How Much Can They Ignore?

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

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

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

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

Socialism Is Not Called Fairness

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Workers Do Not Need Democracy

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

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

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

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

Taxes, Lies, and Distortions

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

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

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

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

Corruption By Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corruption By Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Playing Politics With Race

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Is Obama Afraid Of Town Hall Debates?

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

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

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

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

What is Honor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah Palin Pick Ignites A Liberal Panic

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Convention Fails To Deliver Substance

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

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

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

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

Where Does Obama Stand On Abortion?

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

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

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.

Is Reverend Jackson Threatened By An Obama Presidency?

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?

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.

Most Electable or Most Qualified

Will Conservatives nominate a candidate who can beat the Democratic nominee? Or will we nominate the best person for the job, who ends up letting Hillary into the White House.

I'm not going to go deep into who is the best person for the job, because I just don't know right now. But I do have some theories as to who will do what against whomever. Who can beat the current Democratic front runners? Thompson, Rudy, Mitt, McCain, Ron Paul?

Let's first take a look at Rasmussen. They have not only the primary races, but have also put together some head-to-head polls, pitting certain Republicans against certain Democrats.

First we will look at Ron Paul. He pretty much loses big against Hillary and against Obama, which of course is due to some big media, corporate empire conspiracy. I'm certain that Alex Jones has all the answers at his web site where you can also find out that 9-11 was an inside job and the V-Tech killings were a CIA brain washing experiment. He gets less that 35% against both candidates.

McCain is neck and neck with Hillary, only 2 percentage points separating them. Hillary and Obama are both well ahead of Mitt, 51% to 40%. McCain could give the Democrats a run, but in the end I think he loses, and there is no way he is going to get the nod after the immigration foul up. Mitt is popular, but not that popular.

Fred Thompson still has not announced, yet he is only 3 points shy of Hillary right now. Would making it official give him a boost? Will waiting it out just a bit longer help or hinder? I have no freaking clue. He is the politician, which means he has a bit more experience at getting elected, so I'll let him figure that out. I think that if he did get the nod, he would slap Hillary or Obama silly at every debate. Not only does he have a commanding voice, but he knows the words to use.

Giuliani is the only guy beating Hillary right now in the head-to-head. This is considered a strange thing given the fact that the right doesn't like his stance on, well, every single social issue. He is great on certain issues such as crime and national defense. Not so good on things like abortion. I think that if he assures conservatives that he will install good judges, he can get around that issue to some extent, but abortion is one of the biggest issues he is fighting. He is also not trusted by conservatives when it comes to gay issues. I personally don't get half of that, but us conservatives are very religious and this is a big deal. On the other side, Democrats are against gay marriage also, so what is the real effect.

Rudy is running very high mostly because he is America's Mayor. He is now being criticized for missteps after 9-11. But he did display a great deal of courage and leadership. He misspoke about how much time he spent at ground zero, but he was there getting dirty and doing his job.

So let's break this down. Hillary Clinton is going to be the democratic nominee. I have no doubts at all. She is polling well ahead of Obama and Edwards. She has been forgiven by most of the anti-war left for her vote, and many have forgotten half of the things that she has said and done that would make most people exclude her altogether. That is one advantage of being a Democrat, the fact that most things are only wrong if done by a Republican. If you call it a right wing conspiracy or tell everyone that Bush tricked you, you are forgiven. Carl Rove immediately stepped up attacks against her when he resigned, attacks that may continue for a while. He does this knowing that he is hated by the left because he got Bush elected and he is a demon who eats puppies and helped design the Halliburton Hurricane machine that killed all the poor black people after Katrina. What I'm trying to say is that Rove's words against Hillary give her strength with Democratic voters. Interestingly Dick Morris says that the best thing that can happen to the Republicans is a Hillary ticket because Republicans would go vote just to defeat her. Is this what Rove is thinking? Would those same people vote to defeat her if they had to vote for Giuliani to do so? Again, his stance on abortion kills him with a lot of voters.

