovering in the negative range for several weeks and currently sits at a –8, with a mere 29% strongly approving of the President and 37% strongly disapproving. His plummeting poll numbers are a result of several factors, but his push to socialize the health care system is the main catalyst for his decline.

Another factor for the public’s growing discontent is the unprecedented spending that the Congress and the President have engaged in over the past 7 months. The Treasury Department released it’s latest figures that showed that the Federal Government has spent $3 trillion in the past 10 months. Before my Bush-hating readers start to scream, allow me to say that Bush started this idiotic spending spree late last fall, but the current administration has more than followed suit. This year’s Federal deficit is projected to be 4 times that of last year’s deficit. Instead of working to reduce the deficit and release us from the stranglehold in which our creditors have us, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner went to Congress to raise the Federal debt limit above the current $12.1 trillion limit. The administration has further driven our country into bankruptcy and instead of changing their drunken-sailor spending habits; they ask to increase their credit limit. I suppose they need to raise it in order to pay for the economic fiasco known as health care reform. The American taxpayer had to work nearly an entire month longer than last year to pay for the ludicrous spending habits of Washington. The cost of government is 61.9% of our national income and these politicians want to raise it even higher.

The President has tried to portray his “townhall meetings” as open and fair minded, but yet there is never anyone who is opposed to his health care nightmare. Meanwhile, every member of Congress that goes out to meet the voters is met with overwhelming opposition. A recent Rasmussen poll has shown that 53% of voters are opposed to the Health Care Reform plan. Worse yet for the politicos in DC is that the much-coveted “independents” are opposed to the plan by a wide margin. President Obama has even tried to assuage our fears about a government run health care system putting private insurance out of business, by equating it to the post office. He said that UPS and FedEx are doing fine, it is always the post office that is in trouble. Can the President be that naïve? Does he really believe that the American public want a health care system that runs as efficiently as the post office?

The White House and Congress have severely overestimated the charm of President Obama. They believe that when the President speaks the public all feel a tingle running up their legs and they forget all about the actual words that he is speaking or the actions they are undertaking. The public is smarter than for which the bureaucrats in Washington give them credit. The public knows what is in the legislation that Congress is considering. The Congressional switchboards and email servers are being stretched to their limits with opposition calls and emails, but yet our elected representatives ignore our wishes and vote for the socialist agenda of the President. I believe the folly of the White House and Congress will be shown in next year’s midterm elections.

Was Orwell's Vision Off By 25 Years?

2009-08-06T21:38:00.000-04:00

The debate surrounding the Obama administration’s and Congress’ plans to reform our health care system has exposed the folly of the media proclamation of the President as some sort of messianic figure. They have built him up to the pinnacle of power in the world, only to have his approval numbers rapidly fall due to the public growing weary of his socialistic “hope and change.” The American people in poll after poll have stated that they absolutely do not want the government to run our health care system. The disapproval of the reforms is growing on a daily basis as more of the details become known.

Congress is becoming aware of their constituents’ displeasure over the proposals currently being worked on in Washington. As the members of Congress travel home for the summer recess, they are being met with a voting public that knows more about the reforms in Congress than the President claims he knows. The American people have informed themselves on individual aspects of the bill, such as the fact that Congress has specifically exempted themselves from the government plan. Another aspect is that the government plan will force all private insurance out of business, by setting prices at such a level as to make it financially impossible for private insurance companies to make a profit.

The President claims that he does not want to take over the health care system, but unfortunately the President seems to suffer from memory loss. In March of 2007, then Senator Obama proclaimed that it was his goal to have “Universal Health Care for all” by the end of his first term in office. He also stated in 2003 that he is a proponent of a “single payer universal health care plan”.

Congressional leaders are vilifying the American people, who are voicing their opposition at the town hall meetings. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week that these citizens were waving swastikas at the town hall meetings. The White House is asking people to email them about anyone who are “telling lies” about the Health Care proposal. It has been a few years since I read George Orwell’s classic 1984, but I seem to recall Orwell writing about children turning in their parents to the government for “thought crimes”. Isn’t the administration asking for names of people discussing the plan, even in casual conversation, sound eerily similar to Orwell’s vision?

Congress is in for a very rude awakening in 2010, especially if they pass this disastrous plan. The Democrats are running themselves right out of office and all the Republicans need to do is stay out of the way. There are a few Republicans that seem to believe that compromising with the Democrats on this plan is the best course of action, but a compromise that produces bad legislation is never a good idea. There are Republican proposals out there that actually will reduce costs and actually provide meaningful reform, but Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would rather claim that the Republicans are the party of ‘No’, than to actually allow any of their proposals see the light of day.

The voters are more aware right now than at any point in recent history. They have watched the Congress pass a monstrous “stimulus” bill, and spend more than a trillion dollars more than the government will collect in tax revenues, all against their expressed wishes. They have seen the House of Representatives pass the “Cap and Trade” bill that will stifle the economy more than they already have, again against the will of their constituents. It is time Congress is asked the question, whom exactly are they representing? Were they elected to carry out the extreme socialist agenda of the President? Or were they elected to represent their constituents? I believe in 2010, there will be many members of Congress looking for a new career.

The President's Health Care Reform Nightmare

2009-07-23T22:21:00.000-04:00

The Health Care Reform debate was ordered to be complete by the August recess of Congress. President Obama declared that Congress needed to pass Health Care Reform by the time that they departed Washington for their summer recess. He has placed urgency on the reform stating, “If we fail to act now, we will lose an opportunity that only comes around every few generations.” My cynicism impels me to ask; of what opportunity does the President speak? Is he speaking of our impending national bankruptcy?

The President has applied more pressure on Congress to pass Health Care Reform as more and more Congressman express their concerns over passing such an expensive power grab. He has repeatedly expressed that more than 46 million Americans are living without health insurance. The number in and of itself is staggering, but it is a fabrication on the part of the administration. Investors Business Daily recently published an editorial exploring the facts behind the 46 million uninsured figure. Roughly 10 million of the uninsured are not U.S. citizens and about 17 million of the uninsured reside in households whose annual income is more than $50,000. The editorial further explains that 40% of the uninsured are between the ages of 18 and 34 and simply choose not to spend money on health insurance because they are young and healthy.

President Obama has also provided some enlightening clues as to where his vision for Health Care Reform will take us. In a town hall meeting in June, he was asked about a woman’s mother, who at the age of 100 her doctor informed her that she would need a pacemaker. 2 doctors refused to do the surgery to implant the pacemaker because of her age. The third doctor, after meeting the patient, realized that the woman had a zest for life and performed the surgery. That was 5 years ago and she is still going strong. The President was asked whether under his plan, she would have been allowed to receive the surgery. Would the plan take into account a person spirit and will to live? The President eloquently said that the plan could not evaluate a person’s spirit, but perhaps they would be better off taking medication to dull the pain. His plan is to provide “end of life” counseling instead of senior care. So we can expect that after we reach the government determined age, we will be evaluated on our viability before we will be treated.

Who are the people who are pushing to control our health care? President Obama has a record of voting in the Illinois Senate for allowing babies who were born alive after a failed abortion to die alone in a dirty linen closet. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg recently said that she understood that the Roe V. Wade decision was decided to control “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Former Vice President Al Gore said during the 1990’s that one of the best ways to control “global warming” was to establish an aggressive abortion policy in the third world. His words are chilling, “it is time to ignore the controversy over family planning and cut out-of-control population growth.” President Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, has made similar statements regarding population control. In 1977 he wrote, "It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." I realize that these will not be the same people actually making the decisions, but they all share the same twisted view on life. Who are they to decide who lives and who dies?

As a side note, I do find it a bit amusing that the abortion rights advocates have for years been crying to keep your laws off of my body, but yet now they are crying that the government needs to control every aspect of our bodies.

The administration has repeatedly asserted that no one will be required to join the government run plan. They claim that they are merely providing a government option to compete with the private market. The problem is that there is no government program that has ever produced a profit. For those less economically inclined, the government plan will not be required to provide services at a fair market value. This will then cause private market competition to either close before bankruptcy or operate at a loss to try to compete that will inevitably cause them to go bankrupt. For those citizens who choose not to enroll in the government plan or any private plan, will be fined by the federal government about $2500, or whatever it would normally cost to buy health insurance, a year for every year you go without health insurance.

This Health Care Reform debate is turning quite embarrassing for the Democrats and the administration. The President is taking the prospect of his proposal falling to defeat rather personally. He is repeating the statements from Republicans about defeating his plan as an attempt to rally support for the reform. He is apt to refer to Republican opposition to his proposal, but the truth is that the President does not need 1 Republican to vote for the measure for it to pass. He has enough Democrats in both chambers of Congress to pass this debacle, but yet he points to the Republicans as standing in the way of his power grab. The truth is that all members of Congress are hearing from their constituents and they do not want this plan. An increasing majority of Americans do not want any type of government run health care plan and they are expressing their displeasure over this proposal. Politicians, from both parties, are all generally the same. They all are worried about their next election. When public outcry reaches a point where the politicians realize their political career is on the line, they tend to take notice.

The Senate has postponed any vote on Health Care Reform until at least September and the House will more than likely follow suit. The administration’s push to pass the enormous measure while we are already operating under historic deficits is ludicrous. They are working under the assumption that, “It is better to beg for forgiveness, than to ask for permission.” They believe that we will forgive them for further destroying our economy and our country. They need to realize that if they act with that philosophy within their marriages, they will soon find themselves in Divorce Court. The same holds true for the political realm, if they follow through with this unconstitutional eroding of our personal freedoms, they will soon find themselves as unemployed politicians.

The House Passes H.R. 2454, The Economic Destruction Act Of 2009

2009-06-26T21:17:00.001-04:00

Today the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The mammoth bill consisted of more than 1500 pages and would be more aptly named the Hamstring the American Economy Act. The bill will now head to the Senate for their take on the issue, where I cannot help but wonder if the Senators will actually read the bill before reading it unlike their counterparts in the House.

President Obama and the Democratic House leadership claimed that this bill was a “jobs” bill. Their claim is based on the premise that the legislation will create green jobs and will help the economy. The dirty little secret is that the cost of the bill to the American taxpayers will be astronomical. Everyone will pay more for their energy consumption. This may not appear to be that big of an issue for the millionaire bureaucrats in Washington or the hypocrite Al Gore, but for those citizens who already struggle to pay their energy bills on a monthly basis, it will be a major problem. Over the next 25 years electricity rates will increase an estimated 90%, gasoline prices will increase an estimated 58%, natural gas rates will increase an estimated 55%, add an additional $28,728 per person in the U.S. to the national debt, and reduce the gross domestic product by $9.4 trillion

As for the jobs that they are claiming that will be created, we only have to look to Spain to foresee the outcomes of the very same policies. In Spain the unemployment rate is at 18% and for every green job created 2.2 jobs are lost. The cost of creating the green jobs is a bargain as well, a mere $774,000 per green job “created”. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at King Juan Carlos University who authored a report on Spain’s green jobs initiatives said, “The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices”. Several U.S companies have already stated that it will be cheaper for them to move their entire operations out of the U.S. than to stay and pay the stifling taxes and penalties for doing business in the Obama led United States.

What I find most amazing about this legislation is the unmitigated gall of the President concerning its inevitable outcome. During his campaign, before the he became the media-anointed messiah of all people, the President said that his clean energy proposal would bankrupt the coal industry. This may not seem to be that big of a deal for most of my “green” readers, but the U.S. depends on coal to supply roughly 50% of our energy. Now how will we supply energy without coal? We could use nuclear power; you remember the cheap, reliable energy source that the President favors for Iran. The only problem is that the very same people who are trying to hamper our economy with this legislation are also the same hypocritical bureaucrats that have prevented any new nuclear power plants from being built in the past 30 years.

While the concept of wind and solar energy providing all of our energy needs is a laudable one, the simple fact remains that the technology does not exist today to make these economically viable. Provide funding for research if you want, but do not punish the American people and our economy for the sake of flawed science. As the Senate takes up this legislation, we can only hope that the Senators will put aside their party loyalty and actually vote to protect the American economy and our pocketbooks. I realize that this may be too much to ask for many of the lifelong politicians, but can’t we at least expect them to read the bill before they vote on it? After all, the author of the bill in the House, Henry Waxman, admitted that he had not read the bill and did not know all of the details of the bill. He was content to rely on the scientists that wrote the bill. I suppose the only ones that will be laughing and cheering about this legislation in the years to come will be China, India, and the rest of the world who will reap the economic rewards for the folly of our elected officials.

New Hate Crimes Legislation Poised To Muzzle Your Pastor

2009-06-19T21:59:00.001-04:00

According to the United States Department of Justice, a “Hate Crime” is “the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability. The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful.” I have always been one who questions the need for “Hate Crimes” legislation. Before I am called everything from an insensitive bigot to my personal favorite, a reich-wing hate-monger, I am not saying that there is no racism or hate in our country. There are clearly ignorant, hateful people in our world that will commit some very heinous acts in the name of hate. My difficulty with “Hate Crimes” legislation is that it seems redundant. How do you punish the killers of James Bird, who was dragged to his death behind a truck, when two of his killers were executed and the third received life in prison? There are already laws on the books regarding murder, assault, and every other crime that could be considered a “Hate Crime”.

Over the past two and a half years since Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid assumed control of Congress, they have tried in vain to pass a new “Hate Crime” bill that would include sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity to the list of protected people. The Democratic leaders attempted to conceal the “Hate Crimes” legislation in a critical Defense spending bill in 2007. They later removed the measure from the Defense bill. Bush had vetoed the bill during his Presidency citing the constitutionality of the proposal. He believed that the existing laws on the books in the individual states were more than adequate and that any measure by the Federal Government would be overstepping their constitutional boundaries. Of course, the current administration believes that our constitution is “fundamentally flawed”.

Conservative groups have longed questioned the reach of such legislation. The main concern is how the law would be prosecuted. Would a pastor be charged with a “hate crime” for preaching in his church that homosexuality is a sin and that the Bible clearly says as much? What other types of speech would be limited next? Would it then be a crime to criticize the President or his policies? Of course the news media is already terrified of criticizing anything that the media anointed messiah says or does. After all, ABC News is turning over all of their prime time airtime on Wednesday to President Obama to pitch his socialist dream of health care to the American people without any opposing viewpoint. Another concern is that the new law will rescind the “Federal activity” clause of the current law. The existing law requires that the offense take place during a “Federal activity” such as at a school, but the new proposal will strip that requirement from the law, thus opening the door for a broad range of interpretations of what constitutes a “hate crime”.

It remains to be seen what the Senate will do when the measure comes up for a vote, but past history has shown that this Congress is at ease with trampling states rights and the constitution. Senator Harry Reid and President Obama need to realize that redundant laws with the aim of making headlines do not solve racial tensions. This law will only serve to try to muzzle free speech rights of Christian organizations with the end goal of either shutting down churches who preach the Bible. I do find it amazing that those who want to limit the free speech and the freedom of religion of Bible believing churches, applauded the racist comments of Obama’s own pastor Jeremiah Wright.

Will Obama Say Anything To Distract From His Disastrous Domestic Policies?

2009-06-04T16:49:00.001-04:00

President Barack Hussein Obama, formerly known as candidate Barack Obama, has proven once again that his own Vice President, Joe “which government secret should I reveal this week” Biden was correct when he said that the President of the United States is not a position in which you can learn foreign policy with on the job training. Biden chided Obama during the Presidential primaries for his extreme lack of foreign policy experience or even the vaguest idea of what foreign policy entailed. You may recall that Obama tried to separate himself from the pack of Presidential aspirants by promising to negotiate with Iran without any preconditions. He then quickly revised his foolish statements by saying that a nuclear Iran was unacceptable to him. Either the President has a very short memory or this is just another example of his desire to be all things to all people.

The Obama administration was hailed during the campaign and after the election as an administration that would regain the respect of the world. Over the past few weeks, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made a trip to China to reassure the Chinese that the investment in our skyrocketing debt was a safe investment. His speech before Econ students at a Chinese University was met with disbelieving laughter. How could anyone believe the Treasury Secretary when he tells them that the dollar is strong and will continue to be a safe investment, when the administration he works for and the Congress have shown no signs of reigning in spending? Or shown any signs that they have the slightest inclination to allow the free market to work through the problems that governmental interference have caused? Even Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez sees that the current policies of the Obama administration have clearly positioned Obama to the left of Chavez.

Maybe it is the 9.2% unemployment rate that has caused the President to make some outrageous statements over the past week while traveling abroad. How else can anyone explain why President Obama would claim that the Muslim population in the United States would make our country one of the largest Muslim nations in the world? A Pew Research poll puts the Muslim population in the United States at about 1.8million, which would make the U.S. barely in the top 50 of Muslim nations if we counted just the people who identify themselves as Muslim.

Maybe it is the soaring national debt, or his government takeover of the banking industry, the mortgage industry, and the auto industry, or his plans to nationalize our healthcare system that caused him to say that Iran has a legitimate claim to their nuclear aspirations. I realize many of his cult-like followers will claim that he was talking about their plans for nuclear power, but how can you disregard Ahmedinejad’s claims of having more than 7000 centrifuges for nuclear missiles? Do we ignore the Iranian leader’s claims that they will wipe Israel off the map in a matter of days, if they are provoked? Does anyone believe that Iran will not try to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons if they have them?

Iran knows that the U.S. is nothing more than flowery, but empty rhetoric condemning their actions against Israel. After all, North Korea has totally ignored all of warnings coming from Washington. Iran has also turned a deaf ear to the laughable condemnations from the U.N. and the U.S.. Why should they be concerned about any action from the impotent U.N. or the U.S.? Obama said as much in his speech in Cairo when he delivered yet another apology for the war in Iraq. He claimed that we had learned that taking action without broad international support was a mistake. Don’t we teach our children that they need to do the right thing no matter what their friends are doing or might say? I suppose that may be a lesson that is not taught in the school of appeasement and apology. I am still waiting for the President to apologize to Great Britain for our unlawful war in 1776.

Is There Any Backbone Left In DC

2009-05-27T21:04:00.000-04:00

On Election Day, Barack Obama and the Democrats won control of Washington DC. Since the inauguration of Barack Obama, the President and the Democrat controlled Congress have set forth legislation that actually delivers on a campaign promise. They promised to change the country, and they are well on their way to accomplishing that feat. The problem, of course, is that the change will remake the United States into a country that is far from what our founders had intended. The Republicans in Washington DC and the party leadership seem to be more concerned about offering a “lite” version of the disastrous policies of the left. They appear to be more focused on not angering their political opponents or the media, than actually offering true conservative alternatives.

The current political season is ripe with opportunity for a strong, truly conservative leader to point out the lies and fallacy of the Democratic agenda. The massive stimulus bill was just the beginning and the Republicans in the House did unite against that bill, as well as the majority of the Senate Republicans, but merely voting against the earmark laden stimulus bill is only half the battle. What happened to educating the voting public about why you are against the historic demolition of our economy? Then there was the bank bailouts, the Chrysler and GM debacle, numerous appointees that were incapable of paying their taxes, Obama’s magical apology tour of the world, Iran’s and North Korea’s defiance of Obama and the world, the monstrosity that will be universal/socialist healthcare, and now even his pick for the Supreme Court. All of these are sitting ducks for a conservative response from the Republican leadership.

Instead, what we have seen is attitudes of appeasement settle over the leadership. There have been a few bright spots of conservative Congressman standing up and fighting, but from the elites of the party we are told we need to be a “Big Tent” party. Colin Powell, who has voted for more Democrats in Presidential elections than Republicans, lectures the party that we need to be more moderate and inclusive. Isn’t that what he got in the last election with John “Amnesty” McCain? The same group of elitist Republicans is now preaching that we cannot oppose Sonia Sotomayor because we will be seen as anti-Hispanic because of her Puerto Rican heritage. First of all, were the Democrats seen as anti-Hispanic for their opposition to Miguel Estrada? Secondly, the Republicans received very little of the Hispanic vote last year, why would anyone believe that if we support Sotomayor for the Supreme Court that the numbers would change? Sotomayor is an easy target for criticism based solely on her judicial philosophy. She is on record stating that it is the role of the court to make policy. She is on record stating that she believes that a “woman of color” would more often make better judicial decisions that a white man. Her judicial decisions have been overturned 60% by the very court to which she has been nominated. I believe it is telling that her supporters are touting her inspiring life story as a great reason to confirm her, but yet the very same people were vehemently opposed to Justice Thomas whose story is equally compelling. A supreme Court Justice should be considered based on their record of opinions and their judicial philosophy, not whether their life story would make for a great Lifetime movie of the week.

I don’t expect that the Republicans to be able to stop all of the Marxist plans for our country, but they have an excellent opportunity to stand up voice their opposition and educate the American people on why these plans are bad for our country. Ronald Reagan was able to push his tax cuts through a Democrat controlled Congress, with a hostile media covering the news, and no Internet to aid in the dissemination of the facts. The Republican leadership needs to wake up and realize that the Tea Parties on April 15 were just as much a protest of their lack of leadership as it was a protest of Obama’s spending spree in Washington.

Pelosi Changes Her Story Yet Again On Torture

2009-05-14T21:04:00.001-04:00

For the past several weeks, the media and the Democratic leadership in Congress have screamed and yelled about the enhanced interrogation techniques employed after the September 11 attacks. These techniques have been attributed to saving lives by their proponents, and have been condemned as torture by their opponents. Probably the most out-spoken opponent of the EIT’s in the past few weeks has been House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Ms. Pelosi initially feigned outrage at the news that techniques, such as “waterboarding”, had been used against the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. She claimed that she did not know that these techniques were even being considered. Then the reports came out about numerous congressional briefings by the CIA, to which Pelosi responded that they never told her about any techniques. As more staffers, congressman, and CIA reports came out, Pelosi proceeded to change her story as quickly as Arlen Specter changers political affiliations.

At one point, she claimed that she did know about the interrogations but did not object at the time because she wanted to follow the “legislative process”. As the heat continued to increase, she decided to try to claim that the CIA lied to her and the rest of Congress. She now claims that the CIA deliberately misled her and Congress by withholding the information about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. She sounds like a child caught in a lie, and instead of owning up to the truth when questioned, she continually piles lies upon lies.

With Pelosi flailing about with her myriad of stories of what she knew and when she knew it, the Democrats were having a bad enough week on national security, but then just before the 40 some pictures of the “torture” of detainees were to be released, President Obama reversed course and decided not to release them. I applaud Obama for not releasing the pictures. The only purpose it would serve would be to incite our enemies. For the record, I am not saying I am opposed to the use of EIT’s, but you can guarantee that Al Qaeda would propagandize the pictures and use them against us. Another surprising twist arose this week when the Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama administration is considering leaving the Bush administration policy of detaining enemy combatants indefinitely intact. Can you hear the screeching from MoveOn.org?

The fate of Speaker Pelosi is still unknown, but I do believe that if she continues down this self-destructive path she will be forever politically damaged and her days as Speaker will be numbered. As for the Obama administration’s national security policy, it will be very interesting how they proceed. The calls for a defined Afghanistan policy have begun from they typical cast of characters, led by PA Representative John Murtha. Will Obama be able to hold his party’s anti-war elements in line? Will Obama choose to appease his rabid anti-war followers or choose a competent national security policy? I pray, for the sake of our country and all of our safety, that he chooses the latter.

Who Is Watching How Our Money Is Spent?

2009-05-07T22:12:00.001-04:00

Back in February, after President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus bill, we were told no to worry about massive fraud and waste because they government was going to closely monitor where the money was going. Vice President Joe Biden even went out and threatened the local and state government officials that if they spent the stimulus money unwisely, he would personally go out and name names of the wasteful spenders. We were assured that the government would set up a website so that we could check for ourselves where the money was going. Shockingly, the truth is that the government has no clue as to where the money is going and the elected representatives who signed the check don’t seem to care.

This week the House subcommittee tasked with oversight of the massive amounts of money hemorrhaging from the Treasury Department, held a hearing to get an update on the progress of the website and other tracking methods. The chairman of the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board, Earl Devaney, told the panel that the website is not ready and probably will not be ready until maybe next year. One would think that this news would raise some eyebrows of the Congressman on the panel, but unfortunately the most of the members decide dthat it was not important to even show up for the hearing. Of the 10 members only 3 showed up in the beginning, with 1 other member showing up late. I suppose that this should not be surprising, especially when you consider that no one in either chamber of Congress actually read the “stimulus” bill before voting on it.

At least we can count on the President to follow through on his promise of going through the federal budget line by line to find areas to cut the spending. This week the President did come out and announce his proposed budget cuts from his $3.55 trillion budget. He plans to make more than 100 cuts in his budget that will save the taxpayers $17 billion. To put it in perspective, if the federal budget were just $355, the President’s cuts would equate to $0.17. How excited would you be if you were buying a new TV and the salesman told you that he could save you 17 cents? Obama’s proposed budget cuts out of his budget amount to less than .5% of his total budget proposal. Do you feel that the government is effectively watching out for your hard earned money?

With a Federal budget deficit forecasted to be more than $9 trillion by the Congressional Budget Office over the next decade when can we expect the President’s promise of fiscal responsibility to be fulfilled? I suppose we could just hope that Congress and the President will change the drunken sailor spending habits. Then again, didn’t thousands of people show up in cities across the country to protest the ludicrous spending and overbearing taxation? Maybe elected officials will take notice of the groundswell of discontent over the tax and spend policies of the current administration. I believe members of both parties need to wake up and see the disastrous future they are preparing for our children. Otherwise they will all find themselves out of work in 2010.

Apparently I Am A Bigger Threat Than Al Qaeda

2009-04-23T20:35:00.000-04:00

President Barack Obama is apparently unable to make a decision and stand by it. Last Thursday the President promised that no officials from the Bush administration would be prosecuted for the practice of enhanced interrogations. Just a few short days later; he reopened the door to prosecuting officials who wrote memos detailing the legality of enhanced interrogations. What could have caused the President to so quickly change his mind? Of course, he created a political fall guy if the public outcry against any prosecution is too great. He firmly planted the Attorney General, Eric Holder, in the political line of fire.

