Lessons in Government - Page 1

Bad government results from too much government.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have -- and probably will.

Whatever the government gives, it must first take away.

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.

I love my country but fear my government.

Big government: the opiate of the masses.

The Enemy Within

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not traitor, he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.” — Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman orator and statesman, circa 45 B.C.

Everyone knows that the definition of an "honest politician" is someone that that "stays bought"!

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." --Thomas Jefferson

"Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders, and shift that problem to the hands of the government, to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of our people." --John F. Kennedy

Evangelicals -- A Drag on or Essential to the GOP?
By David Limbaugh
Friday, 21 November 2008

A good friend of mine (let's call him Bob) is convinced that unless the GOP puts abortion "aside as its focal point, it simply cannot win and regain power." That's especially interesting in light of Kathleen Parker's latest column, which disses the evangelical wing of the GOP.

Bob's point is that "we've lost a majority of women over this issue as they have become one-issue voters." It's not only liberal women but also others who believe it's simply not the government's business.

Kathleen Parker broadens the point considerably beyond abortion: "The evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh." Since the 1980s or so, says Parker, the GOP "has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners. … The GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents."

I'll resist the temptation to respond specifically to Kathleen's uncharitable indictment of us knuckle draggers because I like Kathleen personally and because I want to respond to her and Bob's overlapping contention that certain social conservatives are dragging the party down.

Bob's opinion is largely based on his personal conversations with women, and Kathleen writes, "If one were to eavesdrop on private conservations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that … armband religion is killing the Republican Party." But do their anecdotal reports justify their conclusions?

2004 exit poll data reveal that President Bush got 55 percent of the male vote and 48 percent of the female vote, while 2008 data show that McCain got 48 percent of the male vote and 43 percent of the female vote. McCain's percentage of the male vote dropped more than his percentage of the female vote, so it's hard to see how alienated women made the difference.

Plus Karl Rove tells us that there were 4.1 million fewer Republicans voting this year than in 2004, some of whom he believed turned independent or Democratic for this election, which might validate Kathleen's thesis, except that Rove says that most of those 4.1 million "simply stayed home."

What's even more interesting is there was an almost identical drop-off (4.1 million) of those voters who attend religious services more than once a week (evangelicals, anyone?).

I'm thinking Bob needs to avoid angry women, and Kathleen should steer clear of those intelligentsia types, for there is another 2008 exit poll gem they might not have seen. Top issues for voters were: economy (63 percent); war in Iraq (10 percent); terrorism (9 percent); and health care (9 percent). It appears that neither abortion nor any other social issue even made honorable mention.

It's not debatable that Obama had a vastly superior organization and "ground game" and did an infinitely better job than McCain of marketing himself and inspiring voters with his charisma and his nebulous message of hope and change. Despite all these advantages, McCain -- largely because of the jolt of enthusiasm he injected into his anemic campaign by naming the conspicuously pro-life Christian Sarah Palin his running mate -- was surging ahead in the national polls right before the subprime meltdown reared its game-changing head. Though Democratic policies and actions mostly caused it, Republicans got the blame -- and McCain was finished.

Considering all those unique factors in 2008, it's premature to say this election represents the emergence of a sustained national power shift in favor of the Democrats -- though admittedly, current demographic trends are problematic for the GOP.

But if social issues were so advantageous for Obama, why did he hide and distort his record on abortion? Why did he not brag about the liberal activist judges he is sure to appoint? Why did he attempt -- other than when he thought his microphone was off in San Francisco -- to paint himself as a mainstream Christian who wants to reduce abortions? Why did mainstream media debate moderators deliberately avoid these issues?

I believe Kathleen is wrong in saying "either the Republican Party needs a new base -- or the nation may need a new party." The opposite is true: The party needs to quit betraying the base, on both social and economic issues.

I do believe some of my fellow Christian conservatives are too single issue-oriented and am appalled that so many stayed home, given the gravity of the stakes in this election. But the fact remains that it was McCain's underemphasis rather than overemphasis of the social issues that cost him Republican votes.

But the far more important answer to Bob and Kathleen is that the Republican Party can no more do without pro-lifers than human beings can survive without hearts. It's who they are. There's already a party stressing economic conservatism nearly to the exclusion of social issues, and the last time I checked, our beloved Libertarians weren't garnering a great percentage of the vote.

