In 2004, Zell Miller praised George W. Bush for his belief that “God is not indifferent to America”. I believe that too. British historian Simon Schama characterized the 2004 elections as a victory for Godly America over Worldly America. If it was a victory for Godly America, it was really just a small battle. The real fight for America’s soul lies at our doorstep. It is between self-reliance, and government dependence. It is between freely making our own decisions, with an attendant responsibility to accept their consequences; or embracing an increasingly totalitarian state which makes decisions for us and attenuates the consequences of increasingly limited personal choices. We do not often associate modern liberal-progressives with limited personal choice, but we should. Their agenda comprises limited personal freedoms in every area except sexual expression.

Sunday night’s healthcare vote has echoed through the hearts of freedom loving Americans like the sound of a cannon. We are again facing a civil war in America, not one marked by blazing cannons, but a war of ideas that will prove just as passionate as the war which began in 1861. The American experiment of self-government will be tested once again. As Schama observed in 2004, “not since the Civil war has the fault line between… [America's] two halves been so glaringly clear, nor the chasm between its two cultures so starkly unbridgeable.”

Schama, however, saw America too simplistically- as being divided primarily between red and blue states. Republican and Democrats will likely trade some players in the coming conflict, and belief in God will not be a litmus test for either side although it will certainly play a pivotal role. The coming conflict of ideas will likely cut across traditional party lines. The war between the “choice and accountability” model of a free society will supersede old points of contention when pitted against the progressive’s ideological model of “maximized group benefit and limited personal freedoms”.

America is unique among the world’s nations in that our Declaration of Independence declares our fundamental belief that certain rights are unalienable, and that they are given by our Creator. I note that an entitlement to health insurance is conspicuously not found in our founding documents. Our constitution begins “We the People” and goes on to narrowly limit the powers of government. Powers not specifically mentioned as being granted by the people to the federal government are specifically reserved to the states and the people respectively. Local government was given priority, and it was believed that “that government which governs best, governs least.” Progressives preach a big government gospel that promises to heal all social ills and treats our founding principles as worn out ideas unsuited for the modern era. Obama was elected on a centrist platform that promised bipartisan cooperation. We have now seen what Obama’s version of bipartisanship looks like- it is codespeak for “join me on the far-left or I will shred the constitution to accomplish my objectives”. That is hardly what the majority of the 63 million Americans who voted for him had in mind when they cast their ballots. He was a good speaker who pledged to “change Washington” and end the partisan bickering. Only those who really listened heard his calls to “fundamentally transform America”.

Americans are angry, and that anger will be shown at the ballot box in 2010. The majority of the American people do not support Obama’s increasingly transparent agenda of radical progressive change. It is important for each of us to get involved in our local political parties to ensure that candidates who run for office in 2010 will support the original intent of the Constitution with vigor and unyielding resolve. We must push back using every legal, ethical and honorable means against the aggressive tactics of secular progressives.

To continue to be strong and free, America needs both a spiritual and a political renewal. God’s blessings cannot be enjoyed when his laws are ignored. Traditional Christian principles and standards of behavior have been an integral part of America’s strength in the past. As Newt Gingrich has pointed out, “There is no attack on American culture more destructive and more historically dishonest than the secular Left’s relentless effort to drive God out of America’s public square.” In his first inaugural address, George Washington’s expressed his hope, “that the foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality.” He went on to say, “…there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself has ordained.”

Gordon Hinckley, former President of the LDS Church observed in a 1997 address on American liberty that “I believe we are paying a very high price for our increasing secularism. Jefferson said, ‘God who gave us life, gave us liberty.’ Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a gift of God?” Progressives believe that our liberties come by the grace of government, and that newly created human rights such as the right to cutting edge healthcare can be ensured by legislation. Never mind that such an entitlement is entirely unaffordable. Danger lies in the government that thinks it can bestow fundamental rights. The government that gives can also take away.

American renewal begins with each of us. It will require our vigorous but peaceful involvement in the public square, the neighborhood, and the classroom. We can win the war of ideas that is competing for the soul of America. We will need to be bold. We will need to be outspoken in ways which may feel uncomfortable. If the America we knew and enjoyed is to be enjoyed by our children and grandchildren, we must win. Like Abraham Lincoln, we must believe that right makes might. The status quo of the past 20 years is disintegrating. America is likely to undergo serious change; but we can determine whether that change results in renewed freedom and accountability under a system of God given unalienable rights- or whether America will adopt the soft bondage of socialized risk and limited personal freedom. God help us.

The biggest spending bill in American history has just been signed into law. If Roosevelt’s New Deal was converted into today’s dollars, it would have cost roughly half what the new stimulus bill will cost. Funny thing, since the economy was in much worse shape in the 1930′s. Government spending did not get America out of that depression either. In fact, the recession we are currently in has been quickly dubbed a depression by liberals who want to push a big government agenda. Now, as then, big government liberals have seized on the opportunity created by an economic crisis to saddle the American people with expensive social programs and heavy handed government restrictions on free-enterprise.