The legal questions surrounding enhanced interrogations gained attention last week when the Obama administration declassified CIA memos detailing which methods could be legally defended. The various methods included the now infamous water boarding, but also included such methods as a facial grab, facial slap with an open hand, serving the terrorists a bland, but nutritious diet, and threatening to place a terrorist in a confined space with a caterpillar.

These methods have been called torture by some, but have been called highly valuable by Clinton appointee George Tenet. Tenet said during a 60 minutes interview that he knew that these methods provided valuable information that allowed law enforcement officials to prevent a 9/11-style attack in Los Angeles. In fact, the Bush administration briefed members of Congress on the techniques used during interrogations in 2002. Of course, the hypocritical congressional leaders created a stampede to get in front of the cameras to feign their outrage about such practices when they became public knowledge.

Now that it is public knowledge, what have we lost in terms of national security? Now that the murderous terrorists know what methods we use and now will not use, how can anyone expect the CIA or military to be able to effectively interrogate the captured terrorists? All that they are authorized to use now for interrogations is the Army Field Manual, which will not allow such harsh tactics as insults or name calling. I guess all that is left is to serve them Prime Rib without a proper salad beforehand.

The Obama administration has taken a stance that seems to indicate that what other countries think about us is more important than preventing another terrorist attack on our country. They are more afraid of “right wing extremists” than they are of a terrorist attack from Al Qaeda.

The Department of Homeland Security has added that dangerous group of people, known as conservatives, to their watch list. Apparently they believe that if you are Pro-life, support the second amendment, oppose government expansion and regulation of every aspect of our lives, want our borders secured, oppose higher taxes that stifle economy, any combination of the above, or the worst kind of hate monger, a veteran, then you are a risk to Homeland Security.
The investigation into the enhanced interrogations will take years and will probably include a few indictments of lawyers who wrote the memos, but it will do nothing to prevent another terrorist attack and I guarantee it will not quell the desire on the left to see Cheney and Bush brought up on charges. Cheney and Bush will not be charged simply because, although this investigation has no merit from the beginning, Obama does not want to open the door on any future investigations into anything he does while in office.

What Significance Does Easter Hold?

2009-04-10T23:53:00.000-04:00

This week holds varying degrees of significance for a wide variety of people. For some, Easter is nothing more than a typical Sunday where they sleep in and dread going back to work on Monday morning. For others Easter represents one of the two Sundays throughout the year that they go to church. For some with school age children, Easter is the time that the children are on spring break and it is time for the annual family trip to the beach. There are others of us, that the entire week preceding Easter possesses a deeply spiritual meaning.

As a Christian, I believe that the Biblical account of the week from Palm Sunday through Easter Sunday is a true account. I believe that Jesus entered Jerusalem on the back of donkey as the people laid own palm branches and their coats in front of Him. Jesus entered triumphantly on Sunday, but by Friday evening He had been crucified. He had been executed in a horrific display of human anguish, not for His own crimes against humanity, but for all of our crimes against God.

The life and death of Jesus Christ were a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy of the coming Messiah. He came, not to deliver Israel from the clutches of their Roman rulers, but to deliver all mankind from an eternity separated from their Creator in hell. Jesus willingly accepted the torture and barbaric crucifixion so that we may receive eternal life.

He died knowing that not everyone would believe or follow Him. He died knowing that people throughout history would ridicule and mock his name and his followers. He died knowing that 2000 years later many in the world would still reject him. He died knowing that I would fail in my Christian faith time and time again. He died knowing that I would compromise my morals for mere moments of instant gratification. He died so that I could turn my life around and follow Him. He died so that I may live. He died simply because He loved me and every other human being on the face of the earth enough to take our place. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13

He died on that cross so that I may live. If the story ended there with His body being pulled down from the cross and placed in a tomb, then his death would have been just another story of an innocent man being executed. Thank God that the story did not end on Friday. Thank God Sunday came. For on Sunday, Jesus Christ rose from the dead. His resurrection is significant because it was the proof that Jesus Christ was truly the Son of God. It showed that death held no power over Him and as such holds no power over Christians. This does not mean that we will live forever in a typical human understanding; it means that we will live eternally with our Father in heaven.

This Easter it is my hope, no my prayer that you truly understand the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross for you and I. I pray that you realize that it does not matter what you have done in the past or that you will fail again in the future. Jesus died for you so that you can repent of your sins and experience the love and grace of God. I pray that you do believe, but I also realize that not everyone will believe. I do not hold any ill will towards anyone who does not believe, it is your decision to make. I pray each and every one of you have a very Happy Easter.
Sundays-Comin

Is Obama Leading Us Into Socialism?

2009-04-02T22:48:00.000-04:00

I have taken a bit of criticism over the past few weeks because I have defined President Obama’s proposals as socialist. In the interest of fairness, I have decided to explore socialism and it’s definition to see how closely aligned Obama’s proposals are to socialism.

To begin we must first define socialism. According to Yahoo, socialism is defined in one of two ways. First it is “any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.” It is also defined as “the stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.”

I am tempted to just end this article now because I believe that those 2 definitions sum up what the Obama administration has proposed in just their first few weeks in office, but what would be the fun in that? Let’s take a look at some of the proposals to come out of Washington since January 20 and see if they fit the socialist mold. One last note before my liberal minded friends begin the catcalls about Bush, Bush definitely started the socialist ball rolling with his own meddling in the free markets, but he is gone now and we are dealing with this President and his socialist agenda.

The automotive industry bailout, while passed during Bush’s last days, has shown some true socialist tendencies. Since the bailout, the White House has fired the CEO of General Motors and the new CEO has been given notice of what the administration expects him to do. The White House insists that they do not want to run the auto industry, but yet they have fired the CEO of GM and they are demanding that the auto industry manufacture the least profitable models. A report has come out of GM showing that the most profitable models that they manufacture and sell are Sport Utility Vehicles and trucks, but yet they are being told to come up with a plan to manufacture more hybrids and electric vehicles. Shouldn’t the free market decide which vehicles it wants the auto makes to manufacture?

President Obama recently made a terrifying statement, at least to anyone that was paying attention. He stated that they will change the laws to allow the government to “seize control” of troubled companies and sell of their “toxic assets” to other companies to save the financial markets. Exactly how would the omniscient government decide which companies to seize? What right does the government have to swoop in and seize control of a company that a private citizen has built? What constitutes a troubled company?

The last proposal that I want to analyze is his proposal for reforming health care. He has proposed universal health care for all Americans. The argument is that there are too many uninsured Americans and because they are uninsured, they are not receiving proper medical treatment. First of all, it is illegal for a hospital to turn away a patient in need of medical care. If you do not have insurance and you are involved in a car accident, do you really believe that the ambulance will not deliver you to an emergency room for medical treatment? Secondly, why does anyone believe that the same inefficient government who runs the Social Security Administration will do a better job with you health care? Does anyone love going to stand in line at a government institution? When was the last time that you were pleased at the service you received when you called the IRS? The same government that was so upset with the AIG bailouts, even though they specifically approved them in the stimulus bill that they never read, you want to decide whether or not you deserve cancer treatment after the age of 65?

Socialism has been tried around the world and it continually fails to deliver on its promises of equality. Mark J. Perry, of the Foundation for Economic Education has cited what he believes to be the fatal flaw of socialism. He says, “It is a system that ignores incentives.” Margaret Thatcher once quipped that the result of Britain’s socialist agenda was they eventually “run out of other people’s money.” Winston Churchill saw the differences between Capitalism and Socialism this way, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.” At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, Ben Franklin is reported to have responded to the question of what type of government do we have, with “A Republic, if you can keep it.” It has taken more than 200 years of politicians slowly chipping away at our freedoms to get to this point, but I think we can safely say that we are now on the verge of losing the Republic in favor of Socialism.

Hypocrisy, Is It The New Kool Aid Flavor?

2009-03-26T15:40:00.001-04:00

Over the past few weeks I have focused on the hypocrisy of President Obama and the rest of the political class in Washington DC. After reading the responses I have come to an interesting conclusion. There is just as much hypocrisy among his breathless devotees. Before I begin to detail the duplicity of those experiencing chills running up their legs, allow me to explain that not all of those who support the President’s socialistic agenda are hypocrites. There are some that support Obama and his misguided policies because they truly believe that socialism, for the first time in human history, will actually work. There are others, those of which I am referring to as hypocrites, which were vehemently opposed to various policies under the Bush administration, but are jumping to their feet to applaud the very same policies under an Obama administration.

During the summer of 2007, President Bush and members of both political parties were pushing for “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” that would grant amnesty to more than 12 million illegal aliens. The public outcry against the ill-conceived legislation was swift and fierce. Congress quickly folded under the public pressure and defeated the measure. The opposition to the amnesty bill was made up of conservatives, liberals, and moderates. Last week President Obama spoke of the need for immigration reform that would again grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Yet the silence from the Kool Aid drinking followers of the President was deafening. Why would someone oppose amnesty when proposed by Bush but yet support it when proposed by Obama?

During the 8 years of the Bush presidency, the screams against deficit spending came again from both conservatives and liberals alike. Conservatives railed against foolish legislation that added to the deficit spending. We opposed the expensive Medicare Prescription Drug plan because of the outrageous cost of the measure. We opposed the reluctance of Bush to veto any spending measure sent to his desk from Congress. Now that President Obama is in office, the some of the same people screaming at Bush’s deficit spending are strangely silent about President Obama’s budget plans that will increase the federal deficit by 4 times to $9.3 trillion. Why is it evil when Bush spends more than the government collects in tax revenue, but it is perfectly fine when Obama quadruples the deficit spending in his first 8 weeks in office?

When the news reports came out about the problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the outrage at Bush was immense. The anger was aimed at Bush because of the treatment of our country’s bravest men and women. President Obama even campaigned on better treatment for our veterans. Unfortunately this was yet another campaign pledge that was nothing more than empty campaign rhetoric. Last week the leaders of the American Legion reported on the President’s proposal to force the private insurance companies of combat injured veterans to pay for the medical costs associated with treating their combat related injuries. Again there was no cry from the swaying masses of the Obama acolytes. Why would they not care about the treatment of veterans by the Obama administration?

The answer to the above questions is obvious to anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty, hypocrisy. If you have the courage of your convictions, it will not matter who is proposing a policy. If the policy is at odds with your core beliefs then you will oppose it regardless of which political party is proposing it. I have been accused of being blinded by my partisanship, but if you read anything I wrote over the last year it would become obvious that my conservatism has remained steady. If a Republican, such as Bush, proposed something with which I disagreed, I voiced my opposition. On the same token, when Obama has said or done something with which I have agreed, I voiced my support. The only question that I have for those incapable of being honest with themselves is what flavor is the Obama Kool Aid?

Hypocrisy Reigns Supreme In Washington DC

2009-03-19T21:49:00.001-04:00

In September of 2008, the Federal government orchestrated an $85 billion bailout of the insurance company American International Group, better known as AIG. The move was part of an effort to shore up the faltering financial sector. At the time, conservatives blasted the bailout as an expensive, foolish, and meddling experiment to “fix” the economy. Now that 6 months have passed since the initial round of bailouts, we can plainly see the folly of such an experiment. To make matters worse, AIG has just paid out millions in bonuses to many of their executives. This obviously touched off a flurry of hearings and press conferences in Washington D.C. to enable the politicians to feign their moral outrage over the payment of bonuses.

The news out of DC this week has been a constant drumbeat of anger, and calls for the names of the executives to be made public. The House has even voted to tax the bonuses at an outrageous rate of 90%. As a side note, does anyone honestly believe that Congress will stop at the selective bonuses of these executives? When does Congress ever abolish a tax? They more often than not simply expand the tax to include more taxpayers. When Congressman Barney Frank pompously pontificated about his desire to make the names of those receiving bonuses public, AIG CEO Ed Liddy responded by cautioning Frank about the danger of publicizing the names. He then read a couple of recorded death threats aimed at the executives of AIG, to which the “omniscient” Frank replied that he would take it under advisement. Sadly, for Frank and many other politicians, the visions of headlines cloud the very real possibility of bodily injury to the executives.

The hypocrisy of the politicians reigns supreme in Washington. Last month, the “stimulus” bill was pushed through Congress without any chance for real debate. It was rushed through so hurriedly, that the majority of Congress did not even have the chance to read it. Maybe if they had read the bill, they would have noticed a small addition to the bill that stated that any contractual bonuses that were promised before February 11 of this year, would be allowed to be paid out. Who added this tiny amendment to the bill? Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut was the author of the amendment. Please allow another side not here as well. The 2 top recipients of campaign donations from AIG last year were Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama. Dodd admitted that he had added the amendment to the bill, but that an administration official had applied pressure to ensure that it did get added to the final version of the bill. So Congress passes a bill that specifically allows these bonuses to be paid, and then when it becomes public knowledge that the bonuses are being paid, the same congressman arrogantly declare their moral outrage.

The White House was questioned about how could they allow these bonuses to be paid out. Their response was that the Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, had only learned of the bonuses last week and was working to prevent them from being paid. The truth is that Geithner had known for at least 2 weeks, and AIG had been working with Federal officials for at least the past 3 months on these very same bonuses. Either the Federal government does not pass along information to the Treasury Secretary, or they knew about it and waited for it become public knowledge to milk every last ounce of political capital out of the outrage that they created.

President Obama was elected on a platform of hope and change. He swept into office with the promise to reform Washington and to work on a bipartisan basis to save the economy. This “crisis” was a manufactured crisis to allow the government to feign their surprise and anger to snatch more of our freedom away from us. One other piece of news released this week that has gotten little to no coverage was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are poised to pay out their own share of bonuses to their top executives. Will Congress and the White House put on just as big of a show for these 2 government-controlled agencies? If the past 6 weeks have shown us anything, they have shown us that the mantra of “Hope and Change” should be changed to “Hypocrisy and Cronyism”.

Obama's Hypocrisy On Earmarks

2009-03-13T22:55:00.001-04:00

During his Presidential campaign, President Barack Obama promised to end the era of earmarks in Washington. Sadly for the American taxpayer, his promise has turned out to be nothing more than empty campaign rhetoric.

After Congress passed the $787 billion “stimulus” bill, President Obama stood before a joint session of Congress and proclaimed, “I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.” Either Obama suffers from short-term memory loss or his understanding of what constitutes an earmark is severely warped.

One of the many spending measures in the “stimulus” bill was $1 billion measure for one specific “zero emissions power plant” in the former Senator’s home state of Illinois. The same power plant was removed from a program last year because after years of government funding it had produced no results. After several years of trying to capture carbon emissions and turn them into liquid to return to the earth, and $1.8 billion, they were unable to show any progress. Instead of spending taxpayer money on a project that might actually stimulate the economy, Congress and the President saw fit to waste approximately 1/18th of the amount spent on all earmarks last year on a proven failure.

Next came the $400+ billion Omnibus spending measure that was pushed through Congress last week. This bill contained more than 8000 separate earmarks from members of both political parties. President Obama tried to deflect the criticism by saying that this bill was actually drawn up before he was inaugurated. The truth is that it was written back in December before Obama became the current resident of the Oval Office, but a deeper look shows that Obama is far from innocent on the earmark case in this bill. The former Senator had submitted his own earmarks that were included in the Omnibus.

For my readers who are intellectually challenged, the timeline is as follows: Obama campaigns on ending earmarks, he gets elected in November, in December the Omnibus bill is written including his earmarks, he becomes President and signs the “stimulus” bill and the Omnibus spending bill, he then proclaims his pride that they were able to pass the recovery measure without any earmarks.

After the political fallout started to become clear to the White House, the President claimed that they would be fiscally responsible in the future. He went on to say that they would make it clear who had requested the earmark and where the money would go. With his stellar record of the truth on earmarks, I suppose we are expected to take him at his word. After his drunken spending spree is completed, all we will have left is his word. Maybe I am just cynical, but that doesn’t give me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.

Rookie Mistakes By An Inexperienced Politician

2009-03-05T23:13:00.000-05:00

As I begin to write this week’s article, I can already hear the cacophonous cries from my left leaning friends that we just need to give the new President a chance, a chance for his policies to work, a chance for him to show the world how he will lead. After all, he has only been in office about 45 days. How could we possibly know what direction he will take our country?

If we look at what he has accomplished over the past 45 days it provides part of the picture. He has pushed through an earmark laden $800 billion “stimulus” package, all the while claiming that there were no earmarks in the bill. He has nominated several tax cheats to high-level cabinet positions, including the current Treasury Secretary. His administration has attacked members of the media who have questioned his policies. They have thrown money at virtually every area of government with the promise that this will fix the economy, while claiming that they will control spending.

If we examine what he has proposed the picture becomes a bit clearer. He has proposed the largest increase in spending in the form of a federal budget at the cost of $4 trillion. He is proposing a government take over of the health care system. He is proposing drastic cuts in funding for our military and the research programs that help keep them alive. He has proposed to end the development of any type of missile defense system to prod Russia into working to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions; after all, Vladimir Putin is exuding honor and trust.

Finally an inspection of the results of his accomplishments and proposals will bring the entire picture into focus. The President has said that he does not pay any attention to the “gyrations” of the stock market. His belief is that it is akin to a daily tracking poll. If that is the case, a drop of more than 33% since the election should show weakening confidence in his administration’s ability to lead us out of this recession. I know he has only been in office since January, but investors are not going to invest in the stock market if they are not confident that the government will stay out of the way of the private sector. Every company that the government has “bailed” out is doing worse now than before the government opened their coffers to “help”. Citibank, GM, and AIG, to name but a few, have all seen a continual slide since the government stepped in to help. Obama and his team believe that we need to continue down the same failed road.

In the past 45 days, Obama has shown his true liberal colors in the form of spending like a drunken sailor on a 24-hour shore liberty. Along the way he has even managed to disrespect our closest ally. When a foreign leader visits the White House for the first time after a new President is inaugurated, the 2 leaders exchange gifts that portray a mutual respect. When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited the White House, he brought with him a first edition biography of Winston Churchill and a penholder made from the timbers of the HMS Resolute, the same timbers from which the desk in the Oval Office was made. Obama’s gift to Brown was a set of 25 DVD’s of Classic movies. This is on top of returning a bust of Winston Churchill that was presented to President Bush by the British government after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

It has been a fast and furious 6 weeks since the transition of power took place and the pace at which the new administration has spent taxpayer money and destroyed wealth has taken many by surprise. Now that the true socialist colors have been shown, many of his one-time supporters are starting to protest. The question is, will there be any economy to turn around by the time the full effect of the failure of his policies is known?

President Obama, The $4 Trillion Man

2009-02-28T09:13:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week, President Obama addressed both chambers of Congress to discuss the economy and his plans for the coming years of his administration. During his speech and throughout his campaign, the President promised to end the era of earmarks and deficit spending. He went as far to promise to go line by line through any spending measure and publicize all earmark spending and which congressman had requested it. Just one month into his administration, we have seen massive pork barrel spending and non-stop “the sky is falling” rhetoric.

The ink from President Obama’s pen had not had time to dry on the $800 billion “stimulus” bill, before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed through another $400 billion spending bill. The newest spending bill from Congress contains more than 8000 earmarks. This is on top of the countless earmarks in the “stimulus” bill. The new administration and Congress have signed on to spend more than $1.2 trillion in the first 30 days since the Inauguration. To put that into perspective, that is more than half of the federal budget for 2004, or almost half of what the federal government received in tax revenue for all of 2008. We are more than $1.2 trillion more in debt and we are not even into March yet. Of course, Obama’s breathless supporters in the media would tell us to wait until his budget comes out to see where he has made the cuts to pay for the massive deficit spending, but his budget calls for a more than $1 trillion increase in spending over this years’ budget.

The President has released his budget proposal and it totals over $4 trillion, with about $1.75 trillion in projected deficit spending. This is the largest increase in federal spending in our history. In 2008 the federal budget was a paltry, by comparison, $2.978 trillion with total revenue received at $2.523 trillion. That budget had about $450 billion in deficit spending, but to jump to $1.75 trillion in deficit spending and then claim that you are going to control spending is laughable.

The $4,000,000,000,000.00 budget includes tax increases for those making more than $250,000. My friends in the class envy camp applaud this notion of taxing the rich, but they fail to see that a majority of small businesses will now see tax increases. Allow me to ask one simple question. How will your life improve if some nameless “rich” person is taxed more? The Bill Gates and George Soros’ of the world will not pay any more in taxes; they will simply shift their money around to avoid the taxes. The small business owners are the ones that will bear the brunt of the tax increase. After this plan fails to raise the revenue that the “experts” in Washington project, they will be forced to either raise taxes on the rest of us, after all it is the patriotic thing to do, or hopefully they will see the error of their ways and cut taxes across the board. This budget is equivalent to $11,833 for every American.

President Obama was elected on a platform of hope and change; the first indicators of his administration definition of that campaign slogan are beginning to become clear. They are desperately hoping that the voting public will not notice that the change is the unprecedented spending and power grab in Washington. I believe that the voting public is very aware of what affects their wallets and they have a very long memory when it comes to their own financial well being.

Pelosi Returns From The Vatican Wood Shed

2009-02-19T22:48:00.000-05:00

Last August, at the height of the political season, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made the following statement regarding abortion. “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.” Ms. Pelosi went on to say that she understood that her opinion was at odds with what the Catholic Church teaches, but that she felt her opinion was correct because the church had changed their view over the years.

Immediately following the statements by Pelosi, several leaders of the Catholic Church in the United States issued their rebuttal to the Speaker’s assertions. "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable." (Catechism, 2270-2271)

I can hear some of your complaints already; this is old news from last summer. The reason this is news again now because the Speaker has just visited the Vatican and met with Pope Benedict XVI. This papal visit was starkly different than any other visit with dignitaries. There were no pictures taken, and the comments released by the Vatican were short and to the point. The Vatican issued the following statement, “His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.”

Of course, Ms. Pelosi made no mention of the Pope’s comments on the sanctity of life. I believe that she expected the Pope to have ignored her drastic misrepresentations of the Catholic Church’s teaching. She was undoubtedly hoping for a photo opportunity with the Pope so she could gain political capital at home. She surely did not expect to be taken to the wood shed for a quick lesson in the history and beliefs of the Catholic Church. The question moving forward for Pelosi, and all professing Catholic politicians, how does the Pope’s statement affect their political stand on abortion? Will the priests and bishops here in the United States continue to serve Holy Communion to politicians who are consistently at odds with Catholic teaching? My prediction is that the Pope’s statements will have zero effect on the abortion stance of Pelosi and other politicians. After all, for some political power is the most important thing in life.

The Unconstitutional Road To Socialism

2009-02-12T22:12:00.000-05:00

Since the election in November, there has been a myriad of proposals and statements from a whole host of liberal groups and politicians that if enacted will change our way of life in the United States. The problem being that many of the proposals bear very little resemblance to what the Constitution states is the role of government. The framers of the Constitution made it very clear that the role of the federal government is to be a limited one. They did not envision that the politicians of today would be creating a government that would have a hand in controlling virtually every facet of our lives.

The arguments for the nanny style government range from, “The framers couldn’t understand what our world is like today, so certain aspects of the Constitution are not relevant any longer”; to “The government should provide everything for us, because their job is to protect and provide for us”. The founders of our great nation realized that they were fallible men and could not possibly realize all of the trials that would face us as a nation in the future. That is precisely why they included a process to amend the Constitution to account for the changing times.

As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is the written Word of God and as such is not susceptible to being rewritten. Some professing Christians say that portions of the Bible are not relevant today, because our world is a much different place than it was during the time of Jesus. These Christians want to pick and choose what to believe out of the Bible, but completely ignore the parts that seem to hard for them to live in their everyday lives. The principles taught in the Bible are just as applicable in today’s world as it was 2000 years ago.

The logic of those who want to “cherry pick” what is applicable from the Bible is the same logic of those who want to reshape our country into something vastly different from what was intended. Once you start down the road of silencing your critics on the radio, or nationalizing our nation’s health care system, or our banking system, it becomes even more difficult to turn the process around. How do we decide which parts of the Constitution are no longer applicable today? Do we say that freedom of speech is not applicable on talk radio but is fine in the newspapers? At what point do we say that critical speech in the newspapers is no longer legal? The same holds true for the Bible, if the biblical prohibition of adultery is not applicable in our times, then what about stealing? Or murder? Of course a cursory look at the headlines will reveal that many politicians are knee-deep in scandal and corruption, which line their pockets with someone else’s money.

Our Constitution was a written more than 200 years ago with the idea that our government would be as silent as possible. The founders allowed future generations to legally change the Constitution to keep up with the changing of the times. Unfortunately, those in power have decided that they can circumvent the process and strip certain freedoms from all of us. If they truly believe that these changes need to be made, they should follow the constitutionally mandated process of amending the Constitution. For those that want to change the Bible, you can try to rewrite the Bible, but the absolute truth of the Bible and it’s Author will be the final judge.

The Return Of The Politics Of Fear

2009-02-05T21:44:00.000-05:00

As the debate over the massive spending bill heats up in the Senate, the outrageous rhetoric has stooped to new lows. The $800 billion “stimulus” package that the Democrats pushed through the House of Representatives has continued to expand to more than $900 billion. Instead of fulfilling the promise of “trimming the fat” from government, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has overseen the addition of even more pork to already bloated spending bill.

A Rasmussen poll taken this week showed that public support for the bill has shifted dramatically over the past 2 weeks. 2 weeks ago 45% of the public favored the plan compared to 34% opposed to the plan. Now a mere 37% support the measure with 43% firmly opposed to spending billions of taxpayer money on frivolous pet projects that will do nothing to stimulate the economy.

