Hypocrisy, Is It The New Kool Aid Flavor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Honor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where Does Obama Stand On Abortion?

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.

Run Fred Run, But Will Newt Run With You?

Newt Gingrich recently told Diane Sawyer that there was a great possibility that he would run for president. He said sometime last year that he would run if he felt that there was no other strong candidate in the GOP. He seemed to infer that he would run if he thought there was no one strong enough to stop Hillary. Well, there is someone strong enough to beat her; the problem that that someone is Barack Obama.

Newt has been setting himself up for a run for quite some time. He has been very active in politics. You can read his articles at Human Events. He is pretty regular on FoxNews. He has been very active in working for health care reform and has even given testimony in front of Congress on changes that could be made to lower costs for the poorest of Americans without raising taxes. His book, "Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America" is great. If he were able to implement everything in that book while wisely conducting the War on Terror, he would easily go down as one of the greats. He would have to get everything past Congress of course. He is very vocal regarding immigration and the need to secure the border, a hot topic issue with conservatives, and with many liberals also.

So, the problem is this thing with an ex-wife. His past indiscretions are seen as a huge roadblock. Conservatives see it as a betrayal of core values, and liberals see him as a hypocrite for going after Clinton. Granted, Newt didn't commit perjury, so the liberals have little to stand on. But they are convinced that Clinton did nothing wrong, and they won't let facts get in the way of their agenda. Conservatives take issue with Newt because some are concerned that one who cheats on his wife will cheat on his country.

All this aside, Newt is a potential candidate who has been neck and neck with another undeclared potential candidate. Fred Thompson and Newt have both been running 3rd and 4th in the GOP presidential candidate polls despite the fact that they have not declared. Fred is seen by many as the "Reagan" candidate, but probably because they have both been in movies. Fred has quite a bit of support from people who like his attitude, even if they don't know a lot about where he stands and what he would accomplish. He did a great job of making Michael Moore look like a buffoon and has had much to say about things like taxes, security, and immigration. All of this added to his popularity means that he could probably beat Hillary if she ran with Obama as her running mate in the showdown.

So this begs the question, does Newt step aside if Fred declares, say June 12 on the Tonight Show? If Fred runs, many think he will win. The thought is that he fills the gaps left by the current field, and he doesn't have the Newt baggage. Newt wants to run, he wants to be the President of the United States. He wants to prevent another Clinton administration, but he wants to be in the White House for more than that. He has great ideas and can do some good for the country. But can he beat Fred? If Fred keeps this popularity running, and announces soon, he may be unstoppable.

There are issues with the current field. Rudy, the current front runner, won't tell us his real thoughts on abortion. He has the best leadership, but won't get the religious voters. McCain hasn't figured out that conservatives are opposed to amnesty. Romney could be the come-from-behind-to-win guy, and if he wins the primaries, has the potential to steal votes from the democratic candidates. But many don't trust him on abortion, and Baptists think Mormonism is a cult. The other candidates just aren't popular enough. Some of them have good messages, they simply haven't expressed them the way American's like to hear them expressed.

Beating the democrats may be more necessary now than ever before. The Democratic Party has no idea that we are at war. The Republican Party has sold out on too many issues and looks more corrupt every day. There are terrorists looking to sneak nukes across wide open borders. The Republican sell-out handed Congress to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha. It could hand the White House to Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Our country cannot afford to let this happen. We are at war regardless of our inability to accept it and a democratic President will back down in the War on Terror.

This leaves a great opportunity for someone who is very popular, and very conservative, to jump in and take the primaries. Newt and Fred are both waiting for conservatives to get tired of the flip-flops and bad answers in the debates. But I don’t think that Newt can beat Fred, and I think Newt knows it. If Fred announces, Newt may wait it out to see what happens and possibly run the next time around.

I do have an alternative though. What do you think of Thompson/Gingrich 2008?

What Do The Candidates Really Believe?

As we watch the political season heat up earlier each election cycle, we are treated to the video and audio clips of the candidates making speeches in a variety of locations, before a variety of audiences. One aspect of every speech seems to be the same, no matter where the speech takes place or who it is in front of. Most candidates seem to not only adjust their views, but, in some cases, even their accents.

On March 4 of this year, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both made appearances at churches in Selma, Al. to commemorate the 42nd anniversary of the march for voting rights that led to “Bloody Sunday”. In our politically charged world, we have come to expect politicians to show up at any event to exploit the occasion for their political benefit. Hillary Clinton adopted a southern drawl in her speech that sounded like a bad comedy skit. Barack Obama also adopted a new “dialect” in his speech patterns that gave the impression of a fiery African-American evangelical preacher. Clinton also adopted her “accent” during a speech before Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network on April 20. I realize that she lived in Arkansas for about 20 years, but why would she only speak with southern accent in front of African-American audiences? Why does Obama need to change his speaking style when before African-Americans?

Politicians routinely appear in churches throughout the country to speak to the congregations before elections. You are almost guaranteed to hear the candidates quoting from the Bible as though they just read the scripture that morning during their devotions. I have no doubt that some of these politicians may actually be sincere, but too many times it is all too clear that a speech writer added the scriptural references to try to appeal to the congregation.

John Edwards constantly points out the two Americas that he sees today. Pointing out that there are two distinct classes in our country, the “haves” and the “have nots”. This is almost laughable when you see the pictures of his 28,000 square foot house, complete with an indoor pool, basketball and squash courts. Edwards has every right to have a house this large, but it seems a bit hypocritical. Edward’s wife was quoted as saying their neighbor’s property was “slummy”. That is an odd way to describe a neighbor who definitely would not be considered a member of the “haves”.

Rudy Giulani has emerged as the front runner in many polls for the Republican nomination. He has taken some criticism for his views on abortion and gun control while mayor of New York City. His reaction to the criticism has been to try to explain away his stands on these issues. If he believes in gun control than stand up and say you do and why you support it. Explain to us your reasons for your views on abortion. He is not the only candidate on either side to use this tactic to try to curry favor with the voters, but he is a good example. Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic candidate with whom I disagree on almost every issue, stands behind every view and decision. I believe he is wrong about everything, but I have to respect that he has the courage of his convictions. John Kerry during the 2004 campaign uttered the now famous statement, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.” This one statement epitomizes what most politicians will say or do to win your vote.

Politicians will say or do whatever their audience wants to hear or see, just to get their approval. In every campaign there are instances where a candidate will directly contradict themselves from an earlier speech. The campaign staff will scramble to come up with a “logical” explanation of what their candidate actually meant to say, and we all nod our heads in agreement. Why do we accept politicians that talk out of both sides of their mouths just to get votes? It is a forgone conclusion that a politician will promise you the world, but will never, ever deliver; but yet the voting public sheepishly follows along and hopes that this time it will be different.

I believe it is time we demand more of our candidates. We must realize that their will never be the perfect candidate that we agree with on every issue. We are going to disagree on some issues, we deserve an explanation of their view, and then it is up to us to make an informed decision. We should be calling the candidates on their obvious attempts of patronization. I believe we deserve candidates that have the courage of their convictions, who are willing to take a stand and accept the consequences or rewards for that stand. It is up to everyone of us on both sides of the political spectrum to hold the politicians accountable for the views and opinions.