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”, said President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Immanuel. Yes, if your goal is to push big government programs past the American people against their better judgment, then the panic invoked by a crisis is the ideal time to achieve such a feat. Obama’s administration, acting in concert with the democrat controlled congress, has been moving quickly and boldly to implement Socialism-Lite. The stimulus bill included a sneaky provision allocating 600 million dollars to “prepare the American people for universal healthcare”. No wonder the bill was pushed through congress so quickly, under the premise that it was necessary due to the “crisis”, without adequate time to read the bill or debate its provisions before it was passed into law. As much as the bill had to be passed by the weekend to avoid further economic collapse, Barack Obama did not rush home from his long-weekend off to sign the bill. He waited till Tuesday.

No Senator or Congressman was left behind in this massive spending bill. These well-dressed politicians, immune from the difficulties in the economy the rest of us face, put together a nearly 1 trillion dollar spending package that hands off money to almost every special interest group imaginable. Every dollar of the bill will be paid for by you and me, or perhaps our children and grandchildren- with interest. If the congress had been spending their own personal fortunes instead of ours, they may have been much more careful and conservative about which provisions of this bill were really necessary or had hope of being effective.

The non-partisan congressional budget office predicts that the stimulus bill will have a slightly negative net effect on the economy. “In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run”. In other words, doing nothing would be better for the economy. Perhaps permanent tax-rate cuts would improve the long-term economic outlook, but a fundamental problem with the American economy is that we are spending more than we earn. We are consuming more than we produce. As individuals and as a nation, we are deeply indebted, and for real prosperity and economic stability to resume, we need to produce more than we consume. I think this needs to be achieved by cutting back our spending to sustainable levels that fit within our national and personal means, while actively paying down debt until we become debt free.

The real danger in the stimulus package is that it dramatically expands the federal government’s power by putting States on the Federal dole, extending government power into the private economy in the form of bank subsidies, and supplanting private investment with government directed spending. Because the federal government is borrowing so much money to fund the stimulus bill, its acquisition of investment dollars will partially crowd out monies that would have been invested in more productive private enterprises. The CBO reports that “in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollar’s worth of private domestic capital” thereby hurting the private economy in favor of government run enterprise. Such socialistic workings inhibit the strength and robustness of the free enterprise system that has provided Americans with the highest standard of living in the world.

To top it all off, there is the prospect that the government will print much of the money it needs and cannot get from selling bonds. This causes inflation, and ultimately dilutes the value of everyone’s money. Goods become more expensive. Inflation is a cruel form of tax, since it is particularly hard on the elderly who live on fixed incomes. In fact, the money printing has already begun.

Strap yourself in. It is going to be a wild ride before our nation sobers up. We seem to be making the same mistakes which prolonged the Great Depression of the 1930′s. Big government spending crowding out private investment, a left-wing President in whom people place too much hope, and protectionist economic policies which drive down world trade.

It is not history that repeats itself, but human nature. Repeatedly, nations cycle through periods of (1) virtue; (2) prosperity; (3) excess, greed, pride and envy; (4)decline. It would be a blessing to mankind if we could cut the cycle short, and return to virtue and prosperity without drinking the dregs of decline’s cup before we sober up and recapture our first principles.

Before America gets too excited about “Yes, we can!”, we should stop and consider whether we should. America does need change, but that change should be in the direction of virtue, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, honesty, and accountability. Big government helps none of the above.

       Tom Hanks accused Mormons (Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) of being “un-American” due to many church members’ support of California’s Proposition 8, which constitutionally banned gay-marriage in California. In his own words, Hanks said “the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen… There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them.” Really, Mr. Hanks? By what definition of “American” does Hanks arrive at his conclusion? Certainly not a definition based in our constitution, or in public sentiment for that matter.

       The First Amendment to our constitution reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, …” This integral part of the Bill of Rights, unique to American law and society, is representative of some of our highest and most “American” ideals. In sum, each citizen is guaranteed the free exercise of his or her religion (as long as it does not harm others). Each citizen is also guaranteed freedom of speech (with very few restraints).

       If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wishes to encourage its members to oppose gay-marriage, it is free to do so. In fact, such a right is vintage American. Moreover, Hanks gets his facts wrong. The LDS Church did not solicit donations to the church in order to support Proposition 8′s ban on gay-marriage. Individual church members gave money through private donations to a multi-faith political action committee which supported Proposition 8. What California witnessed was democracy in action. A majority of Californians, most of them not Mormon, voted to ban gay-marriages. This was not a surprising result, since in 2000, Californians passed a similar measure banning gay-marriage by an even wider margin, only to have their voice silenced and overruled by an ultra-liberal California Supreme Court. Whereas the first vote was simply a law prohibiting gay-marriages, Proposition 8 was a Constitutional Amendment which effectively prohibited the court from once again circumventing the will of the people.

       Hollywood does not want the people of California to have the final say. They want a panel of four judges to dictate its “enlightened” will upon the people. The homosexuals responded to the vote with seething anger. Gay activists refused to accept the result of the democratic process, and began to riot and protest. Gay activists have targeted Mormons due to their effective organizational role in the campaign to pass Proposition 8, and their vulnerability as a minority group. These same angry gay activists have defaced churches, intimidated citizens, vandalized the homes and cars of individual donors to the Proposition 8 campaign, and sent an envelope full of white powder to a Mormon Temple.