Giuliani has appeal from both sides. There are liberals out there who support the war effort and like a guy like Rudy who has left leanings. There are conservatives who forgive his stance on abortion, and will vote for him to ensure the defeat of Hillary. Rudy could actually win New York, and if he is given the support of The Governator, may actually pick up California. California is a stretch, but the right tactics could get it done. You have to not only consider how many votes will be gained, but how many will be lost by an issue. The anti-war crowd is angry that they haven't gotten their way yet, and may be no-shows. This gives Rudy another advantage in California.

This is also going to come down to how things go in Iraq. Contrary to MSM belief, things are much better than they were BP (before Petraeus). He has lifted the morale of the troops and has turned many of the Iraqi insurgents against Al-Qaeda. They are starting to realize that they will be allowed to get into the politics once they agree to act like politicians. Even many who have opposed the war for years are agreeing that the current strategy is working. Attacks are decreasing and Iraqi forces are getting trained so that they can take over security. This is bad news for Democrats, but Hillary is good enough to take all the credit for the successes.

Another issue is the economy. Lack of regulations on the sub-prime markets has turned our economy on its head. Many will blame Bush for this despite the fact that this was done by the marketplace and there was nothing any president could have done. Hillary is adding a bail-out to her platform, which would have catastrophic ramifications down the road. If the government bails out everyone who is about to lose a house, we will have problems. But people don't think about long term issues when they are in trouble now. What is needed is controlled actions by the Federal Reserve, then Congress needs to put some regulations in place regarding the sale of Adjustable Rate Mortgages. This is what needs to be done, but as long as she is talking about a bail out, she will get support. However, this is going to be mostly cleared up by Election Day, so it won't help her as much as she may think.

I think that if Giuliani gets the nod to run against Hillary, his choice as VP is going to be vital. I know that he likes McCain, but Conservatives don't. Rudy already has the abortion issue against him, he cannot add the issue of John "Immigration Reform" McCain. This will cost him support with from the left and the right. Polls claim that the majority of Americans were against the bill, and that they want a secure border. Rudy may do well to look at the second place candidate, Fred Thompson. Fred could give him more of the Conservative base, especially in the south. This also gives him someone who economists may like. Fred is a tax reform type of guy who believes in business. This is of course assuming Rudy wins the nod instead of Fred, but I'm going with how it looks at the moment. Things may very well swing when he makes it official.

On another note, I don't like the fact that this is how I may be forced to make my decision. I don't think I really want any of the candidates to win. I disagree with all of them on too many issues, but God help us if Hillary or Obama were given the power to surrender to Iran, create socialized medicine, raise taxes on businesses and then for some damned reason, bomb Pakistan.

Who Will Be Fred Thompson’s VP?

Now that Thompson has wrapped up the GOP nomination, the question on everyone's mind is who he will pick to be his running mate. I know we are still months away from the primaries. I am also aware that Fred hasn't actually announced his bid. But let's be honest, he is going to run and he is going to win. He is the most popular Republican in the race, despite the fact he isn't officially in the race.

The Presidential race is more about popularity than politics. Why do you think the two current front-runners are also the most liberal? Rudy and McCain are popular because of their past. The other candidates don't have the same history. Romney is doing well because he knows marketing, or someone on his team knows marketing. But the rest of the candidates, despite their conservative values, have very low poll numbers. Just don't tell the Ron Paul "truthers" that I said that. Internet polls that allow you to vote 100 times don't count, ok.

Fred is popular, mostly because of his time on the television, which interestingly enough started when he played himself. This led to some great movie rolls, and of course his current roll as a conservative prosecutor. All of this has increased his popularity amongst conservatives and has made him a favorite with conservative pundits and blogs. Some trivia for you, part of his inspiration to run was Dick Wolf, the guy who put together the many Law and Order shows.

So, again, now that he has this thing wrapped up, who will he pick as his running mate? We have seen in the past where the candidate picks a former foe from the primaries. There is some speculation that Fred will pick one of the current candidates. Steve Elliott of grassfire.org is expecting a younger governor, thinking that two senators won't play well in the fight against Barack O'Clinton. This is a very good point, especially given the recent record for senators against governors in the presidential race.