Talk radio and Internet bloggers have combed through the proposal and highlighted numerous line items that the politicians have had much difficulty trying to justify the billions pledged. The American public clogged the phone lines at the Capitol this week voicing their displeasure over the enormity of the spending bill. The reaction to this measure is reminiscent of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of the summer of 2007. As you may recall, the Senate attempted to just push the bill through with very little debate or public scrutiny. The public outcry over the immigration bill doomed it to an early grave.

As public opinion over the “stimulus” plan has soured, the administration and congressional leaders have come out to try to scare the populace into supporting it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed this week that for every month that they do not pass their “stimulus” package, 500 million Americans would lose their jobs. That number is staggering, especially considering that the U.S. Census bureau projected the U.S. population on New Years Day to be about 305 million. I know that she misspoke, but she said it at least 3 separate times. Surely someone on the Speaker’s staff could have corrected her after the first gaffe. President Obama made the rounds to the network news shows to try to sell the need to pass the proposal now. He even claimed that if the Congress did not pass the bill now, “we may never recover”. The proponents of the massive waste of taxpayer money claim that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression. The trouble is that they are obviously lying. The economy during the Jimmy Carter presidency was by leaps and bounds much worse than it is now. We had double-digit national unemployment and interest rates. Of course, if we continue down this foolish road of frivolous spending we will surely see the return of malaise.

A stimulus bill is needed to turn our sluggish economy around, but it needs to be a measure that will put more of our own money back in our pockets. It should not be a bill that steals more of our money to fund the pet projects of politicians. Action just for the sake of action is folly. I believe that this current bill should be defeated in it’s entirety and Congress should start over with more focus on actual economic stimulus vice more unnecessary spending.

The Congressional Plan To Lengthen The Recession

2009-01-29T20:49:00.000-05:00

This week the House of Representatives passed the latest, pork laden “stimulus” package that will cost a little more than $800 billion. The bill, written entirely by congressional Democrats, passed with no Republicans voting for the measure. The Republican opposition to the bill stemmed from the inclusion of billions of dollars in earmarks and pork projects that have absolutely nothing to do with stimulating the economy. For example, there is about $75 million for smoking cessation programs. Aren’t we going to need more people smoking, and paying cigarette taxes, to pay for this massive spending bill?

For most of Americans, the sheer size of an $800 billion spending bill is beyond our understanding. Let’s put it into terms that we can understand a bit easier. The government could send every household with children under the age of 18 a check for $22,445 and that would be equal to what they are proposing to spend on this “stimulus” bill. If we expanded to every family in the U.S., each family would receive a check for $10,520. How much would the economy be affected if they sent the taxpayers a check, instead of sending billions to their cronies?

Republicans are not the only ones raising serious questions about this farce known as a stimulus package. The Congressional Budget Office has weighed in with their analysis, and have questioned why we need to rush to pass this bill, when more than 75% of the spending takes place in 2010 and beyond. If this bill is so desperately needed to pull us out of the economic doldrums, why is the majority of the money being spent in the future and not now? Could it be that they know that this package will have a zero effect on turning the economy around? The President claims that this proposal will create as many as 4 million jobs, but if you do the math those 4 million jobs will cost the taxpayers more than $206,000 each.

Last year about this time, Congress and the Bush administration decided to send us all “stimulus” checks that cost the taxpayers about $325 million. That plan provided a small blip on the economic radar, but it was not enough to stave off the economic downturn. Then in the early fall congressional leaders pontificated about how hard they were working to save our economy. They then passed a $700 billion bailout of the financial markets. The net effect of that bailout was that the markets continued to tank. After several smaller bailouts, Congress has decided that printing more money and throwing it at a problem will fix the economy. So with a sagging economy and uncertainty on the horizon, Congress has decided that spending nearly a trillion dollars of money we don’t have on projects that we don’t need will fix the problem. This proposal will cause all of our taxes to go up, because they simply cannot afford to throw money up in the air without a way to pay for it. To steal a famous line from the campaign, “you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.” The proposal has so much pork hidden throughout it, it can only be labeled a pig.

The Endless Cycle Of Political Corruption

2009-01-22T23:13:00.000-05:00

When President Barack Obama tapped Timothy Geithner to be the Treasury Secretary, it appeared that on paper it was a fine pick. Geithner was president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and was the director of Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund. The problems arose when it became public knowledge that he failed to pay taxes for the 2 years he worked at the International Monetary Fund. He owed roughly $35,000 of unpaid self-employment taxes. Many of the senators conducting the confirmation hearings claimed that it was an honest and innocent mistake. Geithner also revealed that he had employed a nanny that did not possess the proper work authorization papers. That was, of course, just another honest mistake. My problem with Geithner’s honest mistake is that although he “officially” knew in 2006 that he had failed to pay his taxes, it took until just after President Obama asked him to be Treasury Secretary for him to actually pay his back taxes.

Geithner is not the only well connected political figure that is able to bend the rule of law to suit his own wishes. Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon was recently indicted on 12 counts, included in the indictment were charges of theft, perjury, and fraud. She is accused of spending gift cards that were meant for needy families in Baltimore, and accepting thousands of dollars of gifts from developers. This is not the first time that Dixon has been the subject of a corruption scandal, but as with most politically powerful people, she has always been able to worm her way out of trouble. If past history is any indicator, Dixon will not lose support of the voting public and she will more than likely never see the inside of a jail cell.

Geithner and Dixon are but just 2 examples of politically powerful people that play by a different set of rules than the rest of us “common folk”. If you or I had failed to pay taxes for 2 years the IRS would have constantly hounded us until we were forced to pay the penalties and back taxes. It would not have been looked upon as an honest and innocent mistake. If anyone else but an elected official had used gift cards that were destined for the poor and needy, they would have been ostracized publicly and quickly thrown into jail. Why does someone who has fraudulently stolen billions of dollars in a Ponzi scheme, allowed to stay in his million-dollar home under house arrest? It is all in whom you know politically. When a politician is revealed to be corrupt, the voting public thinks nothing of it. In their minds it is just another politician being a politician, as long as they continue to send more money home to my district. It has gotten so bad in Washington that most political scandals are met with a circling of the wagons around all members of the political elite regardless of political party. My prediction is that Geithner will sail through the confirmation process and Dixon’s political career will be enhanced by this latest scandal. The cycle of corruption will continue until the public decides that they have had enough and actually holds the politicians accountable for their actions regardless of the political leanings.

Will The Obama Administration Meet With Hamas?

2009-01-08T23:27:00.000-05:00

With a little more than a week left before Barack Obama officially becomes the President of the United States, the speculation of how he will handle the violence in the Middle East is growing. While he is readily willing to show his hand on virtually every other issue in the news, he has been strangely silent on his intentions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has repeatedly said that we have only one President at a time, and he is currently not the President. As shocking as this may be for many to hear, I agree with him. Although I believe he is being silent for other reasons, I do believe that if he did enlighten us on his stand on the conflict, it could weaken any foreign policy that his administration may implement.

During President Bush’s tenure in the Oval Office, his administration’s policy was to not legitimize the terrorist group Hamas by dealing with them. Unfortunately, their plan blew up in their face when they pushed for elections in Palestine and members of Hamas were elected in majority numbers to the Palestinian Parliament.

During President Clinton’s 2 terms as President, his policy was to try to bring both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to the bargaining table to negotiate a peace. Clinton helped negotiate a treaty were Israel gave in to 95% of Palestine’s demands, only to have Yasser Arafat reject the deal and walk away from the negotiating table.

During the eternal campaign, President-elect Obama called for unconditional talks with Iran and North Korea. At the time, Hillary Clinton called his foreign policy intentions naïve and foolish. In a few weeks, Clinton will be called upon to carry out Obama’s “naïve” foreign policy wishes.

While do not yet know what Obama’s true intentions are, we do have a small hint of what is to come. The UK Guardian has released a story that predicts that the incoming President will deal directly with Hamas to end the conflict and finally achieve peace in the region. The story alleges that the preparations are underway to begin low-level talks with the terrorist organization. They believe that it will be done secretly to politically protect the President from legitimizing the terrorists.

I believe any talks with Hamas, or any other terrorist organization, is completely pointless. Even worse, it could be deadly if you give in to the demands of the heartless murderers. How do you come to an agreement with someone whose sole stated purpose is to kill you? How do you negotiate with someone willing to strap a bomb on their child and send them into a crowded marketplace to blow themselves up? How do you find common ground with someone who would not think twice about cutting your throat and the throats of your children? The answer is that you cannot. The United States has had a policy of never negotiating with terrorists, because as soon as you do it once, every terrorist group is lining up to hold us hostage to get something that they want. Only time will tell what the Obama administration will do, but we can only hope that they do not pursue the naïve approach of appeasement.

You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists, Even Those In Palestine

2009-01-02T20:45:00.003-05:00

Since the nation of Israel was re-established after the Second World War, there has been building violence against Israel. The violence has culminated with the seemingly, never ending struggle with Palestine and their militant rulers, Hamas. Yasser Arafat, of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, led Palestine from the mid 1970’s until his death in 2004. Arafat and the PLO were committed to the destruction of the state of Israel and the killing of innocent Israeli civilians. After his death, the people of Palestine elected members of Hamas to lead them.

Hamas is an admitted terrorist organization committed to wiping Israel off of the map and replacing it with an Islamic state. Their funding has been traced to Syria and Iran, whose leaders have themselves called for the destruction of Israel. From June 2007 until June 2008, more than 1500 missiles were fired into Israel and almost 1800 mortar shells fell on Israeli soil. In 2005 Israel pulled completely out of Gaza in an attempt to end the violence. Unfortunately, Israel is learning that you cannot negotiate with terrorists.

Last week, Israel finally decided to stop rolling over and allowing the terrorists to attack them without any retribution; Israeli jets started bombing Hamas compounds and rocket launchers. Israeli ground forces also prepared for a full-scale invasion. While they have not moved into Gaza, they are ready to commence their ground assault at a moment’s notice. The United Nations has called for Israeli restraint, but was noticeably silent for the past year and a half while Hamas was continually attacking Israeli civilians.

The Bush administration has called for Hamas to stop firing their missiles into Israel and has defended Israel’s right to defend herself. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice correctly applied the blame for the current attacks to Hamas and the constant barrage of missile and mortar attacks. President Bush and his staff have only a few weeks left in office before President-elect Obama and his staff will decide the U.S. position. Surprisingly, Obama has been silent on his position of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the past, Obama has stated that if someone were constantly firing missiles at his children he would do something about it. We will soon know whether Obama was serious about talking to terrorists without any preconditions, or whether he understands that there is no negotiating with someone that will strap a bomb on their own child and send them off to kill as many infidels as possible. My prediction is that there will be no peace until there is a clear winner and a clear loser. The continual forced ceasefires only serve to prolong the violence.

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-27T12:01:00.000-05:00

2000 years ago, in the insignificant town of Bethlehem, a baby was born in a stable that changed the course of history for mankind. Jesus Christ was born that day in humble surroundings and fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah. He was prophesied to come to save the nation of Israel. Little did the shepherds and wise men, which gathered in the stable, realize that the baby boy would grow up and save the entire human race from their sins.

Christmas is a time of joy for all those who celebrate the holiday. For some it is a time to give gifts and receive gifts. For others it is a season to spend with their families and friends. For those who believe that Jesus Christ is the virgin-born Son of God, it is a time to celebrate the good news of Jesus, the good news of his birth, life, death and his resurrection. His death and resurrection is our saving grace from an eternity in hell.

Christmas has become something very different from what it originally celebrated, but it is a time of giving and joy nonetheless. I wish everyone a Merry Christmas. It does not matter whether or not you believe in Jesus Christ, or what side of the political spectrum you may fall, Christmas is a special time of the year. I pray that you and yours have a very blessed Christmas and New Year. We can get back to the politics next week.

The Fall Of Bernie Madoff Has Political Implications

2008-12-17T21:13:00.001-05:00

If the roller coaster ride on Wall St. was not enough to give investors nightmares, the news of the Ponzi style scam of Bernard Madoff is sure to cause many a sleepless night. Madoff made a name for himself as an investment advisor to the ultra-rich, who promised and fulfilled double-digit returns in either a bear or a bull market. His con lasted for more than 4 decades before his historic $50 billion swindle came to an end.

The scam is a relatively simple idea of taking money from investors and instead of legally investing the funds; he would pay returns to other investors, after keeping a portion for himself. The Ponzi scheme is named for Charles Ponzi, an Italian immigrant, who took millions of dollars from thousands of investors in 1920. His lie was based on buying and selling of international postal reply coupons. Basically, he promised to buy these coupons in foreign countries and redeem them here in the U.S. for a huge profit. In a matter of months he went from being broke to a millionaire before he was shutdown for mail fraud.

Madoff’s customers included some of most influential people in the country, as well as billion dollar hedge funds, and Sterling Securities, the owner of New York Mets. The fallout from this scandal will be long and painful for many financial institutions, charitable organizations, and corporations, but the question remains of how could Madoff had such a long run without ever bringing the scrutiny he deserved. Records have shown that several times over the past 40 plus years, questions arose as to how Madoff could consistently produce double-digit returns for his clients, even in down markets. The SEC chief has admitted that his agency did not properly perform their duties for at least the past decade.

Congressional leaders have called for hearings and an investigation into how and why the SEC missed all of the signs of misconduct of Madoff. Interestingly enough, the congressmen who will be investigating the SEC and Madoff are some of the same politicians who benefited from Madoff’s political contributions. Open Secrets, the non-partisan group that tracks political contributions, has listed the political contributions and lobbying efforts of Madoff and his wife for the past 15 years. Madoff has given nearly $1 million to campaigns, committees, and lobbying efforts since 1992. Now we can expect the politicians on high to pass their hypocritical judgment down, so that we may sleep well knowing they are watching over us. I realize that the shock of a $50 billion scam has dominated the headlines, but why have we not heard from any of these politicians about receiving the ill-gotten gains from Madoff? I believe that the political implications of this scandal will get swept under the rug to prevent any embarrassment on Capitol Hill.

The Culture Of Corruption In Illinois Politics

2008-12-11T22:47:00.001-05:00

President –elect Barack Obama’s magical victory tour through the transition process was sidetracked this week by the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on charges of corruption. Blagojevich is accused of attempting to sell the now vacant Senate seat of the President-elect. He was caught on tape by FBI wiretaps discussing the potential for his personal and political profit off of the appointment of Obama’s replacement. The U.S. Attorney that is prosecuting this case is Patrick Fitzgerald, the same Patrick Fitzgerald of Scooter Libby fame.

Fitzgerald, you may recall, investigated the Valeria Plame leak and found that Richard Armitage was the original source of the leak. Fitzgerald learned it was Armitage during the first few weeks of the investigation and continued to investigate until Libby was charged 2 years later with a process crime. Now that Fitzgerald is on the case of corruption in the Governor’s mansion, how far will he take the investigation? The complaint documents against Blagojevich mention convicted “slum lord” Tony Rezko more than 100 times. Rezko is rumored to be talking to Fitzgerald in order to shorten his prison sentence. Rezko was very well connected within Chicago politics and the heat is now on anyone who may have had dealings with the convicted felon.

Obviously, President-elect Obama was asked what he knew about the scandal and his statements of shock, outrage, and innocence were to be expected. What was unexpected was his declaration that he had not spoken to the Governor concerning his replacement. On November 5, the day after Obama’s election victory, a Chicago news station reported that Obama’s first order of business was to meet with the Governor to discuss his replacement in the Senate. The news station is now claiming on their website that they have not verified that the meeting ever took place. Then on November 23 David Axelrod, Obama’s chief advisor, stated that he “knew” that Obama and the Governor had spoke to discuss the vacant Senate seat. After Blagojevich was arrested, Axelrod quickly claimed that he misspoke. The Huffington Post has a long article that has chronicled the news events related to the appointment of a replacement for Obama in the Senate. Several times over the past month, there have been reports of Obama advisors talking to Blagojevich about the Senate seat. I do not believe that Obama would be stupid enough to discuss any type of payment for an appointment to his Senate seat, but why did he so unequivocally state that neither he nor any of his staff had any idea of the scandal before the arrest?

This investigation will not be over quickly and it will include some very high profile names. Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., who aggressively campaigned for the Senate appointment, has been named as candidate #5. Although, he has said that the prosecutors have told him that he is not the focus of the investigation, the pressure is on him because the Governor is on tape saying that he is certain that he could get at least $500,000 if he appointed candidate #5. Another interesting point is that the Congressman’s father, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, has retained legal counsel. Now I can’t help but wonder why would the elder Jackson hire legal counsel; especially when he is not mentioned anywhere in the complaint or the media coverage since the Governor’s arrest? There are only a few certainties in the eventual outcome of this investigation. The first being that Blagojevich will not be the Governor for much longer, it won’t matter if he is ever convicted of any of the crimes for which he is charged. The second certainty is that Fitzgerald has the most secure job in the world right now. There is no possible way that Fitzgerald could ever be fired. Incoming Presidents have in the past fired many of the U.S. Attorneys from the previous administration. Clinton fired all of them the first week, Bush fired a handful after the 2004 election, but there is no possible way that Obama can even consider firing Patrick Fitzgerald until well after the investigation is over.

Why Not A Tax Holiday, Instead Of Another Bailout?

2008-12-04T22:02:00.001-05:00

The CEO’s of the big three automakers arrived in Washington to continue to beg for billions of taxpayer dollars to help bail them out of their financial woes. At the same time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has started talking about another $500 billion “stimulus” package. Cities and states are lining up on Capitol Hill with their hands out claiming that financial ruin is on the horizon without a federal government bailout. Secretary Paulson seems eager to hand out billions, if not trillions, more to any and all corporate takers. By some accounts, the bailout promises of Paulson and Bernanke total $7.7 trillion. It amazes me that very few appear to be asking the obvious question; who is going to pay all of this back?

At least one congressman is appalled by the bailout frenzy that has gripped Washington of late. Texas Representative Louie Gohmert has come up with a cheaper alternative. Gohmert has proposed two options. The first proposal is to make it so no one pays any income tax for 2008. Any income tax that has already been collected would be returned to the taxpayer and they would not pay any income tax for the rest of the year. Gohmert says in his press release, "My idea may sound unconventional, but it is trillions of dollars cheaper than our current course. My proposal actually relies on our nation's founding democratic principles that made us the greatest nation in the world before anyone ever heard of Mr. Henry Paulson!" Gohmert’s philosophy is simple. Why not give the money directly to the consumers who could use it to buy a new car, pay off credit cards, catch up on a mortgage, or make a down payment on a house? We are not talking about a stimulus check of $1000; this would be several thousand dollars for each taxpayer. The estimated tax revenues for 2008 are $1.2 trillion. Contrast that with the promised bailouts of $7.7 trillion, which plan would make more sense?

The Congressman’s second proposal is a bit more realistic. He proposes that we take the $350 billion already allocated for the financial bailout but not yet used, and give everyone a tax holiday for January and February 2009. This would not just be income tax, but also FICA. No one would pay federal income tax or FICA for January and February. Take a gander at your pay stub and calculate how much the government takes from your paycheck for federal income tax and FICA every pay period. How much more money would that inject into your personal budget? It would free up the consumers to pay down debt, make the home renovations they have been delaying, invest, or just take the family vacation that was postponed due to the economy. Surprisingly, the cost for this proposal is below the $350 billion left from the original $700 billion bailout. American Solutions, a conservative think tank, has calculated the numbers and reports that each month the federal government collects $101.6 billion in income taxes, and $65.6 billion in FICA. The 2 month total for Gohmert’s plan is $334.4 billion, a little more than $15 billion less than the Treasury Secretary’s $350 billion.

Representative Gohmert’s proposal of a tax holiday is currently building support in the House, but you can sign the petition to show support for the tax holiday here. Although I wholeheartedly support the tax holiday, I see a few reasons why this will never come to pass. First off, the congressional leadership is too eager to continue the private sector takeover to ever allow them to take control again. Secondly, there would be a tax revolt akin to the Boston Tea Party if the American public ever realized how much money the government took from them each pay period. It is one thing to see empty number on your pay stub, but to hold that money in your hand and then have the government take it away from you is quite another story. Whether or not the tax holiday ever comes to fruition, at least we have one congressman that is willing to think outside the box when it comes to the financial crisis.

What Can We Learn From The Pilgrims?

2008-11-27T22:24:00.001-05:00

In remembrance of the first Thanksgiving, I thought that it would be appropriate to take a look back at what the Pilgrims were thankful for and what they had learned in their first few years in “The New World”. The story often told throughout the liberal academia is that the inept Pilgrims celebrated Thanksgiving by holding a feast in honor of the Native Americans for their help in surviving their new surroundings. A look at the actual writings of Governor William Bradford sheds a slightly different light on the real story of Thanksgiving.

When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, they had entered into a contract that stipulated that they would share everything that was harvested with the community at large. All property was community property. All crops were stored in a central storehouse for the entire community to share. We all know the story of what life was like during that first winter in the “New World”. Many succumbed to disease and the cold temperatures of New England. Bradford realized that the “social experiment” of collectivism had failed. He quickly reorganized the community into a free market society. In his words, “young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without [being paid] that was thought injustice.” Bradford understood that the incentive to work hard to reap the rewards of your labor was lost under a socialist society.

The Pilgrims learned that in order to not only survive but also to succeed in their new home they needed freedom; freedom to work in a vocation of their choosing, that would provide for their families and their futures. The Pilgrims would not sit idly by and watch their neighbors starve to death if their crops did not come in; they would help where they could, but they expected each man to provide for his family. They discovered that the harvest was much greater under the free market system than the harvest seen under the socialist system.

Another aspect of the Thanksgiving story that is conveniently forgotten is the simple fact that the Pilgrims were giving thanks to their Creator for His grace in providing a bountiful harvest and his protection. In our world of political correctness there is a fear of mentioning anything that could resemble a Christian reference. Of course, educators are hamstrung by the notion of separation of church and state. The fear of mentioning God in the classroom has led to the edited version of our country’s origins. The Pilgrims fled England because of religious persecution. They desired a country where they could worship God in a manner that they wanted. This desire is what led to the statement in our Constitution that the government would make no law hindering a religion or establish a state religion. In my copy of our founding documents, I have been unable to find where it prohibits the mention of God’s name in our schools. How does a teacher accurately discuss the Declaration of Independence in class when it mentions the Creator?

This Thanksgiving weekend, take time to relax and reflect on all for which you are thankful, but do not forget where our country came from and the lessons that they learned along the way. In this season of corporate bailouts, I would hope that our leaders in Washington realize what the Pilgrims learned nearly 400 years ago. What incentive will these corporations have to restructure their business if the government consistently bails them out?

Don't Let Congress Turn The Auto Industry Into Another Amtrak

2008-11-20T22:29:00.001-05:00

Since early September, when the political elite in Washington informed us of the dire need to bailout the financial markets, we have see a building tide of industries, states, and even cities clamoring for their version of a bailout from the federal government. The “experts” in Congress promised us, that the bailout would shore up the financial markets and we would all be better off. Now that the markets have continued to drop, congressional leaders response is that we need to bailout more companies.

Representative Barney Frank was asked when the bailouts would stop and his response was as confusing as the clamor for government bailouts. Frank claimed that the bailouts would stop when they stopped working. Maybe Mr. Frank has been too busy with his reelection campaign to notice that the bailout has not worked. In fact, most economists believe that the bailout accentuated the problem. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped an additional 3000 points since the bailout that was going to save us all was passed.

This week, executives from the “Big Three” automakers were on Capitol Hill to try to convince lawmakers of their need for a bailout of their own. After the hearings, congressional leaders held a press conference to explain their inability to come to any agreement on a bailout. Their explanation was what we have come to expect from Washington politicians. They shifted the blame to the automakers, not for their failing companies, but for failing to present them a plan on which they could agree. They set a date of December 2 for them to present plans for a bailout on which they could come to a consensus.

Does Congress believe that if they just throw money at the problem that the crisis will just disappear? This has become the normal routine in Washington. Whatever the problem, politicians just throw money at the problem, but don’t change any of the contributing factors that led to the problem. Look at government funded education. For years the public school system has been a breeding ground for failure or mediocrity at best. Government’s answer is to throw more money at the schools but never changing how or what they teach. Then they are surprised when the results are the same.

I realize that this may be a completely foreign concept to Congress, but since when do we reward poor business practice by giving them taxpayer money? I believe that the government should get out of the way of failing businesses. They should do whatever they can in the way of tax relief to aid in the expansion of businesses, but why should they reward those who make poor choices? I believe that after Congress throws money at the auto industry, the automakers will be in the same situation within a few short years. They need to restructure their business so that they can compete with the foreign competition. The process will be painful, but the U.S. auto industry will be better off in the long run. The taxpayers need to let the politicians know that based on their history of failures, we do not want them to meddle in the affairs of private companies.

Conservatives Need To Get Back To Reagan Basics

2008-11-13T21:08:00.001-05:00

Over the past week, there has been a constant parade of political “experts” through the news networks to propose their recommendations to the Republican Party to renew the party. The suggestions have all had a familiar ring to them. The “intellectual” opinion is that the Republicans need to jettison their conservative values and ideals. They believe that conservatism is the reason behind McCain’s defeat and the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. They completely disregard any of the other competing forces weighing on the minds of the voters in the past 2 elections.

It will come as no surprise, but I do not agree with the self-proclaimed experts. I believe that the major problem within the Republican Party is not that they are too conservative, but rather that they have neglected their responsibility in educating the voters on what they believe. Of course, then they have to actually govern as conservatives.