       It is time for gay activists to respect the democratic process and accept the results of November’s election. Hollywood liberals must accept these results too. Mr. Hanks and others must realize that their moral values and concepts of justifiable societal rights are out of step with the American public. As Kim Farah, a spokesperson for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints said in response to Hanks’ comments, “Expressing an opinion in a free and democratic society is as American as it gets.”

A  friend recently asked me who I thought was the better of the two Presidential candidates, and to please support that assertion with “why”.

I believe that John McCain is the better of the two candidates.

Here is why:

1- Barack Obama supports gay marriage. He has expressed his opposition to California’s Proposition 8 (which would amend the state’s constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman only). The California proposition comes in response to a recent State Supreme Court decision that overruled a state law passed by a 60% voting majority that banned gay marriage. The liberal court circumvented the will of the people to determine their own moral judgments. The people are now acting to take their precious right of political and moral self-determination back from a five person elitist court that turned the will of the people on its head. The right of Americans  to determine the broad moorings of acceptable sexual morality is deeply intertwined in the constitutions of every state. Obama has tried to dodge election controversy by recently claiming that he only supports civil unions, but many of his statements are carefully worded to allow for a shift in position. He has stated his support for gay-marriage to many groups.

See:  http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html (Where the Candidates say they stand. )

See:  http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid56867.asp  (Text of Letter from Obama to Gay-Lesbian-Transsexual Group.)

See: http://thedailysnack.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/california%E2%80%99s-proposition-8-and-why-a-vote-for-obama-is-a-vote-to-ruin-america/ (Prior Daily Snack blog post, with an in depth review of the subject. )

See: http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Proclamation to the World regarding families. I would draw special attention to the second to last paragraph, where it is stated that the deterioration of the family will bring about the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. In European countries such as the Netherlands where gay-marriage has been granted, hetero-sexual marriages are dropping and  marriage has been trivialized.  British demographer David Coleman and senior Dutch demographer Joop Garssen have written that “marriage is becoming a minority status” in Scandinavia. In Denmark, a slight majority of all children are still born within marriage. “But the deeper point is that the meaning of traditional marriage was transformed every bit as much by the decade-long national movement for gay marriage in Holland as by eventual legal success.”)

2- Obama will raise taxes on many Americans at a time when  such a move could cripple our fragile economy.  He says famously that he will not raise taxes on anyone who makes less than $250K, but this is untrue. As in many of his carefully nuanced statements, the details are deceitful. He wants to uncap the payroll tax limits which would raise the taxes paid by anyone  who makes more than $97,500.00. A %16 tax increase on money over $97,500.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCMieWnY9uo&feature=related (Obama in his own words explains his tax plan on a YouTube video of a democratic primary debate.)

Update: In his third debate with John McCain, Obama claimed he would only raise payroll taxes on persons making $250K or more. If this is true, then he would keep the cap at $97,500, but create a no-man’s land between $97,500 and $250K where payroll  tax is absent. He would then uncap it over $250K. Complicated, plausible, but unlikely. I personally do not trust Obama and believe that he will raise taxes AT LEAST on persons making 100K plus. That is the threshold number needed to produce the revenues required to support new social programs at current levels of horrific deficit spending.

 Obama’s tax policies literally change as he goes. I have rewritten this portion of the article several times in an effort to keep up with him. He plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts, and then send checks out for $300 to every American making less than $250K. Since 40% of Americans do not currently pay any income tax at all do to generous progressive exemptions, this equates to socialist welfare. Obama literally plans to take hard earned wealth from one group, and redistribute it to another less productive group.

He has been very vague about the specific details of his policies. His website is desperately short on hard facts and details.  When Obama first started making his “I will not raise taxes on anyone making under 250K” claim, it was not followed with a comprehensive explanation, plan, or detailed assessment of how it would work. He seems to be adjusting the details as he goes. As the pieces come together, it is becoming terribly complex.  

See if you can understand:

Conservative leaning tax policy study center: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/23319.html

Liberal leaning tax policy study center: (Truly confusing, but worth looking at.) http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm

 

The bottom line is that Obama wants to redistribute wealth in America. If you make over $250K, you are in big trouble. If you ever want to make over $250K, your dream should be dampened by a realization that much of the money you earn would be taken away from you and redistributed to other  more deserving people. Obama will raise capital gains taxes, estate taxes, dividend taxes, and income taxes on anyone earning over $250K. With all the zeal of a Robin Hood, he will take form the rich and give to the poor.

McCain promises to cut the growth of government spending, and not raise anyone’s taxes. His Healthcare plan would give every Americans a $5,000 tax credit with which to buy health insurance. Businesses would lose their current tax deduction for money they use to pay employees health insurance, but receive corporate income tax cuts which would roughly compensate.

See: http://thedailysnack.wordpress.com/ Prior blog post describing Obama’s tax policies.

 

3- The next President will likely appoint one or two new Supreme Court Justices. This power of the President, often overlooked and undervalued by voters,  has long reaching affects that last decades after the President is gone; and it affects our fundamental rights and freedoms. Obama has said he would appoint someone similar to Justice Ginsburg. She is the most liberal justice on the court. Soon, the US supreme court will likely rule on gay-marriage. Having a conservative court is vital to protecting the institution of marriage.  Ginsburg is anti-death penalty, pro-abortion, pro taking of private property for private use under Eminent Domain powers (I.e. Take your house against your will, although compensated to build a shopping mall deemed economically beneficial for the community by the city council, who may have private stakes involved), anti- gun rights, and soft on child molesters, anti-school prayer, and anti- public displays of religion. We don’t need any more Ginsburg type justices.

