I'm a Pundit Too

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Hate Crimes Legislation Poised To Muzzle Your Pastor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is There Any Backbone Left In DC

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

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

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

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

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

Pelosi Changes Her Story Yet Again On Torture

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Is Watching How Our Money Is Spent?

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently I Am A Bigger Threat Than Al Qaeda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Significance Does Easter Hold?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Obama Leading Us Into Socialism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypocrisy, Is It The New Kool Aid Flavor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypocrisy Reigns Supreme In Washington DC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Hypocrisy On Earmarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rookie Mistakes By An Inexperienced Politician

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Obama, The $4 Trillion Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pelosi Returns From The Vatican Wood Shed

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

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

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

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

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

The Unconstitutional Road To Socialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Return Of The Politics Of Fear

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Congressional Plan To Lengthen The Recession

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

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

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

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

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

The Endless Cycle Of Political Corruption

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

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

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

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

Will The Obama Administration Meet With Hamas?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists, Even Those In Palestine

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas!

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

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

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

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

The Fall Of Bernie Madoff Has Political Implications

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

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

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

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

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

The Culture Of Corruption In Illinois Politics

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

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

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

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

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