It is not enough to say that as a political party we believe in smaller government. The average voter does not care what that we are for a smaller government unless we explain what a smaller government means and why we believe it is the right choice. Some of my Christian friends have asked how I could be a conservative and a Christian at the same time. They believe that my conservative position on the role of government is in contradiction to Biblical teaching to take care of the poor. I believe that as a Christian we should take care of the poor and downtrodden, but I do not believe that it is the government’s responsibility. I believe that the community at large is better at dealing with those in their own communities. Local churches give more food and aid to the homeless and the poor in their communities than the government could ever dream of helping. The sheer size of the bureaucracy of government makes it inefficient in helping the poor. Jesus did teach that we should help the poor, but I have never read in my Bible that as long as we pay our taxes than our responsibility to the poor is done.

We cannot simply say that we are pro-life and expect that the voters will simply accept it and be with us. The age-old axiom, “you are preaching to the choir” holds a lot of truth in this case. Claiming to be the Pro-life party will bring pro-life voters to you, but it does nothing to educate those who may not have a strong position either way. We need to explain why we are pro-life. We need to explain that the procedure known as partial-birth abortion is a horrific and completely unnecessary procedure. I do not know of any medical condition that would require a pre-term baby to be vaginally delivered to the point of leaving the baby partially in the birth canal, and then piercing the live baby’s skull to suck the infant’s brain out to kill the baby. If an expecting mother is in such a bad physical state that she will not survive a normal delivery, how is she protected by inducing labor only to partially deliver the baby as normal before killing it? We need to explain why we are against government funding for abortion and the readily available abortion on demand for any reason. We do not believe inconvenience is a feasible reason for ending a human life.

Campaigning on lower taxes is great, but it needs to be taken to the next level. We need to explain why we believe lower taxes for everyone is the best option for our economy and for our government. We need to educate the American public about taxes. We need to change the debate from a class envy debate to a debate over taxes themselves. Obama was elected claiming that 95% of Americans would receive a tax cut, but the problem is that roughly 40% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes. We need to educate the public about who actually pays taxes and how much they do pay. The top 1% of income earners pays roughly 40% of taxes. We need stop sitting back and letting the Democrats spin a tax cut for all tax payers into an unfair tax cut for the rich. We need to educate the public why an across the board 2% rate cute for someone making $1 million is still a 2% rate cut. It is the same 2% cut that someone making $40,000.

The Republican Party does not need to move away from conservative values and ideals. We need to take a page out of the Reagan notebook and do what Reagan did. Ronald Reagan was known as the “Great Communicator” because of his ability to explain his conservative policies to the American public. We need to get back to taking our case directly to the people. This election has shown the media’s affinity for liberal ideals and candidates. We need to sidestep the mainstream media and take our message to the public.

My Excitement Over The Election Results

2008-11-07T16:31:00.001-05:00

After a few days of reflection on the presidential election results I have come to the conclusion that I am excited. As my liberal friends pick themselves up off of the floor, allow me to explain. I am excited at the unique opportunity for conservatives to get back to their core conservative principles. The Obama presidency is exciting in the fact that an African-American has been elected to the most powerful office in the world. While I disagree with Obama on virtually every issue and I wish a conservative African-American had been elected in his place, I am happy to see this historic day.

After the election, many of my Christian friends, who supported Obama, have called upon fellow Christians who did not support Obama to pray for him and support him. As a Christian I will pray for our President no matter which political party they may represent, but I will not support policies that are contradictory to my own conservative ideals. I will support President Obama when I believe he is right, but when he is wrong I will not support him. I supported President Bush on his tax cuts for all Americans, and the War on Terror, but I did not support him on the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, or the No Child Left Behind Act.

Conservatives have the opportunity to regroup and to hold our leaders responsible for their votes and actions. November 4, 2008 was a day when the Republican Party was once again punished for their failure to legislate as conservatives. Our elected Republican leaders became proponents of big government, huge spending bills, and earmarks. They believed that bipartisanship meant that all conservative ideals are thrown out the window and we accept what the left gives us. They believed that the method to win elections was to become more like the Democrats, while during the last 3 weeks of the campaign Obama was acting like a conservative promising tax cuts. Why would the voting public choose a Republican acting like a liberal when he can just vote for the liberal?

Conservatives have 2 years before the midterm elections to find true conservative candidates. Candidates that not only talk about controlling spending, smaller government, tax cuts for everyone, promoting a culture of life, and free market principles, but also fight for them in the arena of ideas. Conservatives do not want to be paid with lip service on conservative ideals, we want and expect results. The Gingrich led takeover in 1994 of Congress was successful because they laid out a bold conservative agenda and proceeded to follow through with it. Unfortunately, many of the newly elected congressmen lost their way shortly after the first 100 days. They became typical Washington bureaucrats with an insatiable appetite for spending and big government principles.

Over the next 2 to 4 years I expect to see candidates like Governor Bobby Jindal and Governor Sarah Palin come to the forefront. They will bring new free market ideas to solve our economic, health care, and energy problems. The solutions will weigh heavily on the private sector for their research and implementation. As a conservative I believe that the American private sector can and will provide the answers we need if they are free to do so. It is an exciting time in the United States and in the conservative movement.

Socialism Is Not Called Fairness

2008-10-29T22:42:00.000-04:00

Millions of dollars have been spent over the course of this presidential campaign season to persuade the voting public that one candidate is better prepared than the other to lead our nation. The campaign promises have ranged from cutting taxes, to raising taxes only on the rich, and to nearly 1 trillion dollars in new spending. Through it all, the mainstream media has exposed themselves as nothing less than political partisan hacks. From Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews fawning all over the Obama campaign, to the Los Angeles Times reporting that they have a video of Obama toasting the spokesperson for Yassir Arafat in 2003, but not releasing the video. Since the media appears to be intent on carrying Obama into the White House, I thought that I would do their job for them.

On abortion, Senator Barack Obama has an extreme record of voting against the sanctity of life. NARAL, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, has awarded Senator Obama a 100% rating based on his voting record while in the U.S. Senate. Obama is on record as saying that his first priority as President will be to make the Freedom Of Choice Act a law. This bill would go a long way in repealing the abortion laws in virtually every state. Obama also voted twice against a bill before the Illinois state senate that would have required that a baby that was born alive after a botched abortion receive medical attention. The existing law allowed these babies to be left to die in the soiled laundry room. In some cases, these babies lived for several hours, fighting for every breath before finally dying alone in the dark. Obama has tried to deflect the criticism of his extremist abortion record, but his voting record is clearly on the side of killing innocent babies.

On taxes, Obama has campaigned around the country on his promise to raise taxes on anyone making more than $250,000. Then over the weekend he made a comment at a rally that anyone making more than $200,000 would see a tax increase. Now this week, both he and Biden have made references to no one making less than $150,000 would see a tax increase. At this rate, by Election Day the figure will be down to $50,000. He has said that he will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. If the tax rates go back to what they were in 2001, then all taxpayers will see a tax increase. Obama has also said that he will raise the capital gains taxes, even though history has shown that raising capital gains taxes causes the revenues received by the Treasury drop. In this economy, why would anyone want to stifle economic growth?

As we found out this week, Obama has a long held belief that the government should spread the wealth around. A few weeks ago, Joe the Plumber became a household name by asking a simple question of Obama. He asked if Obama’s tax plan would increase his taxes if his plumbing business made more than $250,000. Obama’s reply was that he believed that if we “spread the wealth around”, we will al be better off. The Obama campaign’s reply was not to refute his socialist ideals, but to attack Joe the Plumber. Obama has said that McCain calls his proposal socialism, but he calls it fairness. I believe Karl Marx thought it was fair as well and we saw how that turned out. If Obama is elected, I fully expect to see him come on TV in February, channel Bill Clinton and bite his lower lip, and tell us that he really tried to cut taxes, but could not find any way to do it.

Obama has tried to tie McCain to Bush throughout the campaign, but he fails to recognize that he is inextricably tied to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Reid and Pelosi are presiding over a Congress with the lowest approval rating in at least a century. At times their numbers have dipped into single digits. Their leadership has led a do-nothing Congress into an economic crisis where their party has stood in the way of reforming the 2 major contributing corporations. Obama and his party leadership are on record stating that if they are given the requisite majority, they will bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”. The doctrine simply states that any broadcast must present both sides of every issue. This is a clear and direct attack against conservative talk radio. The left has tried to venture into talk radio with Air America, but that quickly failed. The left has decided that if they cannot compete in the arena of ideas, then they will simply silence their opposition. If they are successful in implementing the “Fairness Doctrine” once again, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will not disappear from the airwaves, they will simply move into satellite radio where the FCC has no control. That is until the left decides to take over that medium to silence their opposition once again. For all of his rhetoric about change, Obama has voted 96% of the time with his party.

November 4, 2008 will be a historic election day no matter who wins. It is my sincere hope that the American people are intelligent enough to see the difference between empty campaign rhetoric citing change, and proposals that will bring socialism to our doorsteps. Although the media has declared this race over and Obama has already held his first “Presidential address” to the nation, the election is not over until we go vote on Tuesday.

American Workers Do Not Need Democracy

2008-10-23T23:02:00.001-04:00

In early April, Senator Barack Obama spoke before a gathering of the AFL-CIO and made a promise to the labor union to ensure that the Employee Free Choice Act becomes “the law of the land”. This bill will strip the rights of employees to cast a private ballot either for or against forming a union. The bill enable union bosses to increase membership by simply having 51% of employees turning in signed cards stating their desire to form a union. This process will be steeped in fraud. It sets up the scenario of union thugs to intimidate employees into signing the cards. The private ballot is a proven effective method of determining each employee’s desire.

Union membership has declined at an astonishing rate over the past 50 years. In 1958, nearly 40% of the American workforce was a member of a union. Last year, the percentage was down to less than 7.5% with a significant number being government employees. The EFCA is a scheme designed to swell the membership rolls of the unions. The Democratic controlled House of Representatives passed the bill last year, but the Senate failed to pass it when the Republican minority blocked the efforts of Obama and the Democratic leadership. Now Obama promises to ensure it’s passage if he becomes President.

Obama claims that this bill will do nothing more than change the process of union forming, but his own past statements continue to haunt him. Obama has said that, the bill “will allow workers to form a union through majority sign-up and card checks”. Why would Obama favor a process that strips the private ballot right from the American worker? I thought that Obama claimed he was the candidate for the little guy? His co-sponsorship of this scheme is a clear indication that he stands with the union bosses and not with the workforce. The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace conducted a survey of union households and the results are clearly at odds with the union bosses and Obama. 80% of all union households surveyed support private ballot elections. When asked specifically about the EFCA, 70% are opposed to the bill.

What I find amazing is that private elections are widely seen as one of the essential elements of our Democratic system, but with this bill, Senator Obama is showing that he believes that private ballots are overrated. If he had simply voiced his support for the bill, it would be bad enough, but the fact that he has co-sponsored the legislation sheds a much brighter light on his ideals. Last week, he admits that he wants to “spread the wealth around”, and now we see that he is willing to throw away the private voting rights of American workers. I would call him a socialist, but we are now told that that term is a racist code word. Should I just call him a Marxist?

Taxes, Lies, and Distortions

2008-10-15T22:33:00.000-04:00

As we head in to the final weeks of the campaign, the candidate’s plans for taxation are becoming clear. Both candidates claim that their tax plan will help the middle class, but which one is best for the country as a whole? Which tax plan will help all Americans achieve the American dream? Which proposal will allow small and large businesses to grow, while helping the employees to keep more of their own money? Which plan will encourage capital investments so that companies can grow? Which candidate truly understands that taking money from one person to redistribute to another is nothing more than socialism? Senator Barack Obama this week proved that he is all in favor of bringing socialism into the forefront of our American economy.

This week while campaigning in Toledo, OH, Obama was asked about his tax proposal of increasing taxes on any business making more than $250,000. A plumber from Toledo informed the candidate that he was in the process of buying a plumbing business that would bring in more than $250,000 a year. He also informed Mr. Obama that he would have to work 10 to 12 hours a day to make his business successful. Obama’s response was very enlightening. He said that his purpose was not to punish the man, but to ensure everyone else behind him had a chance at success. He went on to say that he believed that when you redistribute the wealth around to everyone, then we are all much better off. Please tell me, why does Obama believe that he has the right to tell anyone how much that they may earn?

The Obama campaign claims that the $250,000 mark for business would not affect a vast majority of small businesses. Unfortunately the Small Business Administration standards are a bit different than Obama. As an example, the owner of a Tire Fabric Mill can have up to 1000 employees and still be considered a small business. I am not a mathematician, but in order to stay below the $250,000 mark set by Obama and the owners of the mill would have to pay a paltry $250 per employee. Let us not forget that there is equipment and materials to buy out of that $250,000, plus they need to pay for the utilities. I can hear the whining already, how many Tire Fabric Mills are there in the U.S. So to quiet the incessant whining, let’s look at the numbers for a roofing contractor. According to the same standards from the SBA, a roofing contractor can make up to $14 million and still be considered a small business. How can a company make that much and still be considered “small”? Again, $14 million is not all profit that is the amount of their annual receipts. They still have make payroll, pay liability insurance, buy materials, buy tools, pay for any advertising, pay for company vehicles and their maintenance, and lastly pay the local, state, and federal governments.

Obama is fond of saying that under his plan, 95% of Americans will get a tax cut. Unfortunately only 70% of wage earners actually pay federal income tax. We all pay social security and Medicare taxes, but there are about 30% of the low income wage earners that pay virtually zero federal income tax. He plans on sending them a rebate check for taxes that they never paid. He also plans on raising the Capital Gains tax. Even though history has shown that every time the Capital Gains rate has been cut the revenue into the government coffers has increased. In the 1990’s, when the Clinton Administration raised the rate, tax revenue dropped. Obama is betting that the vast majority of the voting public will blindly accept his proposals without doing any real thinking on the matter. Basically, he believes the voters are either stupid or lazy. Sadly, there are plenty of people willing to display the ignorance on this matter.

Corruption By Association

2008-10-09T21:38:00.000-04:00

We are in the home stretch of the never-ending campaign season. It is a little more than 3 weeks until election day, when the voting public will decide which candidate will lead our nation either further into the financial abyss or out into the bright shining sun of recovery. The campaigns have pitched their proposals and we have the records of the candidates to aid us in the decision making process. One other tool we have to decipher what a particular candidate will perform is the company that they keep.

The past week has brought a firestorm of media criticism upon the McCain campaign for daring to bring up the relationship between Senator Obama and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. Ayers, for those who do not know, co-founded the radical socialist organization, the Weather Underground. The group under Ayers leadership bombed the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol building, the State Department building, banks, and police stations. They also coordinated jailbreaks and riots during the late 60’s and early 70’s. Ayers has since become a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. On September 11, 2001 the New York Times published an interview with Ayers where he expressed dismay that their bombs didn’t do more to affect the Vietnam War. He expressed no regret or remorse for his terrorist acts.

Barack Obama claims that Ayers is just a man that lives in his neighborhood, but the truth is quite different. Obama held his first political fundraiser at Ayers home in 1995. Also in 1995, Obama was named as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a self-proclaimed school reform organization. Ayers formed this organization, in addition Ayers was the co-chairman of one of the operational arms of the CAC. Obama claims that Ayers was not involved in his hiring as the chairman, but the CAC’s own meeting minutes show Ayers was indeed involved in Obama’s hiring. Obama has said that what Ayers did 40 years ago is irrelevant to their relationship today. If Ayers ugly past were truly in the past then it would not be an issue. The fact that Ayers is stridently unrepentant about what he did 40 years ago. The Obama campaign then claimed that Obama did not know about Ayers past when he held the fundraiser in his home in 1995. Does anyone really believe that Ayers would not be spouting his anti-American diatribes when Obama was in his presence? Even if Obama somehow missed the obvious in 1995, why did Obama serve on the board for the Woods Fund until December of 2002? That would make it more than a year since Ayers interview with the New York Times went public.

Obama’s attendance at Jeremiah Wright’s church made headlines earlier this year until Obama was forced into denouncing Wright. It still does not excuse his sitting in the pew for more than 20 years while Wright ranted and raved against the United States. He also had to distance himself from Father Phleager, another man of the cloth fond of racist rants in the name of Obama.

Obama also has very close ties with the controversial community-organizing group ACORN. ACORN has made news this past week for their fraudulent voter registration drives. In one case, the entire starting lineup for the Dallas Cowboys football team registered to vote in the state of Nevada during an ACORN voter registration drive. Obama and ACORN have worked closely for years, dating back to Obama’s days as a community organizer. He ran the Project Vote campaign in 1992, which is the voter registration arm of ACORN. Obama claims that Project Vote is not part of ACORN, but all major media outlets credit Project Vote as being an arm of ACORN. Obama also paid $800,000 to ACORN to register voters during this election season.

Lastly, Obama has attempted to point the finger of blame for the economic crisis anywhere but back at his economic advisors. Obama has as his advisors Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson of Fannie Mae fame. Raines and Johnson soaked Fannie Mae for millions of dollars while running it into the ground. They exaggerated the value of the mortgages that they held in order to score huge bonuses. To add insult to our injuries, McCain and the Republicans called for reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004 and 2005, but the Democrats blocked that effort. In fact, Barney Franks even went as far to say that there was no evidence to call for reform. He claimed that the reform calls were strictly politically motivated. Now Franks is being touted as a savior of our financial markets because of the colossal $700 billion pork laden bailout.

If Obama had just one or two ties to unsavory people, we could understand, but he has developed a pattern of behavior of cultivating relationships with controversial people. His ties to convicted felon Tony Rezco are yet another example of his lack of judgment. All of these examples have one major thing in common, they all had a unique ability to elevate Obama’s political career. Obama’s reaction to each scandal has developed into a routine for him. He first tries to downplay the relationship. Then he claims he did not know anything about the scandal surrounding his friend. Next he attempts to weakly condemn the act or statement in question. Finally he claims that this “is not the man that I knew 20 years ago”. All of his questionable relationships bring into question his ability to make a sound judgment of one’s character. Are we supposed to trust his judgment while negotiating with Ahmedinejad?

Corruption By Association

2008-10-09T21:36:00.001-04:00

The Vice Presidential Debate Highlghted the Deception Of The Obama/Biden Campaign

2008-10-03T20:36:00.001-04:00

Last evening, Senator Joe Biden and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin took part in the most widely watched Vice Presidential debate of all time. Nearly 70 million people tuned in to watch the debate. 10 million more than watched the Presidential debate last week between Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain. In the buildup to the Presidential debate, the media and political pundits lowered the standard by which to measure Obama’s performance. When Obama did not stumble in the debates and most pundits considered the debate a tie, the win was given to Obama because he wasn’t expected to perform well. In the same token, the same experts predicted that Palin was not even in the same league with Biden and did not deserve to be in the same room with such a magnificent statesman as Biden. Last evening Governor Palin performance was outstanding. Focus groups clearly favored Palin in post debate analysis, but the punditry decided that Palin’s obvious control in the debate was a clear win for Biden.

Throughout the debate Biden spewed accusations against John McCain, while Palin pointed out the outlandish statements of Biden and Obama. Palin correctly noted that during the Democratic primaries, Senator Biden rebuked Obama for voting to withdraw funding for our troops and for meeting with rogue dictators without preconditions. Biden falsely claimed that Obama had never said that he would meet with rogue dictators without preconditions. He also feebly attempted to say that McCain voted against funding the troops. Both accusations are utterly false. The precondition video is available for anyone to see on YouTube. Obama clearly says that he, as president, would meet with anyone without any preconditions. Next the vote on funding for the troops issue is clear as well. Obama, and his fellow Democrats in the House and Senate, tried several times to gain political points by voting to withdraw funding for the troops and to set an ill-advised timetable for withdraw. McCain wisely voted against a measure that the Democratic leaders tried to set a defeat and surrender timetable in order for funding for our troops in a war zone.

The debate last night highlighted the differences between the two campaigns. On the one hand, we have a campaign that promises to only raise taxes only the rich and spend a trillion dollars more in new government spending. They plan to socialize health care and expect that only the rich will pay for it. If you think our economy is bad now, just wait until the high tax rates slow the economy to a stand still. Once the economy slows and the revenue drops, the new socialist government will be forced to raise taxes on everyone to sate their appetite for government programs and spending. On the other hand, we have a campaign that promises to cut spending, eliminate earmarks, cut taxes for everyone, and maintain a foreign policy that does not reward rogue dictators with U.S. approval by meeting with them. The choice is clear between the most liberal ticket in American history and a ticket with an actual chance at reform. Palin’s best remark last night was when she admitted that she was an Washington outsider, because she simply did not understand voting for the war and then claiming that you were actually against it. Obama and Biden for all of their platitudes about change and hope, their policies and positions represent more of the same old tired and corrupt Washington politics.

Playing Politics With Race

2008-09-25T21:18:00.000-04:00

There are about 40 days left until Election Day and the excuses have started to surface. Last weekend Stanford University released a poll that suggested at least one third of white Democrats have racist tendencies. The poll findings, according to the researchers, could cost Barack Obama the election. Also this week, Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings was quoted as saying, "If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through." To top it off, a few weeks ago when John McCain was on the morning talk show The View, Whoopi Goldberg asked him if she should be worried about becoming a slave if he is elected President.

These are but a few of the examples of the stage being set for the excuses if Obama loses the election in November. The Obama campaign and its’ surrogates have decided to slyly play the race card in an attempt to guilt potential voters into voting for Obama. They also truly believe that the only reason Obama will not win is because of racism.

They simply cannot comprehend why a majority of Americans does not buy into Obama’s brand of socialism. Why wouldn’t the voting public be flocking to the polls for higher taxes? Obama has said that he will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. For those with short memories, the tax cuts passed in early 2001 were actually tax cuts for all tax paying Americans. Allowing the tax cuts to expire will be a tax increase on all of us, not just the richest Americans.

Why wouldn’t the masses be eager for a foreign policy of surrender and appeasement? Obama has said that he would negotiate without any preconditions with our enemies. How do you negotiate with someone who has sworn to destroy you? What common ground do you find? Do we agree to let them only destroy certain states?

Who wouldn’t want a “leader” who waits to see which way the public tide is turning before making the hard decisions? Over the past few weeks, every major issue in the news has brought Obama out to try to straddle the fence on what needs to be done. When Russia attacked Georgia, he called on both sides for restraint, while McCain decisively condemned the Russian action. Obama later feebly condemned Russia as well. When the bailout of AIG was announced, Obama waited to announce his thoughts and later scolded his running mate Joe Biden for speaking too soon. Americans need a leader to make decisions instead of weakly voting present.

Why do those of us who do not agree with Obama have to be racists? For a candidate that is claiming to transcend race, why does his campaign seem to focus on race so often? I do not support Obama because of his policies. His race is not a factor. I do believe that Obama will lose in November. Not because of his race, but because of his policies and his inability to think on his feet and speak without the aid of teleprompters.

Why Is Obama Afraid Of Town Hall Debates?

2008-09-18T19:18:00.001-04:00

In early June, Senator John McCain invited Senator Barack Obama to attend a series of up to 10 “town hall” style meetings throughout the summer. At the time of the invitation Obama was receptive to the idea of appearing with McCain at the “town hall” meetings, but in early August, the Obama campaign cited a very busy campaign schedule as to why they would not attend the meetings. To date, the candidates have only agreed to the standard 3 presidential debates and 1 vice presidential debate. My question is simple. Of what is the Obama campaign afraid?

Since Obama’s meteoric rise in popularity, he has long relied on the use of teleprompters to deliver his speeches. He has even taken to using them at campaign rallies, such as in a rodeo ring at the Colorado State Fair this week. Obama is a very gifted speaker when delivering his speeches with the aid of electronic devices, but when he is speaking without their help, he stumbles over his words. Much has been said about McCain and Palin, but both of them are able to think on their feet and deliver speeches and answer questions without outside help.

Perhaps Obama is worried about taking questions from those who have not sworn their allegiance to him. The news media has been very loyal and easy on Obama. They have not asked him any of the tough questions that McCain and Palin have faced. Is Obama worried that he may get asked tough questions from the lowly citizens of the United States? Will they ask about his extremely liberal record in the Illinois state senate and the U.S. Senate? Will they ask him about his 2 economic advisors who were part of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers? Advisors Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson were both CEO’s of Fannie Mae during the time frame of scandal, which directly led to the meltdown we have seen over the last week. In fact, Obama is second on the list of recipients of donations from Fannie Mae. Is Obama afraid to be asked about his nearly $1 trillion increase in government spending? Is he hiding from his plan to increase taxes on all taxpayers by not protecting the Bush tax cuts?

I believe that Obama knows that he is very vulnerable when speaking off the cuff. Without his teleprompter or one of his legions of advisors whispering in his ear, he is completely lost. His confusion was on full display this week when he said he wasn’t sure whether or not insurance giant AIG should be bailed out by the government. McCain said it best by noting that Obama needs to realize that as President you cannot simply vote “present” on the tough decisions. I believe that the standard debate format is set up to hide the candidate’s true character from the voting public. The “town halls” allow the citizens to ask the candidates questions without any media bias to either side. Obama is trying to become the next Bill Clinton, but Clinton was able to handle the public’s questions, while Obama is looking to run and hide from their scrutiny.

What is Honor?

2008-09-11T21:09:00.002-04:00

On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked, on our own soil, for the second time in less than 10 years. The terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, hijacked 4 airplanes that morning and successfully crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, causing them to collapse, and the Pentagon. The fourth plane was crashed into a field in Shanksville, PA after the heroic passengers of flight 93 struggled with the cowardly terrorists. This is a day that will long be remembered throughout the United States and the world. This was a day where heroism and honor were truly defined. This was a day when the citizens of the United States awoke to the dangers of terrorism and true evil.

This past week, the political attacks have intensified from both sides of the aisle, and culminated when Senator Barack Obama’s aide Bill Burton accused Senator John McCain of not knowing how to define honor. I believe that on this the seventh anniversary on 9/11, I will help the Obama campaign understand the definition of honor.

I believe that the passengers of flight 93 are excellent examples of men and women of honor. They rushed the cockpit and the hijackers to either wrest control of the aircraft from these cowards or to put the plane down before they reached the terrorists target. They put aside their own fears and concerns to sacrifice themselves for the protection of countless others.