I won't speculate myself, but I will tell you what to look for. Look for polls, transformed into pairing people up with running mates. An example: Would you vote for Hillary/Obama or Thompson/Romney or Thompson/Tancredo?

Fred is running because fictional polls that included himself and Newt put the both of them well above other candidates. Fred played this so that he would know whether or not to actually run. He wanted to be certain that the people were tired of the front-running RINOs. And we are tired of them. Fred will find out who makes the best ticket, and he will start this process very soon.

I'm not sure that he can win it all right now. Republicans are very angry, mostly about amnesty, I mean "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"; I mean amnesty. I don't know if this can be saved, but with his popularity, maybe he is the guy who can do it. The pick for VP will play a very important factor here. The democrats will do the same, we could even see another Clinton/Gore ticket believe it or not. My guess is that it will be Clinton/Obama.

Don't screw it up Fred, the country can't afford it right now.

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?

The GOP—a party in distress

The Party of Reagan withered under the “kinder, gentler” administration of Bush(41), consequently suffering further indignity under two “era of big government is over” Clinton terms, only to be further disenfranchised by Bush(43)’s “compassionate conservatism” domestic spending policies.

read more digg story

Can Ron Paul Win a 'Scientific' Poll, or Just the Online Polls?

Much has been said online, places like digg and prisonplanet, that Ron Paul is destroying the other candidates in the polls. Interestingly, he only seems to be winning the online polls.

LGF has the story about Prisonplanet's piece claiming that there is no way to fake online polling because they register your IP address. Really guys? This is from one of the websites that claims Bush orchestrated 9-11. Bush managed to cover up 9-11, but Ron Paul supporters can't download one of the thousands of IP programs that allow you to use one of the many proxy servers that are connected to hide your IP address? I'm not buying it kids. Now, I'm only guessing here about those proxy programs of course, I don't have one on my computer. Well, not at the moment. And if you ask me if I have ever had one, I will plead the 5th, being a strict Constitutionalist and all.

Real Clear Politics has run the numbers, and it shows Giuliani to be on top of the polls right now. This is from a combination of a large number of telephone polls from different organizations. If Ron Paul is the clear winner in both debates, why is he only at about 1% in the polls right now? And before you start on the conspiracy theories, allow me to give you one of my own. The conspiracy lies with those who support Ron Paul. You are going online and voting multiple times for him, and if need be, using easy access to proxy servers to hide your IP address. Either my theory is right, or none of you people own telephones. I will be the first to say that I am not a big fan of poll numbers, but how do you explain the huge discrepancy? The best number I have seen yet for Ron Paul in any non-online poll is 3%.

I know that you have a theory to retort. I know you will spout off that Ron Paul is being left out of the polls on purpose, or some other nonsense. But here's the deal. Conspiracy theories are not going to get Ron Paul into the White House. Conspiracy theories aren't going to help our country. Conspiracy theories just make the rest of us think that you are all nuts. I happen to agree with Paul on many things regarding using the Constitution as the litmus test. I love the Constitution and spent 5 years under oath to defend it. I would still pick up a gun to defend it if need be. I absolutely love the fact that lobbyists stay far and away from Paul's office, knowing that he will shoot them down. We need more of that attitude in D.C. I disagree with his stance on isolationism because we exist in a day and age where technology keeps us too tightly knit. But that is a completely different piece that I am not getting into at the moment. The issue I am bringing up here is that people see through this internet escapade. Those who don’t see through it are the ones who don't use the internet that much, so they only see the media polls. This means Ron Paul gets nowhere near the White House. This means you are all wasting your time promoting yet another ridiculous conspiracy that needs to be put down. Do something constructive like supporting border security.