Bush Hands Over Reins of U.S. Economy to EU
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

The results of the G-20 economic summit amount to nothing less than the seamless integration of the United States into the European economy.

In one month of legislation and one diplomatic meeting, the United States has unilaterally abdicated all the gains for the concept of free markets won by the Reagan administration and surrendered, in total, to the Western European model of socialism, stagnation, and excessive government regulation.

Sovereignty is out the window. Without a vote, we are suddenly members of the European Union. Given the dismal record of those nations at creating jobs and sustaining growth, merging with the Europeans is like a partnership with death.

At the G-20 meeting, Bush agreed to subject the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and our other regulatory agencies to the supervision of a global entity that would critique its regulatory standards and demand changes if it felt they were necessary. Bush agreed to create a College of Supervisors.

According to The Washington Post, it would "examine the books of major financial institutions that operate across national borders so regulators could begin to have a more complete picture of banks' operations."

Their scrutiny would extend to hedge funds and to various "exotic" financial instruments. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a European-dominated operation, would conduct "regular vigorous reviews" of American financial institutions and practices.

The European-dominated College of Supervisors would also weigh in on issues like executive compensation and investment practices.

There is nothing wrong with the substance of this regulation.

Experience is showing it is needed. But it is very wrong to delegate these powers to unelected, international institutions with no political accountability.

We have a Securities and Exchange Commission appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, both of whom are elected by the American people. It is with the SEC, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve that financial accountability must take place.

The European Union achieved this massive subrogation of American sovereignty the way it usually does, by negotiation, gradual bureaucratic encroachment, and without asking the voters if they approve.

What's more, Bush appears to have gone down without a fight, saving his debating time for arguing against the protectionism that France's Nicolas Sarkozy was pushing.

By giving Bush a seeming victory on a moratorium against protectionism for one year, Sarkozy was able to slip over his massive scheme for taking over the supervision of the U.S. economy.

All kinds of political agendas are advancing under the cover of responding to the global financial crisis.

Where Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism by regulating it, Bush, to say nothing of Obama, has given the government control over our major financial and insurance institutions. And it isn't even our government!

The power has now been transferred to the international community, led by the socialists in the European Union.

Will Obama govern from the left? He doesn't have to.

George W. Bush has done all the heavy lifting for him. It was under Bush that the government basically took over as the chief stockholder of our financial institutions and under Bush that we ceded our financial controls to the European Union.

In doing so, he has done nothing to preserve what differentiates the vibrant American economy from those dying economies in Europe.

Why have 80 percent of the jobs that have been created since 1980 in the industrialized world been created in the United States? How has America managed to retain its leading 24 percent share of global manufacturing even in the face of the Chinese surge?

How has the U.S. GDP risen so high that it essentially equals that of the European Union, whose population is 50 percent greater?

It has done so by an absence of stifling regulation, a liberation of capital to flow to innovative businesses, low taxes, and by a low level of unionization that has given business the flexibility to grow and prosper.

Europe, stagnated by taxation and regulation, has grown by a pittance while we have roared ahead. But now Bush -- not Obama -- Bush has given that all up and caved in to European socialists.

The Bush legacy? European socialism. Who needs enemies with friends like Bush?

Evil Concealed by Money
By Walter E. Williams

Wednesday, 19 November 2008 Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her law, would that make it moral?

I don't believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. But that conclusion is not nearly as important as the fact that so many of my fellow Americans give wide support to using people. I would like to think it is because they haven't considered that more than $2 trillion of the over $3 trillion federal budget represents Americans using one another. Of course, they might consider it compensatory justice. For example, one American might think, "Farmers get Congress to use me to serve the needs of some farmers. I'm going to get Congress to use someone else to serve my needs by subsidizing my child's college education."

The bottom line is that we've become a nation of thieves, a value rejected by our founders. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Tragically, today's Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.

'No' to Obama's Experimental Government
By Jonah Goldberg

Wednesday, 19 November 2008 On Sunday night, President-elect Barack Obama told "60 Minutes" that Franklin D. Roosevelt would be a model of sorts for him. "What you see in FDR that I hope my team can emulate is not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence and a willingness to try things and experiment in order to get people working again."

This is a problematic standard. What do you want in a surgeon? One who "gets it right" or one who projects "a sense of confidence?" Ditto accountants, defense lawyers, mechanics and bomb-disposal technicians: cocky and self-assured, or gets it right?