The personnel of the New York City Police and Fire Departments are another perfect example of honor. They rushed into burning buildings to rescue complete strangers. I realize that this is their job, but they continued to do their job in the face of utter confusion and fear. The continued to try rescue people even after the first building fell. They laid down their lives for the sake of others.

The men and women of our Armed Forces display honor on a daily basis. They freely volunteer to put on the uniform of our country and go fight to defend freedom and democracy around the world. The fight even while our own feeble minded politicians falsely accuse them of atrocious crimes. They continue to fight while the same politicians declare their efforts lost and pointless, and try to cut off their funding. They continue to fight even after sustaining injuries to themselves and watching their comrades die.

Lastly Senator John McCain clearly defined honor while sitting in a Vietnamese Prisoner of War camp for 5 and half years. He clearly defined honor by refusing an early release from that camp because he felt fellow prisoners that had been there longer should go home first. He clearly defined honor by refusing to give information to his tormentors while enduring years of torture. John McCain defines honor with his lifetime of public service both in and out of the military.

A 9/11 propaganda film or attempts to cut off funding for troops on the battlefield do not define honor. Calling for surrender and defeat of our own military is not honor it is defeatism. Accusing our armed forces of rape and murder to try to garner political support is not honorable. I believe that trying to gain a political advantage over an opponent by attacking their children is definitely not honorable. We have slightly less than 2 months left of this campaign, and I believe that the attacks from the left will only get worse as they watch their poll numbers continue to slide. Obama had enjoyed a comfortable lead in most polls all summer, but now that the polls show the race either tied or McCain leading, I believe we will see the Obama campaign stoop to new levels to try to win back support.

Sarah Palin Pick Ignites A Liberal Panic

2008-09-05T14:56:00.000-04:00

The political conventions have come to a close and one surprising reaction has been noticed. The Democratic Party is in a state of panic over the nomination of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Since John McCain revealed his selection of Palin on Friday, August 29, the liberal blogs, the news media, and Democratic operatives have unleashed a constant barrage of negative attacks on Palin. The Obama/Biden campaign, to their credit, did publicly come out and say that any personal attack on Palin’s family was off limits. Of course that did nothing to slow the relentless assault on Palin and her family.

The major networks reported on unsubstantiated stories of infidelity, ethical violations, and even claimed that she covered up a pregnancy of her daughter by claiming her 4 month old son was hers. They questioned whether or not she was capable of being a mother to 5 children and Vice President. Some even questioned her judgment for having a baby at 44 years old, as well as having a baby with Down Syndrome. The Boston Herald even ran a story claiming her hairstyle was 20 years out of date, and then made a correlation between her hairstyle and her policies. I believe that this election has shown the extreme bias of the major news media outlets. They made their presidential selection early on and have done everything in their power to prop him up and tear everyone else down. I am not just referring to their tearing down of Republicans; they were merciless with their coverage of Hillary Clinton.

MSNBC, for example, has Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman who both have not hidden their admiration and support for Obama. Matthews went as far to say that when Obama speaks, he gets a tingling sensation up his legs. If Matthews and Olberman were strictly political pundits, in the mode of Sean Hannity or Alan Combs, it would be understandable, but these 2 host news coverage of political events. Their spin is always positive for Obama without ever pointing to any negatives, yet when they speak of any other candidate they cannot stop themselves from pontificating about every flaw.

Women’s groups should laud Governor Palin as the poster child for women’s empowerment, but the National Organization for Women does not support Palin. They have released a statement to denounce Palin as a role model for feminists. I find this very enlightening. The National Organization for Woman has just identified themselves as a group not interested in empowering women, but rather elevating liberal ideals. Palin is a woman who has done everything for which feminists have been clamoring for decades. She has risen to the top of Alaskan politics, she has raised a family and kept her career, she is a strong woman that is not afraid to take on a male dominated political field. The only thing that she has not done that modern day feminists believe in is have an abortion or support the practice of abortions. This one issue has defined what modern day feminism has become. Even Oprah has decided that an empowered woman is not worthy of her television show, citing that she does not want her show to become a political platform. It is amazing that she feels that way since she had both Bush and Gore on her show in 2000, and she has spent the past year and a half actively campaigning for Obama, both on and off the air.

Obama and Biden realize they are in danger of losing the election. They have seen that McCain has energized the conservative base with his pick of Governor Palin. They have noticed that Palin is able to speak directly to the American people and connect with them in a way that neither of them is able to do. In a feeble attempt to try to offset the appeal of Palin, they are sending Hillary Clinton to Florida next week to campaign for Obama. I believe that if Obama was man enough to pick Hillary as his running mate 2 weeks ago, the Palin pick would not be so frightening to them. I think Rudy Giuliani was right when he suggested that Biden get his Vice President nomination in writing.

Obama's Convention Fails To Deliver Substance

2008-08-29T17:09:00.000-04:00

Senator Barack Obama is officially now the Democratic nominee for President. After months of campaigning for the nomination, Obama concluded his convention with another eloquent, but completely empty speech. The convention in Denver was hyped by the media, especially MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, as something akin to a coronation of Obama. Matthews and Olbermann months ago hitched their wagons to the Obama campaign and have been openly campaigning for him to be President. The convention was four days of speeches paying tribute to Senator Kennedy, Senator Clinton, and former President Bill Clinton. The substance of what Barack Obama and Joe Biden stand for can be summed up as, “We are not Bush”. The rallying cry from Denver, as has been throughout his campaign, is one word, “Change”.

Speech after speech in Denver cried for the need for change, but spoke of nothing that an Obama/Biden ticket will really change. They made scant references to being oil free in 10 years and ending global warming, but there was very little in the way of substance. I believe that the American public is growing weary of the rock star treatment that the Obama campaign has enjoyed over the past year. Even after Obama picked Senator Joe Biden as his running mate, there was a noticeable drop in the polls for Obama. Obama can no longer claim that his campaign is bringing something new and fresh to Washington. Biden has been in Washington for the past 35 years, which is 9 years before McCain was first elected to the House of Representatives. Biden was clearly chosen to attempt to prop up the campaign’s severe lack of any resume.

The news one day after the convention ended, and after Obama’s acceptance speech, was filled with reports of McCain’s Vice Presidential pick of Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin. Palin is known throughout Alaska politics as a reformer and a tough political opponent, but relatively unknown in the rest of the country. The Obama campaign quickly issued a statement questioning her experience because she was the mayor of a small town in Alaska. It is quite amusing for the Obama to question anyone’s experience. Palin has been a member of a City Council, a mayor, and now a Governor. All of which adds up to more experience than the “chosen one” from Illinois. At the very least, Governor Palin has chief executive experience, which is by far more experience than the 143 days that Senator Obama has spent in the United States Senate.

The next 2 months are going to be very exciting and interesting. The contrast could not be clearer between the 2 campaigns. The Democrats have nominated arguably the most liberal political duo in American history. Obama and Biden are clearly on record as supportive of higher taxes, more government intervention in our everyday lives, for a foreign policy of appeasement, and pro-abortion to unimaginable extremes. The Republicans are on the verge of nominating a conservative ticket that will bring actual reform to Washington. McCain and Palin both have records that show they believe in lower taxes for everyone who pays taxes, cleaning up the political corruption that is entrenched in Washington, completing the task at hand in Iraq and Afghanistan, and protecting the lives of those born and unborn. The choice has become clear. Do you favor flowery but empty rhetoric, or actual reform in Washington?

Where Does Obama Stand On Abortion?

2008-08-21T22:24:00.001-04:00

On August 16, Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain attended a forum on Faith at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. Warren asked a variety of questions to both candidates separately with each candidate offering his answers on live TV. The build up to the event was promoted to be a blowout performance for Obama, highlighting McCain’s inadequacies at connecting with the public. Unfortunately for Obama, reality was one hundred and eighty degrees out of phase from the media predictions.

The Obama campaign quickly responded to their candidate’s poor performance by positing the notion that McCain had cheated. They claimed that he had clearly known what the questions were before they were asked. A spokesman for the Saddleback Church revealed that both candidates were given the initial two questions to help them feel at ease. Obama was also given a question about an “Emergency Plan for Adoption” as he arrived at the church. McCain was never given the question due to the time of his arrival at the church. McCain simply did not cheat, but that is not the news. The news is that Obama performs poorly whenever he is not reading from a teleprompter. He is undoubtedly intriguing and charismatic while delivering his speeches, but when he gets away from his prepared remarks he stumbles.

One answer from the forum that has received an exorbitant amount of scrutiny over the ensuing days has been Obama’s response to Warren’s question of, “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” Obama’s campaign and supporters have tried to spin his answer as thoughtful and nuanced, but his answer revealed a typical politician desperately trying to avoid taking a stand on the abortion issue. The presumptive Democratic nominee responded to Warren with the following answer, “Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” Pardon me Mr. Obama, but the President of the United States is the highest pay grade in our country. I believe he was terrified of his actual record and position on abortion coming to light.

While in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted twice against a bill that would provide protection for babies that are born alive after an abortion. The bill was in response to the news that some babies survive induced labor abortions but then are allowed to die alone in soiled linen closets. Obama has said that if the bill presented in Illinois were the same bill that passed unanimously at the federal level, he would have supported it. Again reality is much different than what Obama has claimed. The second time the bill came before the state Senate, Obama helped write an amendment to the bill that put in the wording that he claims was missing. He also voted for the bill to get it out of committee and then voted against it when it went before the full state Senate. He is also on record from the floor of the state Senate claiming that the bill would put a burden on the doctors to attempt to resuscitate an unviable baby. We are not talking about a 6-week-old unborn baby; we are talking about 23-week-old unborn baby. Does Senator Obama believe that a baby born at around 23 weeks is unviable and should not receive medical attention? Even the nation’s leading abortion providing corporation, Planned Parenthood, did not oppose this legislation.

Senator Obama is trying to run away from his very liberal record. When he was rated as the most liberal Senator, his supporters claimed that the ratings were unfairly calculated, but with his record on issues such as abortion, he is showing that he is truly more liberal than Harry Reid, Teddy Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Hillary Clinton. The Democrats may have wanted the abortion issue to not be a part of the campaign this year, but with Obama’s refusal to publicly state his position, the issue has been forcefully thrust into the spotlight.

The Politics Of Pessimism

2008-08-14T21:41:00.000-04:00

We are almost halfway through the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, China. Every four years, the world comes together to compete in the Olympic games. The games are marked by national pride, with every nation’s citizenry cheering on their countrymen to gold. The resurgence of pride in the United States has me wondering about the American pride of certain politicians.

Over the past several years, it has become en vogue to espouse a pessimistic view of the United States of America. We have witnessed high profile politicians go to the floor of the Senate and declare that our own troops have lost the war in Iraq. One congressman charged our troops with the cold-blooded murder of civilians in Iraq. These are just two examples of elected officials taking a very dim view of not only our country but also of the brave men and women who are fighting for the very freedom of speech of these politicians. The charges of murder were proven to be completely unfounded, and the defeat in Iraq turned out to be wishful thinking of a politician looking to turn public opinion against the war.

Before the hate mail goes into full swing, I am not questioning the patriotism of anyone opposing the war in Iraq. I am simply pointing out the pessimistic worldview of many on the left. The liberal elites have opined their depressing view of the U.S. on a variety of issues. They believe that we are engaged in an illegal war of aggression in Iraq, even though Congress approved the military action twice. They believe that we are the sole cause of “global warming”, even though they discount the pollution of China and India. They point to our refusal to sign on to the Kyoto protocols, even though the European countries that did sign on have found the infeasibility of the protocols. They believe that we are using more than our fair share of the world’s resources and that we should all learn to live with less, even though the elites preaching conservation fail to live by their own standards.

The presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama has made some very pessimistic comments over the course of his campaign. He has said that as Americans we need to learn to live on less. He has also said to a 12-year-old questioner that he believes America is not great as it once was. He has gone overseas to criticize the country that has enabled him to climb to the brink of the highest office in the world. I realize that his campaign is based on “hope” and “change”, but why does he feel the need to tear down the greatest country in the world?

I am not saying that the U.S. is without any problems, or that we have not made any mistakes. We are the country everyone else in the world looks to in time of crisis. When the Tsunami hit, the U.S. Navy was on the way immediately with supplies and medical help. The citizenry of the United States is the most charitable in the world. In 2006, American citizens gave nearly $300 billion to charity. That is not the government sending money after a disaster, that is your neighbors giving to help those that are less fortunate. I believe Obama is playing a politically dangerous game. He is running the risk that the voting public will grow tired of being told that they are selfish and uncaring. Ronald Reagan in contrast to Obama ran on optimism. He genuinely believed that the United States had unlimited potential because of the citizens. He constantly spoke of how great the U.S. was and how much greater we could be. I believe we are still the greatest country in the world and have the potential to go even higher if the government and it’s pessimistic politicians just stay out of our way.

Obama's Lack Of Experience And New Ideas Is Beginning To Show

2008-08-08T23:19:00.001-04:00

As I watched the Opening Ceremonies of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, I was reminded of the countless practice and training of the athletes for this one moment in time. The Olympic participants are the best in their particular sports from their native countries. They have sacrificed much to reach their full potential. Probably because I have a slightly warped mentality, I found myself making a correlation to politics, and to the current presidential race.

An inspection of Senator Barack Obama’s political biography provides a glaring lack of practice or training. Mind you politics does not generally require the years of sacrifice and rigorous training that preparing for the Olympic games demands, but it odes require some preparation. The past few weeks have highlighted Obama’s extreme lack of experience and shown hints of his socialist leanings.

Senator Obama suggested that by simply having all of us inflate the tires on our cars and have them tuned up, we could save all of the oil that we would get by drilling. First of all, from where did he conjure the numbers? As I walked to my car this week through a parking lot, I didn’t see hundreds of cars with flat tires, I saw hundreds of cars with inflated tires. I realize that some of these cars may have tires that need a pound or two of air, but that would not equal the amount of fuel savings that Obama is promising. In order to buy into Obama’s fantasy, one must assume that the vast majority of the automobiles in the United States are driving around on flat tires. Even then, that would not equal all of the oil in ANWR, or the oil on the outer continental shelf. It appears that once again, Mr. Obama is not aware that his words are heard and can and will be verified.

Another pillar of the presumptive Democratic nominee’s energy policy is to create a “windfall profit tax” for the oil companies. He would then use the money from the new tax to give every family in the United States a $1000 check. The idea of a “windfall profit tax” is not a new concept. Actually it was tried once before by the economic geniuses of the Carter administration in the late 1970’s. Does Obama believe that a failed policy from 30 years ago will have a different outcome? One other note on his proposal, the latest round of economic stimulus checks that most of us received over the past few months cost those of us who actually pay taxes $159 billion. How mush profit does Obama believe that the oil companies are making? The last time I checked it was nowhere near even $100 billion. His proposal is pure and simple socialism. It is a redistribution of wealth plan in his usual flowery rhetoric. His proposal, if it ever came to fruition, would create an even greater energy crisis, and more than likely see the oil companies either pass along the tax to the consumers, or change their business structures to avoid the tax altogether.

Obama was recently asked, by a twelve year old, why he was running for President. After stumbling for words, which he is prone to do when not reading from a teleprompter, he began to explain that the United States is not as great of a country that we once were. Mr. Obama’s handlers need to explain to him that most Americans are patriotic and do not like being told that our country is not the greatest country in the world. We realize that we have room to improve, but we are the freest and greatest country on the face of the earth. Of course, when you consider whom the Obamas have called friends over the years, you begin to understand why they are not proud to be Americans.

Barack Obama has a very thin political resume and his inexperience is beginning to show. It is becoming increasingly evident that his campaign and his surrogates are ready and willing to throw the race card whenever they believe it will benefit them politically. For all of the rhetoric about Republicans being the racist party, it was the Clinton campaign that started with the race issue and the Obama campaign has just continued to use it. I guess it is easier to distract with race than to allow any type of real discussion of Obama’s outlandish and foolish proposals.

Happy Anniversary Rush Limbaugh!

2008-07-31T22:05:00.000-04:00

Friday, August 1, 2008 marks the 20th anniversary of talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh’s historic career on the radio airwaves. Rush has a reported 20 million loyal listeners to his daily 3 hour radio program. He is beloved by those with a conservative mindset, and hated by those who consider themselves liberal and open minded. Limbaugh’s listeners often refer to themselves as ditto heads, which has brought scorn from the liberal critics. The critics cite that the ditto heads are incapable of thinking for themselves and that they wait to be told what to think by Limbaugh. Unfortunately for the critics, the term ditto heads springs from a caller in the early days of Limbaugh’s program. The caller stated that he loved what Rush stood for and prayed that he never went off the air. The next caller simply said, “ditto to what that other guy just said”.

A Pew Research Center study showed that Limbaugh’s listeners are among the most informed citizens in the country. Those of us who listen to Rush on a daily basis, do indeed tend to agree with him more than we disagree, but Rush’s true secret is the ability to make his listeners think. His monologues and unique perspectives inspire his listeners to research the policies and positions of our elected officials. Rush began his national radio show shortly after President Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. The Fairness Doctrine was a government mandate that all programs aired over the public airwaves must provide a balance of opposing views. With the Fairness Doctrine a relegated to the ash heap of broadcast history, radio stations quickly lined up for the opportunity to broadcast Limbaugh’s conservative voice. WABC in New York City made the original bet on Limbaugh and it has more than paid off for both WABC and Rush. Limbaugh’s latest reported contract was around $400 million through 2016, which dwarfs Howard Stern’s latest deal of $100 million for 5 years.

Throughout his tenure of the king of all radio, Limbaugh has remained staunchly conservative. His critics have accused him of being nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Bush administration, but they discount his vehement disagreement with the White House over immigration reform, the Medicare drug plan, the Kennedy “No Child Left Behind” education bill, the Harriett Myers nomination, and numerous other smaller point of conservative contention. Of course when he agrees with the administration he is quick to explain why they are making the right moves. He has been in stalwart support for tax cuts. He has pointed out the fallacy of the media and the liberal politicians that the Bush tax cuts only benefited the rich. Simple math will tell you that if a taxpayer resides in the upper income brackets that any tax cut will be larger in dollar amounts than a taxpayer in the lower brackets. They completely disregard that the bottom bracket was dropped from an oppressive 28% to 15%. In true liberal fashion, they plan to allow all of the tax cuts expire in 2010.

When George H. W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992, the media pundits and liberal elites expressed their glee that this was the end of Rush. They believed that Rush was defeated along with Bush. The next 8 years saw unprecedented growth in radio for Limbaugh. When Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in 2000, the same “experts” predicted that Rush was done again. They believed that with a Republican in the White House, he would have nothing to talk about. Again, they couldn’t have been more wrong. For the past 20 years, the liberal side of the political spectrum has tried everything they could think of to compete, or at least lessen Limbaugh’s effect on their political aspirations. I believe they have finally come to the conclusion that they simply cannot beat him in the free market of ideas. Recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has endorsed a plan to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”. Pelosi is in for long drawn out fight on this issue. Congressman Mike Pence has been working feverishly to obtain enough supporters in the House to permanently bury any form of the “Fairness Doctrine”. Whatever the liberals throw at Limbaugh to shut him up, one thing is certain, at 12:00 P.M. EST Rush Limbaugh will be holding court over the airwaves and millions of faithful listeners will tuning in to hear him.

How Low Will Congress' Approval Go?

2008-07-24T21:44:00.000-04:00

The Rasmussen Reports latest congressional approval tracking data has shown that paltry 9% of Americans believe that Congress is doing a good job. A closer exploration of the numbers reveals that the Democrat controlled Congress is getting abysmal marks not just among Republican voters and independents, but also among their own party loyalists. A mere 13% of those identifying themselves as registered Democrats are willing to give the Congress high marks. The Democratic Party leadership will surely attempt to shift the blame upon the Republican minority or the President, but a cursory examination of their legislative accomplishments sheds the light of truth on the real reasoning behind the historic congressional dissatisfaction.

While Congress has passed a few pieces of legislation that have made headlines this year, they have become increasingly belligerent on even attempting anything of substance on the climbing price of oil. The American voting public is most concerned about the high cost of energy. Poll after poll has shown that the citizenry are demanding that something be done to curb the rapid increase in energy costs. While virtually every credible expert on energy has pointed to the ever-increasing demand for oil from countries like China and India, congressional leadership has chosen to play partisan politics as usual. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that there is no shortage of oil and that drilling for oil will not solve anything. Yet she proposed releasing the equivalent of 3.5 days worth of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If drilling off our own oil will not solve anything, how will sending 3.5 days worth of oil on to the market solve anything? Pelosi is gambling that the vast majority of the public will hear her sound byte on the evening news and discount that the price at the pump never changes.

Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington, alluded to the fact that the Democratic leadership would like to use the current high price of gas to move us away from the use of oil. The Democratic Party has decided that the high price of gas is good for us as a country because we will drive less and push for alternative energy sources. The problem with this logic is that the alternative sources are not viable right now. They claim that even if they allowed us to drill in ANWR and offshore we would not see that oil for at least 5 years. At least we would be drilling for our own oil and not be held hostage to the whims of some third world dictator. We would be increasing the supply to meet the increasing demand.

We need to be working on alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, but we also need to be building more nuclear power plants to meet our own demands. We need to be building new refineries in our own country. It makes virtually no sense that there has been no refinery built in the United States for the past 30 years. It makes no sense that we do not tap into our own wealth of oil in our own country, when we are importing more than 70% of our oil. We have, by some estimates, as much or more oil within our own country than in all of the Middle East. Is it any wonder why we have $4 a gallon gas? The opponents scream about the potential for accidents and the potential damage to the environment, but how much oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico when Katrina blew into Louisiana and Mississippi? After the worst hurricane in history to land in the Gulf States, there was not one drop of oil spilled due the devastating storm.

A few months ago, Senator John McCain proposed a summer hiatus from federal gas taxes, which is currently about 18 cents a gallon. Most in Congress called it pointless because it would not affect the price at the pump significantly. This week a congressional commission, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, released their recommendations to Congress. Included in their recommendations is a 40 cent a gallon increase in the federal gas tax to help pay for our bridges and highways. Does anyone actually believe that the increase in taxes will ever make it to the bridges and highways? Did the tobacco lawsuit money ever make it to help those afflicted by smoking? While most on the panel do not believe that this will ever come to fruition, it is just another example of why the public does not approve of the job that Congress is doing.

Al Gore Calls For Energy Independence

2008-07-17T21:31:00.001-04:00

Former Vice President Al Gore challenged the United States this week to supply all of the country’s electricity by renewable and carbon free sources within 10 years. Gore’s proposal includes investments in solar, wind, and geothermal power. He calls for a promise to all coal and oil workers that they will have guaranteed jobs out in the sun and fresh air. He further calls for no new coal or oil exploration. His stand is one that why waste time and money on energy that will not ever decrease in price.

Gore has chosen an opportune time to bring his proposals into the media spotlight. We are living through a time when gas prices are at record highs, and the public anger is reaching new levels on an hourly basis. The price of a barrel of oil is hovering between $130 and $140. Based on what the news is from day to day, the price rises or drops. President Bush announces that he has rescinded the Presidential ban on offshore drilling, and the price of oil dropped by several dollars. It subsequently rose back up when congressional leaders revealed their intention to do nothing. Recent polls of the general public have shown ever-increasing angst over the rising gas prices. The public is growing weary of all of the political posturing over the price of gas, but seeing zero substantial action coming from Capitol Hill. The most recent proposal from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would almost be humorous if it wasn’t such an obvious political stunt for the cameras. Pelosi proposed releasing 10% of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve and halting all of our oil exports. Releasing 10% of the reserves equates to about 70 million barrels. We currently use about 20 million barrels a day as a country. Her plan would have the effect of 3 and half days worth of oil. Halting all of our oil exports is even more laughable than the 10% idea. Last year we exported a total of 10 million barrels of oil. This plan would give us a half a day of oil. Once again Speaker Pelosi has shown us that she is more interested in political posturing than actual solutions. Is it any wonder that the Congress, under Harry Reid and her leadership, has a less than 10% approval rating by the American people?

While I agree with Gore on certain points of his plan, there are others with which I simply cannot agree. I would love to see us use less fossil fuel for energy supply in our country. As of right now, solar, wind and geothermal power are not reliable enough to supply enough power for our country. I do believe that we can get there with future innovations and technological advancements, but as of right now we are not there. We do need to invest in finding alternative methods of supplying our energy, but we cannot turn a blind eye to the known oil that we have right here in our country. We should start more oil exploration to aid in the investment of alternative energy sources. We should look at conservation ideas, but that is not the sole answer to our energy woes. A combination of new oil exploration, building new refineries, building new nuclear power plants, investing in alternative energy supplies, and conservation all have a part to play in the solution.

Gore has made a very lucrative career out of his grandstanding on climate change. He would be much more believable if he lived up to the ideals by which he wants the rest of us to live. He lives in a mansion that consumes 20 times more energy than the national average for a home. By contrast, the “evil” George Bush will retire to his ranch in Crawford, Texas that employs a geothermal heating and cooling system. For all of Gore’s pontificating on carbon emissions and the need to use less energy, it hasn’t stopped from jetting all around the world on private planes and consuming more energy in a month than most of us use all year. I guess Nancy Pelosi isn’t the only one who is more interested in political posturing than actual results.

Is Reverend Jackson Threatened By An Obama Presidency?

2008-07-11T09:28:00.001-04:00

Last Sunday, Reverend Jesse Jackson made some comments to a fellow guest on Fox and Friends while they were waiting to go on the air. What Jackson did not realize, was that his microphone was on and caught his remarks on tape. The “good” Reverend asserted his desire to violently remove certain parts of Senator Obama’s nether regions. He made these comments while discussing the presumptive Democratic nominee’s recent remarks on the black community.