See: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chemerinsky7-2008oct07,0,7696721.story (Excellent LA Times editorial on the subject, written no less, by extremely liberal constitutional law professor E. Chemerinsky.)

4-  Obama is pro- late term abortions.

See:  http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1726757620070718

5- Obama supports sex-education for Kindergartners. In his own words-

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pO1dIKgfPw&feature=related

6- McCain is not a stellar candidate, but he would do a good job. He supports badly needed tax cuts on Corporations. That may sound funny since corporations are played up as bad guys in the media, but corporations provide jobs, and when they do well, workers generally do well too. We live in a global marketplace, and we have the 2^nd highest corporate income taxes in the world. Business are moving their headquarters to countries that tax them less. With them goes jobs and tax revenues we could have had here in America.

7- McCain has a record of reaching across the aisle to democrats and working together. Obama has the MOST liberal voting record in the Senate. As McCain said of Obama in a debate- It’s hard to reach across the aisle when you are sitting that far to the left. We need a President who can represent people of both parties and “all of the above” approach to energy independence is the best approach to solve high prices and dependence on countries who don’t like us. Drilling for oil now will help now.

See: http://www.youtube.com/user/ngingrich (How drilling now will help now.)

Also, we need solar, wind , natural gas, and nuclear. We send over 700 billion dollars overseas for oil. That is money that could stay in our economy, and go to Americans.

8- McCain will strengthen our military and protect America from terrorism. Obama would weaken our military, and still try to protect us. I think McCain would do a better job.

See:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWTmis842Jc&feature=related (Video is a bit dramatic, but it lets Obama speak in his own words about national security issues.)

If we take our ICBMs off alert, and slow production of new weapons, we will be weakened. Russia would just need to keep a few ICBMs on secret alert and we would be in grave danger. The idea is naive and foolish. Not to use a campaign buzz word in calling Obama “naive”, but a lot of Obama’s ideas are not practical. He resembles a typical college freshman, with big ideas who doesn’t understand the practicalities of how the world works yet. Hope is good, if it is in Christ. Change is good, only if it is good change.

Note: The Bush administration was not responsible for the mortgage mess. Bush tried 3 times to regulate the mortgage industry, and congressional democrats rejected it. They were playing to their special interest groups like ACORN, who push mortgages for poor people who don’t qualify and have insufficient income. A house is great, but only if you can afford it. If not, people should be fine in apartments. ACORN does a lot of volunteer political work for the DNC and “get out the vote” efforts. Republicans should have done more too, but the subprime-mortgage crisis falls squarely at the feet of congressional democrats.

See:  http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-10-12-congress-meltdown_N.htm (Congress’s specific instances of culpability in the credit and housing price crisis.)

See: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/being-squirrell.html (ACORN ‘s corrupt entwinement with congressional democrats. Also a good example of how Obama parses words to deceive people. )

See:http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/editorials/the_meltdowns_acorn_131274.htm (ACORN and the credit crisis.)

 

9- McCain has led efforts to cut corruption and waste in government for years, and would do so as President.

 http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/13/1539689.aspx (McCain will fight for American exceptionalism.

As he said at the Republican convention, McCain will “fight for the ideals of a free people”.

No candidate is perfect, and I am sure each American will make his or her own decision on who to vote for, but these are some reasons why I think John McCain is the better choice.

“Get in their face” and argue, Barack Obama told his supporters in Elko Nevada yesterday. Obama has become increasingly fierce in his political attacks of John McCain since he began slipping in the polls following the two major party conventions. As more of the general public tune into the political debate, the tide of public enthusiasm has shifted toward John McCain.

In an election year that should have been a slam-dunk for democrats, McCain’s popularity shows how uncomfortable a majority of the American people are with Obama’s far left policy proposals. Obama’s VP candidate, Joseph Biden, recently went so far as to say that “paying more taxes is patriotic”. Obama’s big government ambitions seem to have no limits. History teaches a stern lesson of skepticism for those who gullibly believe democratic candidates claims’ to raise taxes “just on the rich”. While Obama’s official rhetoric promises tax cuts for 95% of Americans, the independent Tax Policy Center specifies that Obama’s proposals would grant a tax cut to only four of five American households. If one accounts for the capital gains tax increases, corporate tax increases, estate tax increases, and social security tax increases proposed by Obama, the notion that “middle class” Americans will be less burdened by taxes becomes a ridiculous fantasy.

Americans would do well to remember the wise counsel of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln:

In all that people can do for themselves, government ought not to interfere.

It is the eternal struggle between these two principles- right and wrong. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time and will ever continue to struggle. It is the same spirit that says “You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.”

Obama’s prescription for all of America’s ills boils down to increased government regulation and control. He plans to “create green collar jobs” with new government tax money taken from productive workers. He plans to regulate oil company profits and redistribute their earnings. He plans to increase taxes on capital gains at a time when capital is dangerously scarce, thereby further discouraging capital investment. He plans to increase payroll taxes. He plans to tax, regulate, tax and then regulate some more.