Before you answer that, please ask yourself what your point of view on this question was during the eight years of the Bush administration.

In short, there can be a chasm between being right and merely appearing to be right. Why anyone stakes greater value on the appearance than reality is a mystery to me.

But as Obama clearly recognizes, that was a big part of the FDR magic. FDR came into office promising "bold, persistent experimentation" -- and delivered. Raymond Moley, an early member of FDR's "brain trust," saw the New Deal for what it was. "To look upon these programs as the result of a unified plan was to believe that the accumulation of stuffed snakes, baseball pictures, school flags, old tennis shoes, carpenter's tools, geometry books and chemistry sets in a boy's bedroom could have been put there by an interior decorator," Moley wrote later.

Yet Americans thought it was all part of a plan, even though experimentation and planning are in fact near opposites. Why? Because FDR always projected such confidence, even as he made things worse. But this isn't another column about how FDR prolonged the Depression. Been there, done that. I'd rather be forward-looking.

In fact, I want to be experimental, too. So here's my idea: Just stop.

Stop talking about bailouts and stimuli. Stop pondering ever more drastic action. Give it a rest. Let it be.

One of the main reasons there's all of this "money on the sidelines" out there among private investors is that Wall Street doesn't know what the government will do next. Will it bail out the auto industry? The insurance companies? Which taxes will go up? How far will interest rates go down? How long will the federal government own stakes in the banks? Will more stimulus checks go out? If so, how big will the deficit get?

Interventionists, bailout czars and "bold experimenters" in all parties claim to be like firefighters; they can't stop what they're doing until the fire is out. But this analogy only works if you understand the nature of the fire. If it's a credit crisis, that's one thing. If it's uncertainty, it's quite another.

And if the problem right now is uncertainty, then these aren't firefighters, they're arsonists.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress he'd spend his kitty of tax dollars on bad mortgage-backed securities. Instead, in the spirit of bold experimentation, he's spent much of it to date buying banks.

Obama insisted he had a specific plan for the economy -- but his plan seems to be to "project confidence."

The problem with this "In Obama We Trust" approach is that it makes private-sector decision-making very difficult. If your boss says he will lay off half his employees next month, but he doesn't know who yet, will you buy a new house this month?

In a time of stability and growth, government can afford bold, persistent experimentation. But in a time of uncertainty, the last thing it needs is more uncertainty. Yet Obama's confident pragmatism, like FDR's, is a threat to confidence where it matters -- among consumers, credit markets and investors.

Yes, letting GM go into bankruptcy would be scary. But a GM bailout merely kicks GM's problems down the road while spreading the fear about where Uncle Sam's big feet will land next. Besides, bankruptcy isn't the end of the world. It's the means by which bad companies restructure to fix themselves. Bailouts are the means by which governments subsidize bad companies.

The engine company in Washington has pumped more than a trillion dollars through the fire hose. It's time to turn off the spigot, not only to see where we are but to let the normal people start fixing things.

By all means, let's hope President Obama will project confidence. But maybe he should express less confidence in the government's ability to get people working again, and more in the ability of regular Americans to rise from the ashes of any hardship. In short, don't just do something, President Obama, stand there.

The Insane Rage of the Same-Sex Marriage Mob
By Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, 19 November 2008

Before Election Day, national media handwringers forged a wildly popular narrative: The right was, in the words of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, gripped by "insane rage."

Outbreaks of incivility (some real, but mostly imagined) were proof positive of the extremist takeover of the Republican Party. The cluck-cluckers and tut-tutters shook with fear.

But when the GOP took a beating on Nov. 4, no mass protests ensued; no nationwide boycotts erupted. Conservatives took their lumps and began the peaceful post-defeat process of self-flagellation, self-analysis and self-autopsy.

In fact, in the wake of campaign 2008 there's only one angry mob gripped by "insane rage": left-wing same-sex marriage activists incensed at their defeat in California. Voters there approved Proposition 8, a traditional marriage initiative, by 52 percent to 48 percent.

Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 responded with threats, fists and blacklists.

That's right. Activists have published on the Internet an "Anti-Gay Blacklist" of Prop. 8 donors. If the tables were turned and Prop. 8 proponents created such an enemies list, everyone in Hollywood would be screaming "McCarthyism" faster than you could count to eight.