First of all, after decades of making television appearances, how could Jackson not realize that his microphone was on? Most media personalities will admit that when the microphone is clipped on to your lapel, you are being recorded. This is event is similar to former President Clinton’s gaffe from a few months ago. Both men made comments from which they had to back away from, and both men did not realize that they were being recorded. Isn’t a comment made while the microphones are perceived to be off, a more credible account of what that person believes? A prepared statement for the cameras is just that, a prepared statement. It is generally a politically correct, sanitized statement to deliver a predetermined message. What a person says in private is a truer representation of their beliefs.

Jackson is not new to critical remarks about Obama. In September of last year, Jackson was caught by a reporter from The State newspaper in South Carolina commenting that Obama is “acting white” in his response to the Jena 6 debacle in Louisiana. Jackson later asserted that the remarks do not accurately reflect his opinion of Senator Obama. He didn’t deny that he made the comments, just that he didn’t recall making them. So what does Jackson think about Obama? His public comments are always full of praise and support, which is not surprising for a political opportunist such as Jackson. His private comments have shown a much different picture of his true feelings for the presidential hopeful.

This will come at quite a shock for many of you, but I actually agree with Senator Obama on an issue. Obama’s comments on Fathers Day in the Apostolic Church of God have one concept that I, and many others from both sides of the aisle have been calling for. That concept is personal responsibility. Obama was speaking about the black community as a whole. He pointed out the prevalence of single parent households, the school dropout rate, the violent crime, and the high rate of unemployment within the black community. His point was that the men in the community needed to take the personal responsibility for their families. He pointed out that studies have shown that a strong family unit is the best deterrent for the rampant problems for which the black community is dealing. I believe that personal responsibility is the answer to many of the problems that the country is dealing with as a whole. This is not just a black community problem it is an American problem. If the citizens of the United States would take responsibility for their own lives and stop expecting the government to fix all that ails them, we would all be much better off. Government does have a role in fixing some of the issues, but it was intended by our founding fathers to be a very limited role. I applaud Senator Obama for challenging the black community and all of us, now if only he would apply the same mentality to the rest of the issues of the day.

Reverend Jackson’s comments have served to highlight his irrelevancy in today’s political and social world. He is quick to criticize Senator Obama, and even Bill Cosby, for a call to action on responsibility, but has done very little to promote personal responsibility with all of the media attention that he has been given over the past few decades. I believe it is time for Reverend Jackson to quietly fade into retirement as a new generation of community activists, with new ideas of responsibility, takes a more prominent role in our society.

How New And Fresh Is Obama?

2008-07-04T23:06:00.000-04:00

The supporters of Senator Barack Obama continuously tout their candidate as a new type of candidate, a man that is positioned above the fray of the political process. A political genius filled with new and exciting ideas to “change” our country. Obama is indeed a new and fresh face in politics. He served 7 years in the Illinois state legislature before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. He served just 2 years in the Senate before declaring his candidacy for the office of President. He has relied on his gifted oratory skills to deliver speeches that have inspired a cult-like following. It will come as no surprise that I do not share the same lofty opinion of the junior Senator from Illinois.

First of all, let’s look at a few of the proposals from the Obama campaign. He has offered up his plans for socialized medicine, faith-based initiatives, windfall profits tax on the “big oil” companies, raise taxes on the “rich”, and bring home our troops from Iraq as soon as he is sworn into office to name but a few. None of these ideas are new or fresh. Hillary Clinton first proposed the nationalized health care plan nearly 15 years ago. President Bush was vilified for even considering a faith-based initiative, but Obama’s supporters are preparing for his canonization. Windfall profits tax is a nice throwback to President Jimmy Carter’s days of malaise. Raising the taxes of the “rich” has been the liberal battle cry for decades. Every single Democratic candidate for President, except for Joe Biden, promised to bring home the troops from Iraq on January 21 of 2009.

Senator Obama has been a staunch advocate for public financing of political campaigns since he burst on to the political scene. Now that he has developed a taste for the millions of dollars of private financing, he has decided that public financing is fine for everyone else, just not for him. His weak assertions that the “Republican machine” is poised to unleash their attacks on him and he desperately needs the money to fight the smears have shown that he is nothing more than a typical politician. He will do and say anything that he feels will get him elected.

Over the course of the past few months, several high profile Obama supporters have called into question Senator John McCain’s war record and his heroism. The most recent being General Wesley Clark stating that McCain’s war experience did nothing to enhance his qualifications for the Presidency. I suppose that the General could have had a change of heart over the past 4 years. In 2004 he was praising John Kerry’s war record and touting it as a chief qualification for the office of President. Obama is careful to distance himself enough from the comments to appear shocked at such remarks, but yet never fully repudiating the comments or those making these assertions. Again, this aspect of his campaign is nothing new or fresh. The Clintons perfected this tactic back in the 90’s.

Senator Obama is a very gifted speaker when he is delivering a stump speech. He is obviously a very intelligent man and has surrounded himself with some very politically savvy advisors. Unfortunately the list of his qualifications stops there. Even General Clark made the same assertion, although I doubt he realized it, when he said that Obama is running on his communication skills and not a story about getting shot down in Vietnam. Obama and McCain have very different ideas about what America is and should be. Even their ideas about patriotism are vastly different. McCain believes patriotism is putting your country first, while Obama believes patriotism is that faith we have in each other as Americans. It is quite amusing that for the past 10 years the news media has built up McCain as a maverick and a new type of politician because of his willingness to go against his party’s wishes. Now Obama comes on the scene touting the same ideas that have been brought to the table countless times and he is portrayed as a messianic figure here to save us all with his brand new way of thinking. It doesn’t matter if Chris Matthews has a tingling sensation running up his leg while Obama speaks, he is and always will be just another liberal politician.

The Tale Of A Schizophrenic Court

2008-06-26T22:55:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court of the United States has developed a bit of an identity crisis of late. As a judicial body, they can’t seem to decide if they are part of the legislative branch of government or part of the judicial branch. On the legislative side, they have handed down decisions that have done nothing less than to create new laws, citing foreign laws or public consensus as the justification for their decision. On the judicial side, they adhere to the original interpretation of the Constitution and decide cases based solely on the constitutionality of a law or case. To be fair, it is actually only one Justice that is struggling to find his judicial philosophy. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has been the swing vote on the controversial decisions of this current session.

One of the decisions that have been handed down that has ripped the Constitution to shreds include deeming the death penalty too harsh a punishment for a man convicted of brutally raping his 8 year old step daughter. Associate Justice Kennedy wrote in his support for the decision that there is not a strong nationwide consensus for the death penalty in child rape cases. He also alluded to our country maturing past the point of using the death penalty in such cases. Associate Justice Alito pointed out in the dissent that the ruling would not take into account how many times the victim was raped, how many victims there were, the age of the child, or how sadistic the rape was. Senator John McCain issued a statement strongly denouncing the ruling, saying that there is no greater responsibility as a parent than to protect the innocence of a child. Senator Barack Obama chose to be ambiguous with his response. He stated that he opposed the ruling but went on to clarify his position of opposition.

Another ruling that caused uproar of cheering from the left was the Guantanamo detainees decision. The conflicted court ruled that the enemy combatants that are being held at Guantanamo Bay, have the same Constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen. They have the right to attorneys and to have their cases heard before a civilian court. The problem with this decision is that at no time in our two hundred and thirty-two year history have our enemies that were captured on the battlefield been granted our Constitutional rights. We have applied the Geneva Convention to prisoners of war, but never brought them into our courts. In World War II we captured several German spies on our soil. The Democratic President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt ordered that they be brought before a military tribunal and subsequently shot. These detainees do not fight under a recognized national flag. They do not wear a uniform of any organized country’s military. With that in mind, these enemy combatants do not fall under the auspices of the Geneva Convention, but yet our heartless military and government have granted them the protection of the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court just awarded more rights to our enemies than members of our U.S. military enjoy. Senator Obama applauded the ruling, citing that he has long called for the prisoners to be brought into our courts. Senator McCain was outraged by the decision, stating that he wants to close Guantanamo but does not want them brought into our court system.

The Supreme Court did make a ruling this week that was worthy of praise. They decided that the Washington D.C. handgun ban is unconstitutional. This was the first decision on gun ownership in 70 years and as Antonin Scalia wrote in his support of the decision, there is no doubt about the right to keep and bear arms. The reasoning behind the ban makes for great headlines, but shows very little in results. Once again, the well-meaning politicians asked to be judged on their intentions not their results. Washington D.C. is near the top of the list as one of the most violent cities in the U.S. In 2005, D.C. had statistically over 35 murders per 100,000 people, but yet the law-abiding population was unarmed. Isn’t it funny how the criminals never seem to abide by the law banning handguns? Both Senator Obama and Senator McCain agreed with the decision, but McCain pointed out that Obama has long been opposed to gun rights. Only recently has he come out in support of gun ownership.

The recent decisions from the Supreme Court highlight the importance of this year’s presidential election.Senator Obama has coined the word “change” as his campaign theme, but I must point out that change just for the sake of change is potentially disastrous. Obama has said that he supports justices like Ginsberg and Souter. If he is elected, the change he will bring is one that will see our Constitution rewritten at the whim of the Supreme Court.

Democrats Stick Their Heads In The Sand On Energy

2008-06-19T22:27:00.003-04:00

In the run up to the 2006 mid term elections, the Democratic leadership announced that they had sweeping plans that would ease the burden of high fuel costs. The average price of a gallon of gas at the time was more than a dollar less than what it is now. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her leadership in the House have yet to introduce one piece of legislation to help bring the price at the pump down to a less painful level. They have done a lot of posturing in front of the cameras as they hold hearings with oil company executives. They have accused the CEOs of Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Valero, BPAmerica, and others of purposely manipulating the price of gas to reap the huge profits that they have made over the past few years. Lost in all the pontificating from Congress is the fact that although these companies are huge in the Unites States, the massive nationalized companies of the rest of the world dwarf them.

This week, President Bush called on Congress to open up 2000 acres in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR, the outer continental shelf, and allow the exploration and retrieval of oil shale. The estimates of oil reserves in ANWR and the outer continental shelf are about 28 billion barrels of oil. That is more than double the current 21 billion barrels that we have currently. Oil shale is a type of sedimentary rock that through refining processes can produce oil. There are over 800 billion barrels of oil shale in the United States. By comparison, that is more than 4 times all of the oil in Saudi Arabia. The process of extracting the oil from the oil shale is expensive and until the price of oil rose above roughly $80 a barrel it was not economically feasible for the oil companies to go after it. Now is the time for that oil to be retrieved. If the Democrats on Capitol Hill truly are concerned about the high cost of a gallon of gas, they will seriously consider taking action on the President’s proposals. Sadly, the Democratic Party, the “party of change”, are stuck living with a 1970’s mindset on energy.

The Democrats response was the same response that we have heard for the past several years. “It will take 10 years for us to see any oil from ANWR or the outer continental shelf.” That response is pure political posturing, especially when you realize that 13 years ago President Clinton vetoed legislation that would have allowed drilling in ANWR. It has been a few years since I sat in any type of Math class, but I do believe 13 years is more than 10 years. Besides, aren’t the same people making the argument that we need to do something now on “global warming”? Shouldn’t we then do something now for our future energy needs? They also claim that the “small” amounts of oil that drilling in ANWR and off the coast would produce would have little effect on the price of oil. I find it amazing that these same politicians were calling on the President to convince Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. They then cheered when the Saudis announced to produce 500,000 more barrels a day, when just the first 2 proposals would produce around 1 million barrels a day.

I must admit that the Democrats have proposed a few plans on energy that I believe would have the effect of raising the price of oil instead of lowering it. They have proposed a “Windfall Profits Tax” on the oil companies as a way to punish them for making a profit. The end result would be to raise the price at the pump. The oil companies are in business to make a profit. They will either pass the cost of the tax on to the consumers or move more of their business overseas to escape the tax. Either way, we pay more. They have also suggested that the government take over control of the oil companies. Representative Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat, called for the government to take over the oil refineries on Wednesday. California’s Maxine Waters admitted that she would like to see the government take over the oil industry to better regulate the price of gas. The Democrats are in good company. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and virtually every other Middle Eastern country have a government controlled oil industry. If government control is the answer to every problem in our lives than why do we have a social security mess? How well did the Katrina aftermath go with a government run agency? How many government programs are actually run efficiently? Why should we expect the government to be able to run an industry that they know absolutely nothing about? This is just one more piece of evidence of where the Democratic leadership wants to take our country. To Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama socialism is the goal and capitalism and the free market is the enemy.

A few years back, former Vice President Al Gore admitted to wishing for $5 a gallon gas to cause all of us to drive less. This is not surprising from Gore who has been on his crusade against “global warming” and our economy for many years. The presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, recently said that $4 a gallon gas is not an issue. It is just that the price has risen so rapidly that has caused Americans to grumble. Could it be that Obama and Gore are just out of touch with reality? They don’t mind high gas prices and actually welcome them, just not the quick jump in prices. Of course when you are a millionaire it does not really affect you the same as those of us in the lower or middle class. Obama is proposing more than $1 trillion in new spending if he is elected, and promises no new exploration or drilling for oil. His campaign is one based on “hope and change”. The only hope we have is that he is not elected to bring about the change back to the days of malaise from the late 1970’s.

Fight The Smears, But Whose?

2008-06-12T21:24:00.001-04:00

Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has decided to try a new tack in dispelling rumors and lies during the presidential campaign season. His campaign has produced a web page to tackle what he believes to be lies and rumors spread via email and blogs. One of the more recent stories was one in which reported that Michelle Obama had used the racial epithet “whitey” in a speech in 2004.

Obama’s campaign claims that conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh perpetuated the rumor. They claim that Rush stated on his radio program that a tape existed of the alleged slur. The dilemma that Obama now finds himself in is a particular tricky one. His website that his campaign developed to shed the light of truth on the lies and rumors is spreading lies and rumors themselves. The transcripts of Rush’s radio program show that he mentioned the rumor as just that, but weeks after the mainstream media had been speculating on the existence of a tape. The reasoning behind tying the rumor solely to Rush is clear. The left and especially their base have a deep-seated hatred for Limbaugh. The Obama campaign knows that the majority of their supporters will blindly accept anything they say that Limbaugh has done. In another time, before the Internet, a campaign could expect to get away with such distortions, but with pod casting and complete transcripts of virtually everything available online, the truth is only a few clicks away.

Many of the other rumors listed on his Fight The Smears website are old rumors that have been dispelled many times over. The rumors that he is a Muslim have been around for at least a year. I know this may be shocking to many of friends on the left, but I have responded to the email forwards from friends with the truth of Obama’s religion. Another obvious rumor is the one that he was sworn into the U.S. Senate with his hand on the Koran. This is another easy one to dispel. A cursory Internet search will show that Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota was actually the first Muslim to be elected to the Congress. These lies and rumors are easily disproved, but it does make me pause to wonder if the website is a precautionary tactic for other things yet to come forth.

Senator Obama has many other areas on which the opposition could attack. His political career is one that has been marked by mediocrity. He has really done very little while in the Senate. He was elected in 2004 to the U.S Senate and began to align himself for a run for the presidency. He has sponsored a few pieces of legislation but hardly anything on which to build a political legacy. He has had relationships with several questionable characters. From Reverend Wright, Father Phleager, Tony Rezko, and admitted terrorist Bill Ayers. All of these men, Obama has since distanced himself from them when it became politically expedient for him to do so. I know that none of these men are running for President, but doesn’t it say something about his judgment? He has said that these men that are not the same men he knew for the past 20 years, but wouldn’t you expect him to be a better judge of character? Especially if he is the messianic candidate that his handlers have built him up to be.

Senator Obama has generated excitement and interest in the political process that has not been seen in years. His speeches have been called inspiring. Women have lost consciousness in his presence at the mere sound of his voice. Many of his supporters when pressed for why they are supporting him, tout that he is for hope and change. Unfortunately they are unable to detail what his change will bring or what they are hoping for. Obama is a very charismatic speaker, but his flowery rhetoric cannot hide his ultra liberal voting record, his expensive, read tax increases, plans for his administration, or his associates continuing to embarrass him.

The Warner-Lieberman Plan To Destroy Our Economy

2008-06-05T22:01:00.000-04:00

This week the U.S. Senate began debating America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, sponsored Senators John Warner of Virginia and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. The bill is seen as having the best chance of becoming law of all the Global Warming bills up for votes this year. Many liberal groups are lauding the measure, but are urging people to push their senators to strengthen the bill with tighter controls of carbon emissions. The Union Of Concerned Scientists is calling for an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. The current bill calls for a mere 70% reduction.

Several groups have studied the impact of Warner-Lieberman should it be passed in it’s current form and have concluded it will be disastrous for the U.S. economy. MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Warming predicts that the bill will increase gas prices by nearly 30%, electricity costs will rise by more than 50%, and natural gas will cost 15% more all in less than 10 years. The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University sees a $245 billion loss to the Gross Domestic Product in 2030 due to the restrictions placed on private industry by this bill.

The Warner Lieberman bill calls for a Domestic Offset Program for companies to buy carbon credits on the international emissions trading market to offset their carbon emissions above the legal limit. Carbon credits are a scam created by global warming alarmists to cash in on the hysteria they have created under the premise that mankind, specifically the United States, is causing the climate to drastically warm. It is amazing that we are supposed to believe that if we reduce our carbon emissions that it will have some magical effect on the climate. The theory completely discounts that China, whose carbon emissions far surpass ours, is not subject to any form of global warming policy to reduce their carbon emissions. It also forgets that India, whose rate of carbon emission exceeds ours, is also not part of any plan to reduce carbon emissions. The result of this bill and many others more stringent than this one will be to cripple our economy and have zero effect on the global climate. The battle cry in 10 years will be that the climate is changing, by getting colder, and we need to act now to stop it. They will enact even more asinine policies that will cost us more at the gas pump, in our electric bills, and even at the grocery or department stores.

Those who are pushing this agenda have managed to vilify any who do not believe as they do. Scientists have lost funding and been equated with Holocaust deniers. More than 31,000 scientists and climatologists recently signed a petition questioning whether human activity had any effect on the changes in climate. The debate has been declared over before the debate was ever allowed to take place. I believe we should take care of our environment, but that does not mean we should blindly jump off of this cliff of restrictions and regulations without fully understanding the truth behind any type of climate change.

Can The Republican Party Save Themselves?

2008-05-29T22:18:00.000-04:00

The general election in November is forecasted to be a landslide victory for the Democrats in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Some predictions show the Democrats with a 70-seat majority in the House and a 12-seat majority in the Senate. The significance of those types of majorities in both chambers is that the Republicans would be powerless to stop any part of the ultra liberal agenda that Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are likely to push upon the American public. The argument will be that the American people voted for change in Washington and that change is clearly very liberal.

The Democratic Party has good reason to be optimistic about their impending victories in November. It started in March with the Republican loss of former Speaker Hastert’s seat in Illinois, and continued with another Republican loss in Louisiana in early May. Both of these seats were Republican strongholds for several decades. Nancy Pelosi commented that it is a clear indication that the American people want the change that the Democratic Party is promising.

Of all election years, this one was primed for the congressional Republicans to take advantage of the historic negative approval ratings of the Democratic Party controlled Congress. According to a Gallup poll, a mere 18% of Americans approve of the job that Congress is doing. That number matches a poll from 1992 when that Democratic Party controlled Congress had similar poor marks. That Congress went on to lose control of both Houses in 1994. The Republicans by all accounts should be heading for huge victories in November, but instead they appear to be determined to run head on into a massive defeat.

The Democrats, to their credit, are energized and focused on their election theme of change and hope. The Republicans seem to be still struggling to find a voice, any voice. What I find amazing about the contest in Louisiana in early May was that the Democratic candidate campaigned on his conservative stance on abortion and other social issues. Yet the Republican Party is running away from their conservative positions. They are determined to run as liberals in Republicans clothes. How do they expect to win any election by running away from their conservative base? They simply will not win if their conservative base is not energized behind them. The Democrats won control of both Houses in 2006 in large part to southern Democrats campaigning as conservatives, but yet the Republican leadership appears to believe that conservatism is dead.

Conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity has proposed a 10-point plan for the Republicans to campaign on conservative issues. Will the Republican Party wake up to the very real reality of their downfall? If they continue their march towards the left, I believe that that will suffer a horrendous defeat in November and then blame conservatives for their demise. The conservative base is screaming for some leadership to stand up for fiscal responsibility and lower taxes; for a ban on earmarks; and for sensible solutions to social security, Medicare, and healthcare. We need leadership that believes that the government is not the solution but on obstacle to the American people solving the problems of today. It is not the Government’s job or responsibility to hold the hand of every American and take away all of our fears and problems. Life is full of problems and fear; it is up to the individual how to handle their own lives, not the government. We don’t need a nanny, we need leadership.

The Impending Legal Battle Over Voter Disenfranchisement

2008-05-22T22:10:00.000-04:00

Last year when the race began to become “important” during the primary season, the Democratic National Committee declared that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would not be seated at the convention in Denver, due to those states defying the party leadership by moving their primary dates. At the time all major democratic contenders publicly agreed with the decision. As the primary season draws to a close, Senator Hillary Clinton has intensified her calls for counting the votes of Florida and Michigan. She clearly needs these votes to close the delegate gap between her and Senator Barack Obama. She won both states in January and hinted that she would work to ensure their votes were not in vain. Obama was on the ballot in Florida but was not on the ballot in Michigan by his own choice.

The Obama campaign, in a move to try to quell the firestorm that will inevitably explode, has proposed that the delegates be evenly split between the two campaigns. This is obviously the best-case scenario for the Obama camp. He is trying to portray that he really does want the voters of Florida and Michigan to have their voices heard, but if this truly were the case he would have kept his name on the Michigan ballot. Failing to do so, has shown that in January he didn’t care enough to allow his supporters to voice their opinions at the ballot box.

Hillary Clinton has asserted her intentions to take this fight to the courts. Her claim is that Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has disenfranchised the voters of Florida and Michigan by not counting their votes. Dean has vetoed every proposal to count the votes. Eight years ago, Al Gore took his case all the way to the Supreme Court to force the state of Florida to recount the votes from three select counties; by the way he lost every recount at the time and every subsequent recount. Now the leadership of a major political party is refusing to count any of the votes in two entire states.

On May 31 the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet to decide whether or not the DNC leadership violated party rules by disqualifying the Florida and Michigan delegates. I believe that if the Rules Committee comes back with anything less than a ruling to allow the votes stand as they are with Clinton claiming a majority of the delegates from both states, the Clinton campaign will take their fight into the legal system. I don’t believe Hillary will be successful in her bid to wrest the nomination away from Obama, but the damage will be irreparable. Howard Dean has single handedly turned this election season into a constitutional mess.

Obama's Appeasement Foreign Policy

2008-05-15T21:54:00.000-04:00

President George Bush made the following remarks before the Israeli Knesset. “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before, as Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.” Almost as soon as those words passed the lips of Bush, Senator Barack Obama and a multitude of his supporters decried the remarks as a false political attack against him. In Obama’s words, "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack." What could have raised the ire of the presidential candidate? The President never mentioned Obama, or that anyone currently running for President had alluded to such action. Why would Obama jump to the conclusion that Bush was referring to him?
Could it be that back in July of last year at a Democratic debate, Obama expressed his intentions as President to talk directly with Iran without setting any preconditions? He felt that Bush’s policy of only talking to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad under the condition that they stop enriching uranium for nuclear weapons was foolish and too heavy-handed. Repeatedly Obama has asserted that we should talk to our enemies without setting any preconditions. Obama’s own website claims that “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.” His stance has been called naïve by his opponent Hillary Clinton. After all, her husband’s administration held talks with North Korea and gave them the technology for nuclear power with their promise not to use the the nuclear material for weapons. To the Clinton administration’s surprise, the North Koreans broke their promise and now we are dealing with a North Korean nuclear threat. Does Obama possess some ace in the hole that will ensure Iran would keep any promises that it makes to him?

Look back at the 1980’s and Ronald Reagan meeting with the Soviet Union. He went into the talks unwilling to yield on his position of the United States ability to defend itself from nuclear attack. He walked out of the first meeting with Gorbachev and the media and the Democrats screamed in horror. They believed that he would bring us to nuclear war. They implored him to disarm our weapons and give the Soviets everything they wanted. They believed that appeasement was the best course of action. Ask Neville Chamberlain if appeasing Adolf Hitler worked in the 1930’s? The United States has a standing policy to not negotiate with terrorists or terrorists states. The policy is based upon the philosophy that if you negotiate once, the precedent is set for all future terrorist incidents. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. The are a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, both are terrorist organizations determined to eradicate Israel from the face of the earth. Ahmadinejad is on record stating his goal is to destroy Israel. He also claims that the Holocaust never occurred.

How does Obama plan on negotiating with this type of man? It is the same flawed logic that believes that if we could just sit down with Osama Bin Laden and explain that we mean him no harm, he will just disarm his suicide bombers and send them all home. How do you negotiate with a regime that is intent on eliminating Israel from the Middle East? How far is he willing to go for talks with Iran? Syria? North Korea? Is allowing Iran to take Israel part of the plan, as Chamberlain allowed Hitler to take Poland? Obama’s foreign policy is yet another example of his flowery rhetoric containing no real substance.

Will There Be A Democratic Party Left After November?

2008-05-08T21:47:00.001-04:00

Eight short years ago, President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton were on top of the political world. The Clintons left the White House with their party ready to canonize them into political sainthood. Hillary had just been elected to the U.S. Senate from their new home state of New York. Bill was embarking on a very lucrative speaking career. In Democratic circles, the Clintons not only walked on water, but on air as well. Even as late as last year the Clintons were perceived to be the political saviors of the Democratic Party. What an amazing turnaround of opinions.