As he discusses in his first book, “Memoirs About Nothing”, Barack Obama tries to sell his ideas by cloaking them in more palatable rhetoric than people are used to hearing. He fashions himself as a politician who reaches out across party lines; but such moderation is not apparent in his voting record- the most partisan liberal voting record in the Senate. The new kind of politics Obama promised Americans is looking more and more like the old cut-throat brand of politics he is now practicing openly as the race tightens.

Obama’s new politics are not new at all. His brand of change is remarkably similar to the old liberal big- government, tax and spend policies of Lyndon Johnson and Walter Mondale. Obama’s brand of change can be aptly characterized as Socialism-Lite. It has the same bad taste as Old Europe’s socialism, but with 30% more freedom! Americans are not buying it. Socialism must always be dressed up to make it marketable. It is a bland, tasteless dish that promises an adequate minimum daily allotment of calories in return for security. It robs its adherents of courage and initiative, and makes no mention of the corrosive heat disease it slowly and quietly fosters within a society. McCain believes that Americans are entitled to the fruit of their labors.

If Obama supporters “get in your face” over the next while in heated defense of their candidate, we might quietly and respectfully ask them to keep their errant political views to themselves. After all, we don’t push our views on them. The Bolsheviks, however, did not deal well with differing viewpoints either. The party of tolerance has quickly become the party of intolerance for anyone whose views are not in line with theirs. Congressional democrats even attempted to pass a bill called the “Fairness Doctrine” this past year, which would have limited the free political speech of conservative talk radio hosts.

This election is about freedom. Freedom to live out the ideals of a free and independent people. America does have her difficulties, but America’s strength lies in her political differences from Old Europe, not her similarities. Nationalized healthcare, a nationalized home mortgage industry , and increasingly demanding employment laws are threats to our cherished freedoms just as surely as Soviet era tanks and missiles. Like the boiled frog that complacently and fatally waits for an alarming increase in temperature, the policies of liberalism and Obama’s Socialism-Lite are widdling away our freedoms. We Americans need to awake to the state of our affairs, and return to the safety of our first principles.

Indeed, as attributed to Lincoln:

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by tearing down the wage payer. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot build a man’s character by taking away his initiative and independence. You cannot help a man permanently by doing for him what he could and should do for himself.

Ronald Reagan was fond of reminding us that freedom is never more than a generation away from being lost, and that once lost, freedom is never redeemed without bloodshed. John McCain urged passionately in his nomination acceptance speech to “Fight with me for the ideals of a free people!”

As docile, moderate, and cosmopolitan as Barack Obama tries to present himself; he is nonetheless, irrespective of whether he realizes it or not, a threat to our freedoms. “I’m not scary”, he says playfully at his campaign rallies. “I’m not risky.” Reason tells us otherwise. History teaches a different lesson. Obama’s Socialism-Lite is dangerous stuff. The giving away of our freedoms for promises of security will eventually put a corruptingly great amount of power in the hands of a self-interested few who will not put our best interests before their own. The declining power of Old Europe is due in part to the fact that they have so overspent on social programs and indebted themselves to each other on the premise of collective security that they cannot afford to pay for their own national defense.

As the campaign rhetoric heats up in the race for the Presidency, and the angry left gets angrier, Barack Obama is beginning to show his true colors. What we see is Socialism-Lite. It is a dramatic escalation of old liberal thinking from years past. That’s not change we can believe in. That’s more of the same.

I’ve had my eye on John McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” as he travels around the country preparing for the Republican nomination. Here’s some straight talk from me, John- ” I’ll still vote for you over Obama, pretty much no matter what. In fact, I’d walk several miles to the polling place to vote for you if I had to. That’s mainly because I’m voting against Obama.” I think a lot of Americans share my feelings.

McCain has demonstrated an admirable devotion to duty, he was a P.O.W. in Vietnam (for anyone who has somehow missed hearing him recite this), and he has a strong desire to reform wasteful government spending. Luke –warm Republicans, however, have never shined in the annuls of history.

Gerald Ford finished out Richard Nixon’s second term with a notable lack of achievement before losing his re-election bid. George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton after straddling the Republican fence in 1992, following his first term during which he reneged on his promise not to raise taxes. Bob Dole lost to Clinton in 1996, when the famously boring veteran Senator failed to garner enough support for a victory while campaigning as a compromiser who could reach across party lines. Republicans were not meant to be fence sitters!

Ideologically solid Republicans like Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush were all elected to two terms, and each left an indelible mark on American history. Not that McCain cannot be a good President, but I was secretly hoping he would pick Mitt Romney for his running mate, beat Obama, and then die shortly afterwards of old age.

I read a news excerpt today that made me reminiscent of this years’ primary races. After praising Sarah Palin, Romney stated with his usually clarity and self-assured conservative zeal, that “As you stand back and look at Joe Biden, you see someone who has spent 30 years dealing with foreign policy but has usually been wrong.”

He pointed to Biden’s opposition to the arms race Ronald Reagan pursued to choke the Soviet Union, Biden’s opposition to the first Gulf War, and Biden’s opposition to the troop surge, “which has led to our success in Iraq.” Romney also referred to the excessively blustery Biden as “an impenetrable thicket of words”, saying he was not sure if anyone was ready to debate him.