Illegal Immigration And Terrorism

On Monday, six men were arrested by Federal officers for plotting to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey and slaughter as many soldiers as possible. Law enforcement was tipped off in January of last year when the men took a videotape of themselves in training for a Jihadist attack to a local Circuit City to have it transferred onto a DVD. The store employee notified the police who in turn notified the FBI. The men were then put under surveillance and watched until the arrest early this week.

Three of the six men were in the United States illegally. Two of the men had permanent residency status, and the final man was a citizen. Agron Abdullahu was brought to the U.S. as a refugee from Kosovo in 1999. In just 8 years Abdullahu has gone from refugee that was saved from certain death in his homeland, to Jihad seeking terrorist.

What should be a wake up call to all members of Congress, and the administration, is that three of these terrorists have no record of legal entry into our country. The illegal immigration debate has taken a new turn and can no longer be ignored. Yes, there are millions of illegal immigrants in our country that have come here to work and live peaceful lives. There are others that have come to wreak havoc and kill as many of us as they possibly can.

There are an increasing number of “sanctuary” cities throughout our country, where illegal immigrants are not reported by law enforcement for traffic violations and other minor offenses. In some states the Governors and legislatures have passed or are considering laws that allow illegal immigrants to obtain legal drivers licenses. Maryland has even gone as far to grant illegal immigrants residency status for university admission. These “safe havens” for illegal immigrants do not just attract the peaceful, hard working people; they undoubtedly attract those like the six arrested Monday.

I find it appalling that “well-intentioned” politicians overlook the overwhelming threat against our country in order to placate to a voting block of people. This is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. This is a homeland security issue. Both Republicans and Democrats have their fair share of the blame on this issue. Both sides love the rhetoric of protecting the masses from the terrorists, but neither side has done nearly enough on illegal immigration.

Will this be a wakeup call for Congress and the administration to do more to protect our borders? Will the proponents of open borders continue to preach to us tolerance and multiculturalism? We have laws concerning immigration and they need to be enforced. We need to force our local and state governments to enforce immigration laws. We need to hold our Congressman and the administration responsible for not protecting our borders properly. The administration needs to know that the American people want the illegal immigration criminals punished instead of the border patrol agents guarding our borders.

Did Romney win the Debate of Stupid Questions? -- The Sequel

According to Drudge, Romney took it with 37% of the vote followed by Giuliani with 20%.

Pollster.com gives it to The Mayor with 30% followed by McCain with 17%.

Prisonplanet.com says that Ron Paul had 47% of the vote on MSNBC's poll. I can't find an active link to the MSNBC poll, but yahoo has a US Newswire story with Paul taking 43% of the MSNBC vote.

Interestingly, FoxNews says that McCain won. But the article claiming this was written by Dick Morris. Morris runs vote.com. Vote.com shows the winner to be Ron Paul with 30% followed by Romney with 29%. McCain took only 7%.

With the exception of pollster, these are all online polls, so no one knows how many people voted multiple times. Pollster's survey was limited to California adults, so the fact that the more liberal candidate won probably doesn't reflect the entire country.

More strict Constitutional conservatives now know the name Ron Paul. More conservatives got to compare Giuliani and McCain to Romney. So my question is how long before Romney and Paul are the frontrunners in a field that is currently led by a pro-abortion candidate and a candidate lax on border security? Paul answered a number of questions by saying that something was or was not authorized by the Constitution. He did it so many times that it almost seemed monotonous. But few conservatives will argue with his logic. Romney had some good answers, and I thought his explanation of his abortion views made sense. He said he has always been against it, but believed that it was a choice. After debating the issue, he believes the federal government should pass it to the states. He stood tall and looked good, which won him a lot of points. He looked like a President.

Of course, everyone is still asking about Fred and Newt. If they enter the field, do some of the others drop out? Could Fred and Newt take the frontrunner spots? People like them. Fred is mostly marketing, and Newt has that skeleton out of the closet thing. But people see a lot of comparisons in Fred and Reagan, and not just the acting thing. Newt is probably the smartest of them all when it comes to actually fixing problem. His book Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America is about as good as it gets. If they enter, it changes everything. They may not win, but they certainly make the race more interesting.

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.