It started in early January with the tide slowly starting to turn towards Senator Barack Obama. Then Obama won the Iowa caucuses and suddenly some Democrats started to see the cracks in the political façade. Hillary bounced back and won New Hampshire, but Obama had a surprising Super Tuesday. He now led in the delegate and popular vote count. He continued to roll until Ohio and Texas came along when Hillary shocked almost all of the political pundits. Many experts had called for Hillary to drop out of the race before the Ohio and Texas contests, but she stayed in and won. She continued to hang around and won Pennsylvania. The anticipation built into a climatic frenzy waiting for North Carolina and Indiana. Tuesday showed that the Obama campaign had regained it’s traction by winning a decisive 14-point victory in North Carolina and cutting Hillary’s victory in Indiana to just 2 points. Again the calls have started for Hillary to just drop out.

Former Presidential candidate George McGovern called for her to give up and acknowledge that Obama was the eventual nominee. McGovern should know when to give up, after all he did lose his election to Richard Nixon by an overwhelming margin. McGovern only won one state and lost by over 500 electoral votes. Senators Kennedy and Kerry both claimed that the race is over and Hillary should step down. What surprises me is that many Democrats are acting as if the Clintons have changed over the past few months. They seem to believe that Hillary has become a political opportunist and is only interested in making it back to the White House, no matter what it takes. They also are shocked that former President Bill Clinton has come out so strongly in attacking Obama. Bill and Hillary are the same today as they were last year, or in 2000, or even 1992. The Clintons have always been relentless during a political campaign, yet now the Democrats seem to have lost the taste for their tactics. Is it that they have lost their taste for it? Or is it simply that the Clintons have worn out their welcome? Many of their Democratic critics claim that the Clintons will do anything to win and care nothing for their party. They believe that the Clintons have turned into liabilities for the party and are ready to dump them completely. Aren’t the Clinton critics within the Democratic Party just as slimy and hypocritical? After all, they had nothing but praise for the Clintons for the past 16 years, but now they act shocked and offended by the dynamic duo.

Whatever happens over the next few weeks and months, one thing is sure; the Democratic Party has many bridges to mend. Clinton devotee, Paul Begala, has claimed that the Democrats simply cannot win in November with just “the eggheads and the African-Americans”. Hillary has said in the USA Today that she has the “white” vote. Obama alienated many blue-collar voters with his comments about their “clinging” to their guns and their religion because they have no other hope. The Democratic primary season has accomplished one thing. They have successfully divided their party into white elites and the African-Americans voting for Obama, and blue-collar voters and Hispanics voting for Clinton. What will remain of the Democratic Party after this election season is over? I believe that when the Democrats lose their bid for the White House in November, there will be a major shakeup within the ranks of the party.

Is Reverend Wright Sabotaging Obama's Campaign?

2008-05-01T21:28:00.001-04:00

Is the Reverend Jeremiah Wright purposely sabotaging Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign? After weeks of not hearing a word from Obama’s former pastor, and the media playing a real life version of “Where’s Waldo”, Wright resurfaces to give an interview with Bill Moyers, and deliver speeches at the NAACP convention and the National Press Club. The furor over his controversial statements in his sermons had almost completely died out. What would draw this man back into the limelight? Some have speculated that the good Reverend was hurt by his most famous parishioner’s remarks in Philadelphia on race. Others have suggested that he was upset about being pushed into the shadows by Obama’s campaign. I believe that Reverend Wright believes that there is nothing wrong with his outrageous comments and that he deserves to be in the spotlight, even at the cost of an Obama presidency.

I know the Obama loyalists will attempt to persuade us that there has been no damage done to their sainted one, and that this issue is behind them. The facts, unfortunately for the Obama camp, tell a much different story. Obama’s lead in North Carolina has quickly evaporated over the past week. One poll even shows Hillary Clinton winning North Carolina. Clinton is now leading the polls in Indiana as well. This coming Tuesday will show the true measure of the Wright fiasco. If Obama wins big, then he may finally be able to say that it is in the past, but if he loses or barely squeaks out a victory in a state that he has enjoyed double digit leads, he may as well start packing up his campaign. The Clinton camp will have more than enough ammunition to use to persuade super delegates to switch sides.

Obama believes that he has adequately separated himself from Reverend Wright, but a simple glance back at his statements and positions on Wright’s comments causes more questions to arise. When the first videos of Wright’s sermons were aired, Obama claimed to have never heard these statements and to have been absent from church on those particular Sundays. A few short days later the story had changed slightly to the party line that the words were taken out of context. Then he claimed that Wright was like an uncle that occasionally made outrageous statements, but that he couldn’t disown him. A few days later his pastor was asked to leave the campaign as an official advisor. Last week, Wright shows up on TV and not a word from Obama. Wright goes on to the NAACP convention and makes some of the same comments made famous by the video sermons, but silence from the Obama campaign. Wright goes on to the National Press Club and makes the same claims that he has made many times before, and Obama is now offended.

What took the Senator so long to become offended? There are reports that the campaign conducted polls after the Press Club event and the poll results are what spurred the press conference to denounce Wright. Even if those claims are not true, why did he wait until now to denounce his pastor? After 20 years of listening to this man preach, why were his comments of this week so surprising? If we assume that Wright was not always so controversial, the sermons over the past few years that were made public two months ago contained the same controversial claims that apparently offended Obama a few days ago. Obama’s waiting game calls into question his integrity. Is he really a candidate of change and hope? Or is that just campaign smoke and mirrors to hide the true nature of the man? This whole mess could have been behind him months ago, if he had handled it properly, but as Reverend Wright pointed out this week, Obama is a politician and will say what he needs to say to get elected.

Has The Obama Star Faded Beyond Hope?

2008-04-24T21:31:00.000-04:00

The votes have been counted in Pennsylvania and Barack Obama is feeling the heat from the furnace of desperation. He lost yet another “big” state to Hillary Clinton, but it is worse than just losing a state primary. Exit polling revealed that a scant 12% of voters were in the age range of 18 to 29 years old, which is not a good sign for a campaign that could rely heavily on the energy of the youth vote. Exit polling also revealed some dismal news for the Democratic Party in November. More than half of those casting a ballot for Clinton in Tuesday’s primary contest promised not to vote for Obama if he is the nominee in November. The same holds true for Obama voters if Clinton wins the nomination.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean promises that the nominee will be known by mid-June, but everyday that this drags on, more and more dirt is flung back and forth between the 2 campaigns. Hillary ran ads in Pennsylvania condemning Obama’s remarks concerning the “bitter” voters in small towns around Pennsylvania. Obama ran his own commercials against Clinton, but after spending 3 times the amount of money that the Clinton campaign did, he still came away with a resounding defeat. Over the past several weeks, there have been many political pundits that have openly called for Clinton to concede defeat, but the Democratic primary voters came out in force for Hillary. Why should she concede if she is still raising money, $10 million in the 24 hours after her Pennsylvania win, and if it is clear that Obama will not have the needed 2025 delegates to claim the nomination?

Obama is clearly showing the signs of a candidate struggling to finish the race. He has refused to sign on for any further debates in the North Carolina or Indiana. His campaign posits that they do not need any further debates because they are winning, but it is becoming apparent that the candidate is ill at ease answering tough questions. His political immaturity showed in the last debate where he struggled to answer questions from George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson. Could it be that his campaign is based on flowery, but empty rhetoric? He is in his element when he pontificating about hope and change, but when he is pressed with questions, the flowers all wilt and fall off.

Obama has also started to take criticism from the Republican Party and other conservative groups. One ad in North Carolina brings up his relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The commercial was made by the North Carolina state Republican Party against the Democratic candidates for Governor. Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, has denounced the ad and asked them to pull the ad, but the state party officials are standing firm with their support of the ad. There is also a proposed ad to point out that Obama was weak on punishing gang members convicted of murder in Illinois. While on the state senate, Obama voted against “expanding the death penalty for gang murders”.

As this primary season winds down, I have to wonder if either of these candidates will be left standing by the time the convention rolls around. Will the super delegates choose one of these 2 candidates, who are showing their divisive nature more and more, or will they opt for a wild card candidate that they hope will actually stand a chance of winning in November? Whatever happens, you can almost see the smile growing on McCain’s face as this nomination process drags on. It may be his best hope for capturing the White House in November.

The Chaotic Political Process

2008-04-18T22:01:00.000-04:00

The countdown to the April 22 Democratic primary in Pennsylvania is nearly over. The showdown in the Keystone state is especially important for both candidates for vastly different reasons. For Hillary Clinton, it is another “big” state that she needs to capture to solidify her claims that Obama cannot win the general election in November. For Barack Obama, it is one of the few remaining states that he desperately needs to win to convince the super delegates that he is the candidate to support.

The Pennsylvania contest has become interesting based on the voter registration numbers. For the first time in more than a generation, the Democratic registration rolls have swelled to a greater number than that of the Republicans in historically conservative Bucks County and other Republican strongholds. The Democratic party points to their candidates and their cross party appeal. The aspect that the Democratic leadership is neglecting to take into account is the prospect of Republicans switching parties to either prolong the Democratic infighting or to throw their support behind a candidate that they believe is easier to beat in November. Talk radio superstar, Rush Limbaugh, calls it “Operation Chaos”. The effect of this strategy was seen in Ohio and Texas, where Hillary collected her first primary wins in several states.

Whether or not you believe that the chaos strategy has had any effect, you must admit that the news stories since Ohio and Texas have brought out information that may not have been told until late summer. From Obama’s ties to Tony Rezco, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and William Ayres. The Ayres connection has become of interest of late, especially since more details of their connection has become known. Ayres was a member of the radical group Weather Underground. He was arrested but never convicted for more than 25 bombings during the 1960’s. He has since made comments stating that he was saddened that the bombings had not accomplished more. Clinton has made her own headlines with her amateurish claims of sniper attacks during her trips as First Lady.

Obama has begun to show some strain under the political microscope of a Presidential campaign. Last week he made some comments at a fundraiser that caused quite a stir. He said that voters in small towns in Pennsylvania cling to religion and their guns because they have no other hope. It was just another indication that the man that claims to be the candidate for the average voter, is completely out of touch with the rest of America. Obama attempts to portray an image of humble upbringing, but his education at the esteemed Punahou Academy, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School are rarely seen on the resume of an average Joe. I have no problem with someone who can afford to go to prestigious institutions, but don’t try to mislead the public into thinking you have been where they are.

Next Tuesday will be an interesting test for both campaigns, but this race is not nearly over. This is a battle that will last until the convention with the war of words and scandals will only continue to escalate. Both sides believe that they will win the nomination. Obama because of his popular vote totals, Clinton because of her wins in the big states, but neither side will have enough delegates to clinch the nomination before the convention. The political process has never been more fun.

No More General Betray Us?

2008-04-10T21:29:00.000-04:00

This week the Congress held committee briefings with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. The briefings were the first since last September, when the General and Ambassador first reported of the successes of the troop surge. This briefing contained more good news from Iraq. The two men reported that the violence in Iraq has subsided substantially over the past several months, but that the successes of our brave men and women are tenuous and reversible. The report was updated with relevant facts from the ground in Iraq, but it was essentially the same report as in September. The overlying meaning in this report as well as the one from September is that we should continue to allow our troops to secure the country while the Iraqi’s forces are trained and take over the security of their own country.

Here are the links to General Petraeus September report, and to his April report.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still warned in the days leading up to the briefings, that the General had better be truthful. Does Ms. Pelosi believe that the commander of our military in Iraq would lie under oath? Several other Democrats on the committees did nothing more than play to the cameras and make speeches about how they didn’t believe that we could win. Senator Carl Levin, after finally realizing the correct titles of the men he was addressing, launched into his diatribe about how the surge had failed because of recent attacks in Basra and Baghdad. He discounts all of the General’s experience and knowledge to say that we should set a timetable for withdrawal and promptly turn over control to the Iraqi security forces. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid equates the recommendation of Petraeus and Crocker to halt troop withdrawals for a 45 day cooling off period to taking one step forward and two steps back. I am unaware of Mr. Reid’s extensive qualifications on military operations and strategy, but he surely must be hiding a Congressional Medal of Honor in his desk to claim to know more that the two distinguished gentleman who appeared before Congress.

All three candidates for the presidency had the opportunity to question Petraeus and Crocker on Capitol Hill this week. In my opinion, McCain showed his experience and knowledge with his questioning. Clinton appeared to still be searching to find the right angle to spin this into a much-needed political gain for herself. Obama showed his vulnerabilities on foreign policy and military affairs.

The change in the Democratic response to Petraeus and the war strategy is markedly noticeable in Senator Obama’s call for a gradual troop withdrawal that will take 16 months. Not more than a few months, if not weeks, ago he was calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops. Save for a “small” strike force. Also missing from the briefings was the full-page ads of “General Betray Us”. Could it be that the Democrats are finally realizing the foolishness of their cut, run, and surrender military strategies? I believe that they are desperately trying to find some way out of the box they have closed on themselves. They can see the success that are troops are winning, and they simply cannot afford to be seen as calling for the defeat of American soldiers.

Can A Conservative Vote In This Election?

2008-04-03T22:08:00.000-04:00

This election season is shaping up to be a contest between a political “moderate” and a liberal. I realize that the Democrats are far from deciding their nominee, but there really isn’t any substantive difference on policy between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Senator McCain, the unofficial Republican nominee, is the moderate in the race.

John McCain has built his political career around creating ulcers within the digestive tracts throughout the conservative ranks. He has enjoyed glowing media coverage, which has helped to solidify his “maverick” status in Washington. The important question of this election for Republicans is whether or not conservatives will show up to vote for McCain. Through all of the media hype about conservatives failing to line up behind him, I have come to realize that there is some misconceptions about what conservative believe and what we stand for.

I would like to give a brief overview of what I believe a conservative believes. I am a Christian, husband, father, American, conservative, and lastly a Republican. Those titles help define my beliefs. As a Christian I believe in the sanctity of innocent human life. Therefore, I am pro-life. I believe that life begins at conception and that life should be protected. I believe that little baby is a human life. If you ask any woman who is happily pregnant, she will not refer to the life growing inside of her as a fetus. To her it is her child, a baby. For me, my stand on abortion comes more from my Christian faith, and less so from my conservative viewpoint.

As a conservative, I believe that the government takes way too much money from our wallets in taxes. I don’t fall into the class envy trap that so many politicians are pushing these days. The political rhetoric on taxes has become a rich versus the rest of us rant. The “evil” rich are making too much money and not paying enough in taxes. What percentage of their income should the “evil” rich pay in taxes? Is 30% enough? What about 50%? Why not return to the days of more than 70%? Sadly many in our country would rather complain that the rich are too rich, than to actually sit down and figure out how they themselves might be able to make a better life for themselves. The class envy crowd love to point out that billionaire Warren Buffet has complained that his secretary, who makes $60,000 a year, pays more in income taxes than he does. I can’t help but ask 2 questions. Why doesn’t Mr. Buffet pay his secretary more so that she may be able find the tax loopholes that he exploits? If he truly believes that he should pay more in taxes, then why doesn’t he write a check to the Treasury Department? They will be more than happy to accept his money.

I also believe that the government has grown beyond a reasonable size. It has become the mentality of the general population that the government should take care of us from cradle to grave. This may not be a very popular idea right now, but the government should not be in the business of forgiving mortgages. The housing crisis, while painful, is completely necessary to correct a market that was completely out of control. If the politicians follow through on freezing foreclosures and forgiving mortgages, the housing market will take much longer to get back on its feet. It may make for great headlines, but is terrible economic policy. Once they start meddling with mortgages of those who are in danger of foreclosure, how long before they come and forgive my debt? Why should I be punished for proper financial planning?

I believe that the government has no role in meting out healthcare, or any of the other myriads of programs and services that the politicians propose. Senator Clinton is the godmother of universal healthcare but yet her campaign deemed it necessary to not pay the healthcare premiums for her campaign staff. Is this part of the Clinton healthcare plan? I thought “free” healthcare was a human right. I simply cannot understand how any thinking individual could want the federal government to take over our healthcare. They spend billions each year on our children’s education, but yet in most major cities less than half of those children graduate from high school. The same government who ran the Katrina response is going to run our healthcare system. How am I supposed to believe that they will be more efficient and provide higher quality care than the private sector?

I believe in a strong military that is ready to take on any and all threats, but also to see those conflicts through to the end. If we pack up and leave before there is a lasting peace in Iraq, it will just be a few short years before we find ourselves back over there again. Does anyone remember the debate leading up to the initial invasion for Desert Storm? Many opponents claimed that if the elder Bush had finished the job in the early 90’s, that we wouldn’t be in this mess. Isn’t amazing how those same people are now demanding that we leave Iraq before the peace has been achieved?

I have been called a Nazi, Hitler, fascist, moron, child polluter, member of the Reich wing, neocon, and numerous other names for espousing my beliefs. As if I will suddenly change my view on an issue because I was called a name. I believe that conservatives and liberals share some of the same objectives when it comes to caring for the poor and needy. Both groups agree that they need help, but where we differ is the means of providing that help. Conservatives believe that the private sector is the best way to meet their needs. Liberals generally believe that the government is the sole source to help.

As the general election heats up this summer and fall, conservatives will have to make the decision if McCain is worthy of their vote. Personally, there are many issues that the senator and I don’t agree on, but there are still others on which we do agree. When I weigh Senator McCain against either Obama or Clinton, I come to the conclusion that he is far closer to my beliefs that either of them. In politics, there is no perfect candidate with which you will agree with 100% of the time. This election season is no different; it is just a bit tougher choice.

Liar, Liar, Your Campaign Is On Fire

2008-03-27T21:31:00.000-04:00

In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle, “Surprise, surprise, surprise”; Senator Hillary Clinton is caught in a lie. The surprise is not that she was lying about the details of her trip to Bosnia as First Lady in 1996, but the fact that the news media actually exposed it. Although they did sit on the story for nearly 4 months before “discovering” that they had video of her trip that directly contradicted the presidential hopeful’s claims. Clinton claimed that she was prepared for the unexpected decisions that a president must make because of her experience as First Lady. Over the course of the past few months, she has used her trip to Bosnia to attempt to prove that point.

Her version of the events of the Bosnia visit was that the plane that she and her daughter Chelsea were flying on had to “corkscrew in to land” because of sniper fire. Once on the ground they had to run with their heads down to escape the sniper fire. The news footage shows a starkly differently story. It shows Clinton being greeted by an 8 year old girl on the tarmac, strolling over to a vehicle and then finally entering the vehicle to be driven away. The military is also discrediting Clinton’s claims, taking issue that they would ever endanger a First Lady, and especially the child of a President, by flying them into a dangerous situation.

Hillary has admitted that she “misspoke” about the incident and that she remembers being warned of sniper attacks in the area. How does one go from a sniper warning to running for cover with their daughter? Was she confusing the trip with another one where she did have to run and duck? If so, which trip is she speaking of? I believe that she expected that the news media would not bring the truth to light. After all, she has been telling the story for months with no one calling her bluff. During her husband’s tenure in the oval office, the media regaled us with “journalistic” pieces on the merits of lying. The Clinton campaign is realizing that the media love affair with everything Clinton is over.

Senator Barak Obama has also been caught stretching the truth. In the wake of his pastor’s inflammatory sermons controversy, Obama claimed to have never been aware of anything incendiary that Reverend Wright had said. During his speech a few days later, which he tried to shift the focus off of Wright, he said that he was aware of the pastor’s statements and that he could not disavow Wright. He even equated Wright to his own grandmother, claiming that she had made some rather bigoted statements in the past. In a later interview he called his grandmother’s views that of a typical white person. The trouble with Barak’s claims about his grandmother, is that in his own book, Dreams From My Father he paints an entirely different picture of his grandparents. One in which his grandparents were essentially fighting to end racism in their neighborhood. Obama’s campaign has trumpeted that he is the candidate of change and hope, but based on his willingness to say whatever he deems necessary to shift the focus off of the issues, he shows himself to be just another slick politician.

Can The Rest Of The Country Learn From Maryland's Pain?

2008-03-20T21:26:00.000-04:00

Maryland’s Governor Martin O’Malley had no sooner received the phone call from former Governor Robert Ehrlich in November of 2006, when he began his quest to raise the tax burden on the residents of the Old Line State. His rationale for the increases was the “looming” structural deficits. He claimed that even though the state had $1.4 billion in surpluses, we would soon be running a deficit. His initial number was $400 million, his estimate finally landed at $1.7 billion. As he was inaugurated into the state house in Annapolis, the work began to come up with the nearly $1.5 billion in higher taxes.

The Democratic controlled House and Senate held special sessions to pass a nearly 10% increase of the tax burden on to the backs of Maryland citizens. They raised the cigarette tax, the vehicle titling tax, the corporate income tax, and the state sales tax. To add insult to the pain of all of the new taxes, Lt. Governor Anthony Brown alluded to the need for even more tax increases late last fall. He claimed that with the thousands of new residents that will be moving to Maryland as part of the Base Realignment And Closure plan, the state will need to spend billions on job training for the new residents. I can’t really fault O’Malley and Brown, or even the legislature for their perverse desire to constantly raise taxes. After all, they are tried and true liberal democrats, and that is what they know how to do. The concept of cutting expenditures never crosses their minds. To a liberal politician, money is power.

One other note of contention with our Governor, is that while raising the taxes of every single resident of Maryland, he deemed it necessary to raise the salaries of his staff. The raises amount to increases of salary by as much 37.5% while the legislature is considering halting raises for state employees. Some in the Senate tried to require the General Assembly’s approval for any additional pay raises for the Governor’s staff, but that measure was defeated. Even after all of the increases in taxes, the state will still have a budget deficit of $300 million next year. It is becoming all too clear that the phrase “tax and spend liberal” rings true here in Maryland.

In a state where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a margin of 2 to 1, Governor O’Malley’s approval rating is lower than that of President George W. Bush. It is not surprising when you consider that O’Malley’s tax plan has taken Maryland from a ranking near the middle in State Business Tax Climate Index to a ranking near the bottom. Maryland is no different than what will happen to the country if one of the 2 current Democrat contenders take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are talking about repealing tax cuts and their plans for health care will surely mean increases in taxes across the board. Could it be that voters are waking up to the insanity of “tax and spend liberalism”? I can only hope and pray that the voters in Maryland remember how much O’Malley has taken from us.

Can Things Get Any Worse For Hillary?

2008-03-13T22:45:00.000-04:00

Could Hillary Clinton’s week get any worse? She started the week realizing that her perceived momentum swing of winning primaries had swung back in the direction of Barack Obama. Obama picked up a win over the weekend in the Wyoming caucuses. He later added Mississippi to his long list of states won. Of course Senator Clinton is banking on a big win in Pennsylvania on April 23 to lend credence to her notion that Obama can’t win the big states. At this point in the race for the nomination, it is highly unlikely that either candidate will win the required pledged delegates to claim the nomination. Obama will clearly have the lead in the delegate count and the popular vote by the convention convenes in Denver, but the Clintons are not about to let that simple fact stop them from their quest to regain presidential power.

The tight race has begun to turn vicious. This week, former Vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro made the assertion that Obama would not even be a viable candidate in this race if he were a white man. The obvious response from the Obama campaign was to cry racism. Hillary Clinton denounced the remarks made by one of her high profile supporters, and Ferraro eventually left the campaign. She is still all over the news networks claiming that the Obama campaign is making too much of her comments. She has pointed out that when she was nominated to be Vice President in 1984, the same claims were made about her and her gender; which she acknowledged was true. The Obama supporters point out that she made similar claims against the Reverend Jesse Jackson during the 1984 campaign.

Another headline that the Clinton camp wishes would go away is the story of Democratic Governor Elliot Spitzer. Spitzer resigned in disgrace this week, after the news broke about his connection with a high priced prostitution ring. Spitzer was caught on tape setting up payment, transportation, and the appointment for an “encounter” with a “lady of the evening”. Spitzer is a supporter of Clinton’s and a super delegate. This is not the first headache that he has caused for Hillary. Earlier in the campaign, his proposal to grant legal driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants caused Clinton to stumble several times to give a definitive answer on where she stood on the idea. After taking every side of the issue, sometime within the same statement, she eventually stated her opposition for the idea. Spitzer’s proposal was shelved for future consideration.

Another bit of news emerged recently that does not bode well for either candidate. A Pew Research poll was released showing that a growing majority of Americans believe that we are wining the war in Iraq. They also showed that less Americans know how many troops have died during the war than knew just a few short months ago. They showed that since August, which is about the time that the news of the success of the surge started emerging, the news media has been covering less and less of the war. Both candidates had staked their claim to bringing home the troops immediately upon entering office. Now that the war is going well, and public opinion has shifted, what side of the issue will they take? It is harder for them to deny their positions when we have ready access to everything they have ever said.

In the weeks leading up to the next big showdown in Pennsylvania, the campaign is likely to become even dirtier. With a huge majority of women supporting Clinton, and overwhelming majority of African-Americans supporting Obama, both campaign will pull out all of the stops to try to sway the Latino and the white male vote. There are early signs that both sides will stoop to the lowest levels to try to scare voters to their particular side. With a primary season that is rapidly turning bloody, we have to wonder what the fallout will be from such a race. I can’t help but wonder what the demographics of the Democratic party will be after this campaign. After all, the lines are not just drawn along racial lines, but also along gender lines. Neither side is going to take losing lying down.

Has The Obama Momentum Stalled?

2008-03-07T21:55:00.001-05:00

Has the tide of momentum officially turned in favor of Senator Hillary Clinton, or was “Super Tuesday, The Sequel” an aberration? Since the 5th of February when Senator Obama won the caucus in Alaska, he had won 12 straight states, before Clinton was able to win Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. Obama still enjoys a comfortable delegate lead, but if Clinton has swung the pendulum back in her favor, it will be impossible for Clinton or Obama to make it to the convention with enough delegates to claim the nomination.