A Los Angeles restaurant whose manager made a small donation to the Prop. 8 campaign has been besieged nightly by hordes of protesters who have disrupted business, intimidated patrons and brought employees to tears. Out of fear for their jobs and their lives, workers at El Coyote Mexican Cafe pooled together $500 to pay off the bullies.

Scott Eckern, the beleaguered artistic director of California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, was forced to resign over his $1,000 donation to the Prop. 8 campaign. Rich Raddon, director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, is next on the chopping block after the anti-Prop. 8 mob discovered that he had also contributed to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Calls have been pouring in for his firing.

Over the last two weeks, anti-Prop. 8 organizers have targeted Mormon, Catholic and evangelical churches. Sentiments like this one, found on the anti-Prop.8 website "JoeMyGod," are common across the left-wing blogosphere: "Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers."

Thousands of gay-rights demonstrators stood in front of the Mormon temple in Los Angeles shouting "Mormon scum." The Mormon headquarters in Salt Lake City received threatening letters containing an unidentified powder. Religion-bashing protesters filled with hate decried the "hate" at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif. Vandals defaced the Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, Calif., because church members had collected Prop. 8 petitions. One worshiper's car was keyed with the slogans "Gay sex is love" and "SEX." Another car's antenna and windshield wipers were broken.

In Carlsbad, Calif., a man was charged with punching his elderly neighbors over their pro-Prop. 8 signs. In Palm Springs, Calif., a videographer filmed unhinged anti-Prop. 8 marchers who yanked a large cross from the hands of 69-year-old Phyllis Burgess and stomped on it.

In San Francisco, Christians evangelizing in the Castro District needed police protection after the same-sex marriage mob got physical and hounded them off the streets. Enthusiastically shooting themselves in the foot, anti-Prop. 8 boycotters are now going after the left-wing Sundance Film Festival because it does business in Mormon-friendly Utah.

Also targeted: Cinemark Theaters across the country. The company's CEO, Alan Stock, donated just under $10,000 to the traditional marriage measure. Never mind that Cinemark theaters are hosting the new biopic about gay icon Harvey Milk. They must pay for the sins of the company head who dared to exercise his political free speech.

Corporate honchos, church leaders and small donors alike are in the same-sex marriage mob's crosshairs, all unfairly demonized as hate-filled bigots by bona fide hate-filled bigots who have abandoned decency in pursuit of "equal rights." One wonders where Barack Obama -- himself an opponent of Proposition 8 -- is as this insane rage rages on. Soul-Fixer, Nation-Healer, where art thou?

Obama Appointments Reveal His Inexperience
Monday, November 24, 2008
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

It is still hard to believe but, if Hillary Clinton's "confidantes" are to be trusted, Barack Obama is about to appoint her secretary of state and she is about to accept. This appointment represents the betrayal capstone of Obama's promise to be the "change we can believe in."

Having upended the Democratic Party, largely over his different views on foreign policy and the war in Iraq, he now turns to the leader of the ancient regime he ousted, derided, mocked, and criticized to take over the top international-affairs position in his administration.

No longer, apparently, does he distrust Hillary's "judgment," as he did during the debates when he denounced her vote on the Iraq war resolution. Now, all is forgiven. After everything Obama says he stood for, the only change he apparently truly believes in is a fait accompli.

Apart from the breathtaking cynicism of the appointment lies the total lack of foreign-policy experience in the new partnership. Neither Clinton nor Obama has spent five minutes conducting any aspect of foreign policy in the past.

Neither has ever negotiated anything or dealt with diplomatic issues. It is the blonde leading the blind.

And then there is the question of whether we want a secretary of state who is compromised, in advance, by her husband's dealings with repressive regimes in Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Dubai, the U.A.E., Morocco, and governments about which we know nothing.

These foreign leaders have paid the Clinton family millions of dollars -- directly and through the Clintons' library and/or foundation -- funds they can and have used as personal income.

How do we know that she can conduct foreign policy independently even if it means biting those who have fed her and her husband? But the most galling aspect of the appointment is that it puts Obama in the midst of an administration that, while he appointed it, is not his own.

Rather, he has now created a government staffed by Clinton people, headed by Clinton appointees, and dominated by Hillary herself. He has willingly created the same untenable situation as that into which Lyndon Johnson stepped when JFK was assassinated in 1963.

