I'm a Pundit Too

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.