Is There Any Backbone Left In DC

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

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?

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

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.

Is Obama Leading Us Into Socialism?

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?

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?

Obama's Hypocrisy On Earmarks

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

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

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

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

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 Congressional Plan To Lengthen The Recession

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 Fall Of Bernie Madoff Has Political Implications

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

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?

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?

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

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

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.

Socialism Is Not Called Fairness

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

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?