Love him, or accept him begrudgingly, John McCain is our man this time around. His foreign policy instincts appear good. This was underscored for me by his swift and strong response to Russia’s invasion of neighboring democratic Georgia. McCain immediately condemned the Russians, called for Russia to pull out, and stated “I know I speak for every American when I [say] … today, we are all Georgians”. On that same day, as Georgian villages were being raided and burned, Barack Hussein Obama urged “both sides to use restraint”.

On election day, I will gladly swallow the warm glass of water I find in John McCain, and vote for him in order to defeat the threat to our liberties and way of life I see in Barack Obama. In an election that should have been an easy win for democrats, McCain may have found his perfect moment as a compromise candidate.

McCain may just do a good job!

Citizens of California will vote on Proposition 8 this fall, a measure that would amend the California State Constitution in the wake of an activist court decision that ruled gay marriage permissible. Proposition 8 would amend the California Constitution such that marriage will be defined as being between a man and a woman. It would effectively reverse the court’s decision, which contradicted popular sentiment. In 2000, California voters passed a law banning gay marriage with a 61% majority of the vote.

Barack Obama recently came out in strong opposition to Proposition 8, and any similar measures in other states. In a letter to the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club (LGBT) of San Francisco, Obama stated that he wanted to “join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course
that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law.” He goes on to enumerate his support of gay marriage, hate crimes legislation, and new laws against employment discrimination.

He would, in effect, make super-citizens of people living a homosexual lifestyle. Professed homosexuals would have more rights than ordinary Americans. If Obama gets his way, gays will be protected by stronger laws than other citizens. Hiring quotas would likely be his means of further promoting homosexual interests in the workforce, since federal laws already prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Obama further states that “I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy” of our military. Obama, who seeks to be Commander in Chief of our military, would reject the wisdom of our military leaders past and present, by letting gays openly profess their homosexual lifestyle in the military. Colin Powell, along with other military leaders, strongly condemn the idea as being in opposition to
standards of morale, good order, discipline, and unit cohesion in the military.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was supported by overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress and signed into law during the Clinton administration, has two key provisions. (1) No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. (2)The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Some Californians who support proposition 8 still feel that a vote for Obama on the national level is unrelated to their support of traditional families and marriage. Obama’s opposition to Proposition 8 does have some consequence. It tells us about how he might vote on similar issues on the national level. Proposition 8 is important because families are the core unit of society. Allowing gay marriage would weaken the institution of the family, and radically change American society. The legal implications of gay marriage affecting child education and daily life, which will surely follow, would be enormous. Dennis Prager discusses this at more length here: Link

Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming — to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.

The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable… Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.

Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger — if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.

Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become… Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.

Indeed — and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists — the terms “male” and “female,” “man” and “woman” will gradually lose their significance. And what will happen after divorce — which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.

We have entered something beyond Huxley’s “Brave New World.”… Our children… will pay the price.

The California Supreme Court’s Decision to supplant the established will of the people with their own sentiments is in reality tyrannical, and it was not based on constitutional principles. As stated by Justice Baxter in his dissenting opinion, the California Court ignored “crucial restraints upon the overreaching exercise of judicial authority in violation of the separation of powers” and it supplanted the will of the people by “judicial fiat”. Also, that judges with limited accountability infringed “upon our society’s most basic shared premise — the People’s general right, directly or through their chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.” Overturning a recent law passed by the majority of the citizenry without a sound constitutional basis for the decision, as the California Court did, is subversive to constitutional government.

Proposition 8 would fix the disastrous decision of the California Court by amending the California State Constitution. It would re-establish the will of the people. In that sense, Proposition 8 is about much more than gay marriage, it is also about upholding the rule of Constitutional law. It would send an unmistakable message to the courts- that they should reconsider before attempting to subvert the rule of constitutional law in the future.

If elected President, Obama would have the opportunity to nominate one, if no two, U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Liberal (or “Progressive”) justices do not respect the Founder’s careful determination that the States- not the Federal Government- should have power to determine the nature of family relationships. A liberal activist court could turn gay marriage into a national issue.

By making the decision to legalize gay marriage on the national level, the Court would not only weaken society in the obvious respect, but they would rip away essential State’s rights and disrupt the careful balance of power that has been the genius of our national constitution. As John McCain likes to say- “Elections have consequences.” They determine the make-up of the Supreme Court. In the long run, who a President nominates to the court may affect society much more than the policies they initiate during their short tenure in office.

If you are a social conservative, or a constitutionalist, you may want to think long and hard before voting for Barack Obama. Besides, McCain is the democrat in this election. Obama is a socialist whose careful campaign rhetoric paints him as a deceptively moderate progressive.

Too many Americans fail to see the danger that lurks in Barack Obama’s candidacy. His internationalist point of view puts America second to other interests . His socialist economic agenda promises to circumscribe our liberties. His far left social views would contribute to the further disintegration of America’s moral fiber.

Clear thinking Americans need to speak out against Obama, because choosing to remain silent means choosing to accept curtailed freedoms. Choosing to remain silent means accepting societal decline. Choosing to remain silent is patriotism abrogated.