With a primary race this close, and the likelihood of not having a clear nominee heading into the convention, the rumors of Clinton and Obama being on the same ticket. Anything is possible in the current state of politics, but I don’t believe that will ever happen.

First of all, I don’t believe that Hillary Clinton will ever agree to be a Vice Presidential candidate. Her entire drive has been towards the Oval Office, she will not take the chance of being tied politically to a president that she has no control over. If Obama is elected with her as Vice President, and events turn for the worse, she could be tied to the administration that caused the problems. She will not take that chance.

With the race tightening and more than a month until the contest in Pennsylvania, the political attacks and rhetoric will be ratcheted up to a fever pitch. The attacks started before Texas with the ad of a phone ringing at 3 in the morning. The message was that Obama was not ready to make the hard decisions that inevitably a President must make. An Obama aide resigned this week after her comments in The Scotsman made headlines here in the U.S.. She called Senator Clinton a monster and stated that Clinton would stoop to the lowest levels to try to win the nomination. Will either candidate want to associate with each other after this campaign turns really nasty?

The next few weeks will be extremely entertaining. The trial of Tony Rezko will bring an entirely new dimension of scrutiny to the Obama campaign. Tony Rezko has been an Obama friend for 17 years and a political fundraiser for him. He is on trial for corruption for taking city money to rehab apartment buildings and then not fulfilling his obligations. Obama will face increasing questions about his relationship with Rezko and his role in some of Rezko’s deals. This trial represents a ripe opportunity for the Clinton campaign to exploit politically. Of course Clinton has to tread lightly, with her ties to Norman Hsu, Whitewater, Travel office firings, Rose Law firm billing records, and the many other scandals of the 1990’s.

On a final note, the super delegates will be even more important than ever by the time the convention convenes. They will potentially decide who the Democratic nominee will be. Florida and Michigan may also come into play. You may recall that the delegates from those 2 states will not be seated at the convention. The Democratic National Committee decided that their delegates will not count due to the states moving their primary elections forward. Senator Clinton won both of those states and has already started to suggest that the voice of the people should not be silenced. This has been the most entertaining election season of my life, and has the potential to become the nastiest of a generation.

Is Liberal A Dirty Word?

2008-02-28T20:53:00.000-05:00

The National Journal recently released their ratings of members of Congress. They rated Senator Clinton as the 16th most liberal senator, while Senator Obama was rated as the most liberal senator in the United States Senate. The trends show that over the past 3 years, from his first year in the senate until 2007 when he was trying to win the support of the Democratic base support, his voting record shifted dramatically to the left. His rating went from a middle of the road 16th, to number one in 3 short years. Senator Clinton on the other hand started out as a middle of the road liberal and rose to number 8 in the ratings in 2003 and then dropped back in the pack again. It appears that Senator Clinton has been positioning herself as more of a moderate to win broader appeal for a general election, while Senator Obama has positioned himself as a staunch liberal to win the primary election. The question to be posed is this, if the candidates will sell their voting souls for a political victory, what will they do once they are elected?

How do we really know where they stand on any issue? If we can’t look at their voting records as an indication of what they believe, then what can we look into to educate ourselves? Should we listen to what they say on the political trail? As politicians, they will say anything in order to get elected. After all, former President Clinton promised to cut taxes in his first term and to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military. The first President Bush made his infamous promise during the 1988 campaign, “Read my lips, no new taxes”. Politicians make careers out of promising everything to everybody, and then blaming the opposition for blocking their fruition of their promises.

The talented politicians are able to remain popular even after they fail to live up to a large percentage of their promises. President Clinton still remains very popular, even though he did not follow through on many of his promises. His supporters point to the “evil” Newt Gingrich for Clinton’s failings. President Reagan is revered by the conservative base of the Republican party, but he did sign an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants and was unable to control the congressional spending. Clinton is loved, in part, because of his never-ending fight with Gingrich and the Republicans. Reagan is loved because of his strong support for the military and his cutting of the tax rate from over 75% down to 28%.
As this political campaign whittles the field down to 2 major candidates, we are left to wade through the charismatic speeches, the political rhetoric, and the campaign promises to try to decide who will bring about the political progress that most closely resembles our own beliefs. We have to decide whether a candidate that pledges to withdraw all troops out of Iraq, regardless of the chaos that would surely ensue is the best to lead our country. Or do we choose a candidate that would keep our troops in Iraq until the Iraqis are able to maintain their own security. By the way, all reports show that the Iraqi security forces are rapidly taking over control of their own security. Do we choose a candidate that proposes to talk to any third world dictator without any prerequisites? Or do we choose a candidate who understands the naiveté of such a policy? Do we choose a candidate based solely on personality and charisma? Or do we choose a candidate that understands what it takes to be a President? Do we choose an untested and inexperienced senator from Illinois? Or do we choose a war hero and a seasoned senator from Arizona?

The Cult Of Personality

2008-02-21T21:30:00.001-05:00

I know your anger, I know your dreams, I’ve been everything you want to be.
That one line from the 80’s rock band, Living Colour, seems to sum up the following of the Barack Obama campaign. Obama has surprised virtually every political expert, by his meteoric rise in popularity and the polls. This election season was supposed to be the coronation of Hillary Clinton, but no one took the charisma of Barack Obama into account. He has enjoyed rock star fame, which has catapulted him past Clinton in the delegate count. When was the last time you have heard of women fainting at a political speech? That type of reaction is normally reserved for rock concerts. Obama’s “cult of personality” has drawn crowds of 20,000 or more just to hear him speak. The peculiar aspect of his followers is that many can’t seem to name anything that he has accomplished in his brief legislative career. Nor are they able to definitively name any of his positions.

Susan Sarandon, the award winning actress and political activist, recently appeared on the Tavis Smiley show. Tavis asked her whom she was supporting for President now that John Edwards had dropped out of the race. Sarandon answered Barack Obama because he has convinced people that he stood for hope and change. She went on to say that she looked forward to finding out where he stood. One would be safe to surmise that a political activist of Ms. Sarandon’s credentials would be able to say what positions on the issues her candidate of choice takes.

The Democratic nomination has transformed into a personality contest and Obama has started to run away with the nomination. Hillary Clinton for all of her political power and prowess has been unable to match Barack’s charisma and likable personality. Electrifying speeches laced with words like hope and change marks his campaign speeches and rallies. The missing component of his political speech is any trace of specifics on where he stands. A simple perusal of his campaign’s website will shed some light onto his positions, but a closer look reveals that Obama and Clinton are basically the same candidate. The only difference is the likeability factor.

Both candidates have co-opted some of John Edwards’ ideas, for example Edwards socialist plan of taking back $55 billion from corporate subsidies and pass it along to the workers. Both candidates are pushing their version of socialist healthcare, tax hikes for the “rich”, enormous socialist job creation program, and government intrusion into the foreclosure “crisis”. There has not been a candidate for President that has been this overtly liberal in the past 40 years.
Barack Obama has a comfortable lead in the delegate count and appears to be on his way to wrapping up the nomination within the next few weeks. Hillary Clinton is counting on Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to swing in her favor to overtake Obama and gain the momentum that she desperately needs to win the nomination. I can’t bring myself to bet against the Clintons and their drive to retake the White House. I believe that one way or another, either by winning the primaries or using the super delegates, Hillary will end up being the nomination. The only question that remains is, when will the “cult of personality” be exposed for what it is, empty rhetoric.

The Civil War Within The Political Parties

2008-02-14T21:29:00.001-05:00

The race to the political party’s nominations has turned into an entertaining affair. On the Republican side, Senator John McCain has steadily climbed in the polls and the delegate count since early January. He now leads the delegate count by a wide margin over former Governor Mike Huckabee. McCain also received another boost this week with former opponent and Governor Mitt Romney. Romney, as you may recall, suspended his campaign after a poor showing on Super Tuesday. At the time, he made no explicit endorsement for any other candidates. That changed on Thursday, when he officially endorsed Senator McCain, and asked that his delegates vote for the senator at the Republican Convention this summer.

McCain has not had an easy ride to the nomination. Conservatives, myself included, have derided McCain for his positions on illegal immigration, his opposition to the tax cuts of Bush’s first term, his forming of the “gang of 14”, and his cosponsoring of the dreadful McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill. He has made comments recently that seem to suggest that he has changed his mind on illegal immigration; and he asserts that his opposition to the tax cuts was based on there was no accompanying spending cuts. On those 2 points I will give him the benefit of doubt, but on the other points I still take issue.

The “gang of 14” was comprised of 14 senators, equally from both parties, that would cross party lines on judicial nominees. It was in response to the stalemate in the Senate over the President’s judicial nominees. I wanted to see the Republicans in the Senate stand up and fight for the nominees, forcing the Democrats to actually attempt a real filibuster. Instead, we had the “gang of 14” which caved into the Democrats wishes and prevented many great judges from ever getting a real chance.

The McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill was sold as a means to get the money out of politics. Does anyone see the money that was taken out of politics? Don’t we see just as much money if not more money being spent in the election season? The biggest result of the reform bill has been to make it harder for the incumbent politicians to be unseated from their thrones of power. How else do you explain a measure in the bill that does not allow any advertisements against a candidate within 30 days of an election? Take that along with the shifting of the money around, incumbents have been even more difficult to send them back to the private sector.

With all of that being said, Senator McCain is head and shoulders above either one of the candidates from the left side of the political spectrum. Senator Obama holds a slight delegate lead over Senator Clinton. He was the big winner on Super Tuesday and has continued to roll since then. Senator Clinton’s campaign appears to be in trouble, but they maintain that they will win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in a few weeks. They believe that they will win those states and will turn the tide of momentum back in their favor. I believe Giuliani thought that would happen in Florida for his campaign; and Thompson bet his campaign on South Carolina. Giuliani and Thompson are both back in retirement.

One, usually minor, aspect of the Democratic nomination is the role of super delegates. A super delegate is a party official or elected official within the Democratic party. They are also counted towards the nomination. There is a behind the scenes campaign for these crucial votes that could turn the entire nomination on it’s head. There are approximately 800 super delegates that could put a candidate that has won a slight majority of delegates on the losing side at the Democratic National Convention. Super delegates pledge their support throughout the primary season, but they are not bound to their pledge, they are after all politicians. They can switch their support at any time to another candidate. At the moment, Hillary has a lead of about 80 super delegates over Barack. Can you imagine the hysteria that will ensue if Obama goes into the convention with more delegates won than Hillary, but Hillary ends up with the nomination because of the super delegate count?

One other interesting note of concern is the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Those delegates will not be counted in the final tally for the nomination, because of their primaries being moved forward. The DNC has said that they will not count the delegates. At the time of the decision, the Clinton campaign agreed with the decision, but now that she is trailing, will they start to call for those delegates to be counted? Clinton won both Michigan and Florida and she just may need those delegates to win the nomination. I believe that if it is still a close race by the time the summer rolls around, the Clintons will begin to talk about how it is unfair to the people of Michigan and Florida to not have their voice heard. The Reverend Al Sharpton has already promised to demonstrate outside of the DNC offices if they allow Florida and Michigan delegates to be counted. The Clintons are not accustomed to losing and they will do everything under the sun to try to regain their power. The question is, if they succeed, will there be a Democratic party left when the dust finally settles from this nomination process?

The Super Bowl Of Politics

2008-02-07T20:58:00.000-05:00

On Sunday night, the professional sports world was rocked by the improbable Super Bowl victory of the New York Giants over the heavily favored New England Patriots. On Tuesday night, the political world saw a few improbable Super Tuesday victories with Senator Barack Obama winning more delegates than Senator Hillary Clinton, and former Governor Mike Huckabee rising out of the ashes of the campaign season and winning several states causing former Governor Mitt Romney to fall farther behind Senator John McCain.

Huckabee has been an afterthought for the past several weeks since his big win in Iowa. After Iowa, it has been all about McCain and Romney, with both sides claiming to be the true conservative. McCain and Romney then proceeded to split the next 7 state primaries with McCain gaining the edge by claiming Florida at the end of January. Before Tuesday, Huckabee was well behind in the delegate count. Now he still trails Romney and McCain, but his deficit has closed considerably behind Romney. He now trails the former Massachusetts Governor by less than 100 delegates. McCain still leads all Republican candidates by more than 400 delegates.

Last week, I wrote that I believed that McCain would squeak out of Super Tuesday as a clear winner over Romney. I must admit that I never expected Mike Huckabee to be the main reason that McCain emerged with a commanding lead in the delegate count. McCain needs just 484 more delegates to reach 1191 to claim the Republican nomination for President. I believe the resurgence of Huckabee in the south has all but given the nomination to McCain. I believe that the majority of those voting for Huckabee would have gone for Romney if Mike were not in the race. I don’t believe that Romney would have emerged as the leader on Tuesday, but it would be a lot closer than it currently is. As a result of his seemingly insurmountable delegate deficit, Romney decided today to bring an end to his campaign.

Obama and Clinton have been trading states since the Iowa caucuses, but Hillary has clearly been the expected nominee. On Tuesday the results from 22 different states showed that Barack Obama is a force with which to be reckoned. He claimed victory in 13 states gaining about 845 delegates, while Clinton won 9 states wining about 836 states. Some estimates show Obama with the delegate lead, and others show Clinton with the overall lead. It doesn’t matter whose numbers that you tend to agree with, the margin between the 2 candidates is very close. This race is going to be a long drawn out affair, with no clear winner for a few weeks to come. To make matters worse for the Clinton campaign, they are evidently short on money. So short that Hillary had to personally loan $5 million to her own campaign. No one, except for maybe Obama, would have ever thought that the Clinton campaign would be short on cash and still running hard to try to wrap up the nomination after Super Tuesday.

As The Political World Turns

2008-01-31T21:27:00.001-05:00

There are just a few short days left until “Super Tuesday”, when more than 20 states hold their presidential primaries. The political experts informed us last fall that the race for the nominations was all but over. Senator Hillary Clinton was predicted to have virtually eliminated all of the other Democratic contenders before February 5, and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani was expected to roll through the early primaries and have the nomination wrapped up by the time the ballots are counted on “Super Tuesday”. What a difference 5 short months make in the world of politics. Giuliani dropped out of the race earlier this week after a disappointing third place finish in Florida. Clinton has spent the past 5 months desperately trying to fend off the campaign of Senator Barack Obama.

Obama has defied the laws of political nature and won both Iowa and South Carolina. He also picked up the endorsements of Democratic political royalty, the Kennedys. Even a reported phone call from former President Bill Clinton could not dissuade Senator Teddy Kennedy from throwing support behind the charismatic senator from Illinois. Many believed that Hillary would easily win the nomination without more than a mention of any opposition. Someone forgot to mention that small detail to the Obama campaign.

Giuliani wagered his entire campaign on winning Florida. He spent the majority of his time and money in the Sunshine State, believing that if he could win Florida it would propel him through “Super Tuesday” and onto the nomination. What he did not count on was that the preceding primaries would launch the campaigns of Romney and McCain through Florida on their way to next week. Giuliani made his graceful exit and immediately flew to California to endorse Senator John McCain with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. McCain was short of money and considered to be a non-factor in the primaries. Once again the experts were shown to be completely off the mark.

As we head into the carnival on February 5, we can be sure that the rhetoric from all sides will be turned up to a deafening roar. Each campaign is seeking to distance themselves from the embarrassing past, highlight their perceived achievements, and point out the many flaws, real or fabricated, of their opponents. There are a few websites that I recommend you check out to see whether or not the claims of the candidates are in fact truthful. PolitiFact is a website that shows specific comments by candidates or their campaigns and indicates whether or not they are factual or fabricated. FactCheck.org is another resource to determine if any of the political rhetoric bears any resemblance to the truth.
Tuesday could turn out to be the deciding factor in the nomination process or we may have to wait until the political convention before we actually know who will be the nominees. I believe that we will have a definitive winner on each side, if not on Tuesday, within a few weeks. I believe that Hillary will finally pull ahead of the charisma and hype that has built up around Barack Obama; and I believe that John McCain will squeak out ahead of Mitt Romney. From an entertainment perspective, this has been and will continue to be the most entertaining election season of my lifetime.

35 Years of Roe vs. Wade, Have We Learned Anything?

2008-01-24T16:54:00.000-05:00

In January of 1973, the abortion debate became a centerpiece in American political campaigns for many years to come. The landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade has sparked more debate and controversy than any other political issue over the ensuing 35 years. The Court in it’s decision not only gave women the “right to choose”, but also declared themselves part of the legislative branch of government by making laws and superseding the rights and powers of the individual states. January 22 marked the 35-year anniversary of the decision and activists from both sides of the debate held events to remember that historic decision.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute released a study showing that the abortion rates are starting to decline. In 2005, there were 1.2 million abortions performed in the United States. That is down from the high of 1.6 million abortions in 1990. The 2005 numbers show that the abortion rate is the lowest since 1974. While the numbers are encouraging, there were still 1.2 million babies killed in 2005. I believe part of the reason for the decline is the advancements in ultrasound technology. You simply cannot see a live picture of an in utero baby at 6 weeks and hear their heartbeat and not believe that is a living child. If you talk to an expecting mother, she will never call the child growing inside of her, a fetus. That is an innocuous term used to describe an unwanted baby, so as not to cause undue emotional stress about the fate in store for the child.

I have heard the arguments about it is a woman’s right to choose, after all it is her life, her choice, her body. It is truly a sad world that we live in that we can justify ending an innocent human life because of convenience, or career interests, or worse yet, a mistake. Doesn’t the child deserve a chance to live? To be loved?

The government needs to leave their laws off of my body. If that is the case, then why are most of the political candidates discussing Universal Health Care, in which all of us are required to obtain healthcare? Isn’t that making laws concerning our bodies? Why are there laws against illegal drugs?

The earth simply can’t sustain the population explosion that would occur if abortion were outlawed. Using that logic, shouldn’t we then start euthanizing Alzheimer’s patients, or anyone who reaches an age of 85? After all, they have lived their lives and are generally not working or contributing to society any longer.

What about those babies that have a high risk of being born with Down’s Syndrome or other developmental problems? Again, I have to ask, don’t they deserve to live and be loved? The latest Heisman Trophy winner, Tim Tebow, would not be alive today if his parents had listened to the doctors. Tim’s parents were missionaries in the Philippines when Pam Tebow became pregnant. During her pregnancy she became ill from amoebic dysentery, which caused her to slip into a coma. The doctors were able to treat her dysentery with some very strong medication that would cause irreversible damage to her unborn son. They advised that she have an abortion. The Tebows cited their Christian faith as a reason to not kill their son and prayed that Tim would be all right. 20 years later, Tim became the first sophomore in NCAA history to win the top prize for college football players. I realize that not every high-risk pregnancy ends with such a happy ending, but who are we to decide which baby lives and which baby dies?

What about cases of rape or incest? Is the child guilty of the details of their conception? There are thousands of parents waiting to adopt children in our country. They don’t care how or why the baby was conceived. They long to be able to share their lives and their love with a child.

After 35 years of abortion on demand, haven’t we learned that the killing of unborn children is wrong? Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of Roe Vs. Wade, has changed her mind and gone on record to say that her story was false and made up to overturn the existing abortion laws. She originally claimed that she was raped in order to file the suit. She now admits that her boyfriend of the time was the father of her baby, whom she gave up for adoption after she was born. McCorvey is now a pro-life activist, seeking to change the minds of over 1 million women each year who choose to end the lives of their unborn children.

Check out this amazing story of a 21 week in utero baby

The Politics Of Race

2008-01-17T21:25:00.000-05:00

In 1998, Toni Morrison, a Nobel prize winning writer, declared President Bill Clinton “the first Black President”. The Congressional Black Caucus followed suit in October of 2001, by honoring the former President at their annual awards dinner. Clinton told CNS News that, "I think it's a function of the work I have done, not just as president, but my whole public life to try to bridge the racial divide and the fact that even when I was a little boy I had friends who were African-American”. I am beginning to wonder if the Congressional Black Caucus and Ms. Morrison wish they could take back the honorarium that they bestowed upon the 42nd President. I have always found it interesting that Bill Clinton could be considered “the first Black President” when he is proud to admit that well-known segregationist James William Fulbright was his political mentor. Fulbright was a staunch supporter of racial segregation.

Now that the first Black President’s wife is vying to become the first woman President, her campaign has started playing a familiar tune, albeit with a surprising twist. Senator Barack Obama, the first African-American with a legitimate chance at winning his party’s nomination, has been the recipient of numerous racial attacks and innuendos from those associated with Hillary’s campaign. Senator Clinton made reference to the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. fight for civil rights needing a President to achieve his dream. BET founder Bob Johnson alluded to Obama’s drug use during an introduction for Hillary. When Johnson was pressed to clarify his words, he went further to compare Obama to Sidney Poitier’s character in Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner; an obvious ploy to allege that Obama has sold out. The former President apparently felt left out of the game of personal attacks, he called the Obama campaign a fairy tale.

When Senator Clinton appeared on the Sunday morning news show “Meet The Press”, she explained away her campaign’s remarks by accusing the Obama campaign of not only distorting her words, but also of playing the race card. I am amazed at the audacity of the Clintons. They bring up race and personal attacks, and then proceed to turn the tables and accuse their political opponents of the very same thing, all the while pleading innocence. It is a very risky political maneuver, especially with the South Carolina primary looming in the near future. If Hillary does go one to win the nomination, she also runs the risk of African-Americans of either voting for her opponent, or staying home on election day. I believe it would be a fitting end to the Clinton’s political career. After all, they have taken the “Black vote” for granted for years by playing lip service to the African-American community.

To Senator Obama’s credit, he has displayed character and maturity by not allowing the Clinton campaign to drag him down to their level of politics. I am a bit surprised by the Clinton campaign’s tactic of attacking him personally and racially. Senator Obama has been in the Senate for barely 3 years, during which time he has spent the majority of his time campaigning for President. His time spent in Illinois’ state senate was marked by his propensity for voting “present” instead of a simple yes or no. His campaign is one built on excitement and his personal charm and charisma, which makes him a formidable political opponent, but he is not invincible. If his Democratic opponents begin to point out the sizable holes in his policy positions, we will see his poll numbers start to slide. The question remains, will the Clintons continue the politics of personal destruction? Or will they become victims of their own game?

I'm a Pundit Too

Speech For The April Fools Day Rally At Dutch Ruppersberger's Office

How Much Can They Ignore?

The Panic In Massachusetts

The Love Sacrifice Of Leonard And Ray Ethelyn Stouffer

Welcome To The Era Of Ignorant Arrogance

The Obama Deficit Lie

Thank You Veterans!

Thousands Draw A Line On The Capitol Steps Over Health Care

The War That The White House Does Want To Fight

The Inevitable Vietnam-Afghanistan Comparison

President Obama Thinks He Is Still In The Illinois State Senate

The House Celebrates Constitution Day In Typical Hypocritical Fashion

Is The President Lying, Or Is He Just Clueless?

Why Not Try "Cash For Real Change"?

The Democrats ARe Becoming Desperate Over Health Care Reform

The Dog Days Of Summer Are Hard On The Politicians

Was Orwell's Vision Off By 25 Years?

The President's Health Care Reform Nightmare

The House Passes H.R. 2454, The Economic Destruction Act Of 2009

New Hate Crimes Legislation Poised To Muzzle Your Pastor

More Political Posturing By Obama On Spending

Will Obama Say Anything To Distract From His Disastrous Domestic Policies?

Is There Any Backbone Left In DC

Pelosi Changes Her Story Yet Again On Torture

Who Is Watching How Our Money Is Spent?

Apparently I Am A Bigger Threat Than Al Qaeda

What Significance Does Easter Hold?

Is Obama Leading Us Into Socialism?

Hypocrisy, Is It The New Kool Aid Flavor?

Hypocrisy Reigns Supreme In Washington DC

Obama's Hypocrisy On Earmarks

Rookie Mistakes By An Inexperienced Politician

President Obama, The $4 Trillion Man

Pelosi Returns From The Vatican Wood Shed

The Unconstitutional Road To Socialism

The Return Of The Politics Of Fear

The Congressional Plan To Lengthen The Recession

The Endless Cycle Of Political Corruption

Will The Obama Administration Meet With Hamas?

You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists, Even Those In Palestine

Merry Christmas!

The Fall Of Bernie Madoff Has Political Implications

The Culture Of Corruption In Illinois Politics

Why Not A Tax Holiday, Instead Of Another Bailout?

What Can We Learn From The Pilgrims?

Don't Let Congress Turn The Auto Industry Into Another Amtrak

Conservatives Need To Get Back To Reagan Basics

My Excitement Over The Election Results

Socialism Is Not Called Fairness

American Workers Do Not Need Democracy

Taxes, Lies, and Distortions

Corruption By Association

Corruption By Association

The Vice Presidential Debate Highlghted the Deception Of The Obama/Biden Campaign

Playing Politics With Race

Why Is Obama Afraid Of Town Hall Debates?

What is Honor?

Sarah Palin Pick Ignites A Liberal Panic

Obama's Convention Fails To Deliver Substance

Where Does Obama Stand On Abortion?

The Politics Of Pessimism

Obama's Lack Of Experience And New Ideas Is Beginning To Show

Happy Anniversary Rush Limbaugh!

How Low Will Congress' Approval Go?

Al Gore Calls For Energy Independence

Is Reverend Jackson Threatened By An Obama Presidency?

How New And Fresh Is Obama?

The Tale Of A Schizophrenic Court

Democrats Stick Their Heads In The Sand On Energy

Fight The Smears, But Whose?

The Warner-Lieberman Plan To Destroy Our Economy

Can The Republican Party Save Themselves?

The Impending Legal Battle Over Voter Disenfranchisement

Obama's Appeasement Foreign Policy

Will There Be A Democratic Party Left After November?

Is Reverend Wright Sabotaging Obama's Campaign?

Has The Obama Star Faded Beyond Hope?

The Chaotic Political Process

No More General Betray Us?