Johnson inherited a Cabinet wholly staffed by Kennedy intimates with Bobby himself as attorney general.

LBJ had no choice and had to spend two years making the government his own. But Obama had all the options in the world and chose to fence himself in by appointing Hillary as secretary of state, Clinton Cabinet member Bill Richardson for Commerce, Clinton staffer Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, Clinton buddy (and top lobbyist) Tom Daschle to HHS, and Bill's deputy attorney general, Eric Holder, to Justice.

Presidents Clinton and Lincoln similarly appointed what Doris Kearns Goodwin has famously called a "team of rivals" to staff their Cabinets and administrations.

Lincoln named all of his opponents for the Republican presidential nomination to senior posts in his Cabinet and Clinton staffed his White House and much of his Cabinet with ambassadors to other wings of the Democratic Party.

George Stephanopoulos was his ambassador to House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, Harold Ickes his emissary to organized labor, Al Gore his delegate to the environmentalists, Leon Panetta his liaison with congressional committee chairmen, Ron Brown his man in the black community, and Henry Cisneros as his go-between with the Hispanic community.

In each case, the president acted to bolster his ties with the factions of his own party because he feared how he would fare with his party in total control of Congress. Neither the Republicans of 1861 nor the Democrats of 1992 saw the president from their own party as their natural leaders.

Lincoln's colleagues had chosen him only after a deadlock between the two front-runners had paralyzed the convention. Clinton got the nomination only after Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York, the party's favorite, had pulled out. Each man was elected with barely 40 percent of the vote. So each felt constrained to share power with their rivals.

While Obama was not the early favorite of his party, he does not need to defer so ostentatiously to those who fought him for the nomination. His general election mandate clearly entitled him to name who he pleased. But he has chosen to nominate men and women with no loyalty to him and no real stake in his future.

And standing above all his appointees like a president-in-exile, is Hillary Clinton.

If Obama needed any warning about how Hillary will play the game, he need only look at how she handled her appointment. She forced Obama to see her by publicly complaining that she had not heard from him.

When he raised the possibility of her appointment to state, she then leaked word that it was in the works. Even the announcement of her appointment was not made by Obama but leaked by Hillary's "confidants."

Hillary will be a loose cannon as secretary of state, vindicating her own agenda rather than that of the president and burnishing her own image at every turn. Not since Cordell Hull in the '30s have we had a secretary so interested in running for president.

Not since William Jennings Bryan in the 1910s have we had a defeated nominee named as secretary. Obama will not be able to control Hillary nor will he be able to control his own administration with Emanuel as chief of staff. He will find that his appointees will march to the beat of their own drummer -- if he is lucky -- and Hillary's if he is not.

Either Obama has chosen to put himself in this untenable situation because he is not wise in the ways of Washington or because he plans to be little more than a figurehead. Given his campaign, neither seems likely. But his promise of change has proven so bankrupt that maybe the rest of his candidacy is too.

The GOP's Social Insecurity
Family Research Council

"To listen to some Republicans... you would think that traditional conservatives, the defenders of the unborn and the integrity of marriage... were responsible for two wars gone sour, over-spending at a level to embarrass Lyndon Johnson, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since the Great Society, numerous cases of GOP corruption, betrayal of the public trust... and the miserable results in the presidential and congressional elections..." Like us, Tracy Mehan of the American Spectator is fed up with the Republicans' post-election finger-pointing. In his op-ed "Social Conservative as Scapegoats," he lashes out at the GOP's centrists for blaming November 4 on "the solid and most loyal" wing of the Reaganite coalition. To those of us in the pro-family movement, the Establishment's diatribe is a familiar one. When the GOP succeeds because of social conservatives, our importance is ignored. When the party fails for overlooking us, values voters are somehow to blame. With the exception of Gov. Sarah Palin and some hollow overtures by the Democratic Party, the 20 percent of voters who cited "moral values" as their first or second priority in this election had no real horse in this race. Maybe that explains why believers were less active in this election cycle. More than four million Americans who go to church more than once a week and voted in 2004 stayed home on November 4. Those voters would have made up half the difference between McCain and Obama. As the members of the Republican party jockey for position in this brave new Congress and sort out their internal leadership, a commitment to life and marriage is non-negotiable. Without it, the prospects of a Republican revival are bleak. As Karl Rove rightly points out, "These values are often more popular than the GOP itself."