Obama meets with Ahmadinejad:

On a more serious note, Obama’s foreign policy positions really are dreadful. I can’t decide who is more naive: (A) Barack Obama, for suggesting we bomb Pakistan and hold unconditioned peace talks with Iran’s Ahmadinejad; or (B), the American voter for believing that Obama could possibly offer positive change by clothing his extremist liberal policies in generalist terms of warm and fuzzy rhetoric. Everyone can agree with statements like “It is time to realize our highest hopes and dreams.” If you haven’t noticed, this Obama guy is notoriously vague.

If Obama gets elected, a lot of his supporters will become disillusioned when they learn that his “hopes and dreams” weren’t quite the same as what they had in mind. He cannot please both Leftist Wackos and the conservative Democrats (who fall into the normal person category) at the same time. Some group in his camp is going to have to play the role of “good comrade” and take one for the team.
America has been through a lot over the past eight years. George W. Bush has done an excellent job of keeping us safe, keeping our economy strong, and restoring honor to the Office of the Presidency. Try and find a liberal to repeat that one! Yet who would have imagined, in the months that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks, that America would not see a single act of terrorism on our soil for the next seven years? America’s offensive against terrorism is working. I am always impressed by the ADD symptoms exhibited by the American electorate. Half of the populace has forgotten the grave dangers we faced seven years ago. Bill Clinton’s endless scandals and indiscretions have been edited from memory, leaving only years of blissful prosperity (brought about by the Republican congress) as his legacy. Such selective amnesia is due in part to the mind altering effects of liberal media.

For earth worshipers, the greatest threat the world faces today comes in the form of increased carbon emissions. Even though one volcanic eruption spews more carbon dioxide into the air than decades of worldwide industrialization, it is apparently no longer safe to drive SUV’s if we value the life of our planet. As one who believes that God created the Earth with the foresight that we would one day have factories, I view the earth as a rather resilient place to live. I hope that the environmentally responsible, of which I consider myself one, will soon make a clear ideological separation from the environmental extremists, so that our ever pandering congress can do its job.

Lefties who usually reject notions of God and religion have formed a religion of their own- the great Global Warming Cult. Not surprisingly, the Global Warming Cult is exempt from the separation of church and state doctrine. We all have to be indoctrinated with their lunacy. I am voting democrat this election, and checking the box next to John McCain. I can’t stomach a socialist (Obama), and I hope that we won’t have to. I also hope for a true conservative candidate on the ballot next time around. Maybe four years of Barack Obama will inadvertently deliver us one.

 

 

 

The majority of the United States’ elected officials seem to be out of touch with the country’s needs. I think it is time to “throw the bums out”! We need fresh representatives in this nation’s congress who have yet to become thoroughly corrupted by self-interest, and the specials interests of campaign contributors. What we need is new Republicans to replace both Republican and Democratic representatives. In 1994, Newt Gingrich put together a very successful “Contract with America”, in which new Republican House members pledged certain changes. It is time for the voters to make a Contract with Congress of their own. We the People, will elect you if…

I propose five simple requests for the Congress and the next President:

1. End Ethanol Subsidies. Our government has been giving away tax dollars to subsidize the production of corn to be used as a fuel additive to replace gasoline. It was mostly a way of buying votes in rural areas, though it promised to slightly reduce dependence on Arab oil. The unintended consequence has been a reduction in wheat production. Also, the type of corn used for Ethanol production is not the same type of corn eaten by people and animals. It cannot be diverted from the Ethanol plant to the grocery store or the feed lot. Because farmers have been paid an artificially high price for their Ethanol corn by the government, they have grown less wheat and food crop. This has contributed substantially to higher food prices in the United States, and to food shortages around the world. Congress could end these foolish subsidies in one day.
2. Encourage and Permit the Liquification of Coal. Coal is one of the United States most abundant resources, and it can be converted into synthetic oil and gas for about forty dollars per barrel. Oil recently priced in at about one hundred and twenty dollars a barrel.
   Coal liquification was experimented with in the early 1980′s, but abandoned as gasoline prices fell. The Germans successfully pioneered the technology towards the end of WWII when they desperately needed gasoline. South Africa has been doing it for years. Now that oil prices are sky high, and an industrializing China promises increasingly high demand for oil, it is time for us to immediately begin liquefying coal. The hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on foreign oil will stay in the American economy if we liquefy coal. The U.S. sits on 27 percent of the world’s known coal reserves- enough to sustain our oil needs for the foreseeable future.
3. Stop U.S. Companies from Hiring Illegal Immigrants. Every year, hundreds of billions of dollars are sent home to Mexico by Mexican workers who are in the U.S. illegally. The money that is earned here in the U.S., and then sent home to foreign countries siphons wealth out of the U.S. economy. I do not dislike immigrants, or even illegal immigrants. I welcome legal immigrants. Most Mexicans and other South Americans who come to the U.S. for work are good people who are looking for a better life. They are all children of God, and we need to respect them and treat them with dignity no matter what their legal status is. The government has an obligation to crack down on employers of illegal immigrants by imposing stiff fines. This will quickly dry up our country’s foreign labor market, and illegal immigrants will go home. Meanwhile, we should increase legal immigration for qualified foreigners, and perhaps institute a guest worker program to support western agriculture. As a good start, Congress should act now to crack down on U.S. companies employing illegal immigrants.
4. End Pork Barrel Spending or “Earmarks”. Voters everywhere have been consistently angered by wasteful “pork barrel” spending by congress- such as the famous Alaskan bridge to nowhere. Also known as “earmarks”, congress often includes special spending projects into otherwise unrelated bills in order to bribe an individual congressman’s support. For example: A bill to fund medicare reform is a few votes short. Yet uncommitted lawmakers will offer their support in exchange for attaching the passage of a wasteful and indulgent federal project which injects money into their home state and buys them votes for re-election. Wanting to pass the medicare reform, the other lawmakers agree to the wasteful spending in order to garner enough support to pass their bill. The favors are returned when other bills come up for a vote, and the federal governments’ spending of our tax dollars becomes downright irresponsible. Twice over the last year, democrats have voted down a bill to prohibit earmarks altogether. Republicans earmark too, but democrats earmark much more, and Republicans are leading the charge to end it. Earmarks need to end now. We need to make that message loud and clear in the November election.
5. Keep Healthcare Private. Good healthcare is important to everyone. It is always good when you make a profit, so why is it not good for your Doctor to make a profit? The free market system of profit making is what has driven our healthcare system in America to be the best and most advanced in the world. But costs have gotten a little out of control. Socialized healthcare that is run by the government would retard new advances in medicine, hurt the economy, and damage the high level of care most Americans receive. Healthcare costs money. It is not an inalienable right for citizens of the United States to have the world’s finest healthcare for free. If taxes are used to pay healthcare, we will all pay a lot more in extra taxes than we currently do on health insurance. Government inefficiencies in Canada, England, and France have created extremely expensive systems of care which include long waiting lines for routine surgeries. We can reduce healthcare costs through capping lawsuit liabilities. This will cut doctor and hospital costs, as well as the costs of excessive and unnecessary preventative testing procedures doctors routinely engage in to protect themselves from unreasonable levels of law suit liability. We can reduce healthcare costs by requiring uninsured Americans to get private insurance, which would eliminate costly emergency room care for the non-emergency treatment of those who are uninsured. The costs of these services are passed on to you and I through higher insurance premiums to cover hospital impacts, and higher taxes to cover ballooning medicaid costs. Tax incentives could defray the cost of new private policies for the poor. We can reduce healthcare costs by allowing small businesses to band together in order to get the benefits and bargaining powers of large corporate employer insurance programs. The sum of these savings would be substantial, and we would all feel the relief.

    

   You can email all your elected representatives at once by visiting Congress.org. Demand they institute these five simple requests:
   

   1) End Ethanol subsidies
   

   2) Begin the liquification of coal
   

   3) Stop U.S companies from hiring illegal immigrants
   

   4) End wasteful “earmarks”
   

   5) Keep healthcare private

     

Barack Hussein Obama, oh how we love thee! Let us recount the ways…

1. We love you because your mother was white, and your father was black. You remind us of the dream of a perfect racial hybrid of all people. You are so in right now!
   

    

2. We love you for dedicating your book to your father, who you hardly knew. We love you for dedicating your campaign to your mother, who you were not particularly close to. The same mother who left you for years while she worked on her doctorate in Indonesia leaving you with your grandmother- a “typical white person”.
   

    

3. We love you because you kindly remind us “bitter” small town Americans of the folly of being believing in God and our religions- as a way to cope with a tough economy. Yes, it’s the economy stupid. So many are struggling to find meaning in a post N.A.F.T.A. world where there is increased competition for some manufacturing jobs. Supporting our Second Amendment Constitutional rights by clinging to our guns is another symptom of job loss. Then there is the way small town Americans hate all people who are different than themselves; that’s another bad symptom of economic woes.
   

    

4. We love you for not stereotyping people.
   

    

5. We love you because your wife is finally proud to be an American this year, though “America is a mean place in 2008″. This gives us hope!
   

    

6. Your promises to push “shared prosperity” and a “progressive” socialist agenda endear us to you. You will make us all poorer by taking more of our money for wasteful government programs, and destroying incentives to work hard. Wait… Won’t that just make us bitter? Clinging to our guns, religions, and antipathy for others? No-
   

    

7. Because the cult of personality that surrounds you will make everything better!
   

    

8. We laugh at the throngs of people who crowd in to hear you speak, all the while chanting “Yes, we can!” Our laughter relieves the anxieties we have about your inexperience and naivety on issues of foreign policy. After all, we are at war.
   

    

9. We love you for being so careful to “frame” your message as “change” — rather than partial birth abortion, driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, tax hikes, socialized medicine and abandoning mandatory minimum prison sentences for federal crimes. We love Ann Coulter for pointing that out.
   

    

10. We love you for refusing to wear one of those silly American flag pins, symbolic of support for our country and patriotism.
    

     

11. We love Jeremiah Wright, the pastor who hates America, but leads your church, baptized your children, helped write your book, and has helped advise your campaign. We feel sorry for you that you were entirely unaware of his hatred of America, Jews, and Whites… until FOX News found out.
    

     

12. We love your ability to say a lot, and yet still say so little. You make it look so easy.
    

     

13. We love you for still believing in socialism, even though it has failed so many times. It would have worked if you had been in charge!
    

     

14. If nothing else, we love to hate you, just a little less than we’d love to see you gone!