Social Conservatives as Scapegoats
By G. Tracy Mehan, III on 11.17.08

To listen to some Republicans, not to mention, the braying of media outlets such as MSNBC, and even, here and there, a few economic libertarians, you would think that traditional conservatives, the defenders of the unborn and the integrity of marriage as a venerable and ancient institution, were responsible for two wars gone sour, over-spending at a level to embarrass Lyndon Johnson, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since the Great Society, numerous cases of GOP corruption and betrayal of the public trust centering around earmarks and political favors and the miserable results in the presidential and congressional elections just passed.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, not this writer's first choice for the job of vice president, has now become the target for patronizing comments by the chattering classes who can't tell a moose hunt from an Easter egg hunt. For some of these enlightened minds, Governor Palin's loving acceptance of her new baby with special needs and her stand-up support for her teenage daughter seem to count for nothing at best or even a big negative. They view her selflessness as trailer park behavior rather than a loving parent's defense of life and love in her family.

"To love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections," said Edmund Burke.

Listening to these outcries, one might believe that the global economic meltdown, the single biggest reason for Senator McCain's defeat, was the result of a worldwide conspiracy of the Right to Life movement, pro-marriage activists, Mormons, Evangelicals, Mass-attending Catholics, oh yes, and the NRA.

This scapegoating of the solid and most loyal of the three wings of the Reaganite coalition is inaccurate and just plain wrong. It is self-defeating in the long run. It is rank blame-shifting and a libel of a GOP constituency which has always supported low taxes, a strong defense and a constrained judiciary. All it asked for was fair consideration of its concerns with family and the culture of life.

If economic or business conservatives thinks they can win Midwestern, western, Southern and border states without Evangelicals, Southern Baptists, culturally conservative Catholics and advocates for the nuclear family as the first of all social institutions, they are kidding themselves. President Gerald Ford's primary victory over Ronald Reagan in 1976 was the last gasp of that worldview. You do not find many political volunteers, or voters, at the Union League or Bogey Clubs.

Political success is about addition, not subtraction. Clearly, the GOP cannot win with only the social conservatives. That is why coalitions are a necessary part of political life. This is equally true for economic and national defense conservatives. Indeed, one could argue that the apparent singularity of social conservative support for the GOP ticket this past election was due, at least in part, to the failure of conservative economic or neoconservative foreign policies, many of which were radical departures from the Reaganite model.

This internecine battle has got to stop if there is to be any chance of regrouping for the off-year elections in 2010 and beyond.

One might view the tripartite Reagan coalition as a portfolio approach to political risk management, appealing to diverse constituencies, programs and messages across a wide and varied society. Viewed this way, social conservatives, free-market economic and national security advocates need to cling to each other while remaining open to the concerns of new emerging constituencies such as Hispanics who, by the way, are pro-family and not normally categorized as social liberals.

This is not to diminish substantive disagreements on serious questions of policy. Indeed, conservative, paleo-conservative and simple plain-vanilla conservatives have real differences on preventive war, nation building, civil liberties and the like. Many will dissent from the GOP's pronounced tilt in favor of the humanity of the unborn in public policy. With only two political parties to choose from, such skirmishes are inevitable. Moreover, there are new issues that need to be analyzed and addressed creatively. For instance, entitlement reform may rival tax cutting as a concern for the long haul. Health care is another matter crying for creative solutions in an age of economic uncertainty and personal mobility in the market place.

What do the Girl Scouts say, make new friends and keep the old?

Karl Marx is Not the Father of Capitalism
Wynton Hall
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama won for a simple reason: historical amnesia.

I once asked a room full of college students who the father of capitalism was.

Crickets began chirping as blank stares shot my way.

"Oh, come on," I prompted. "Does anyone want to take a guess?"

Finally, one bold student blurted out, "Isn't it Karl Marx?"

(That creaking sound you're hearing is Adam Smith rolling over in his grave.)

Sadly, this is a true story. And sadly, this kind of economic and historical amnesia goes a long way toward explaining how the most far-Left candidate in American presidential history wound up in the White House.

The reason Sen. McCain's "socialism" charges didn't stick is precisely because "socialism" means little to voters who don't know what the term even means. Public schools teach multicultural curriculum but seldom if ever the basics of free market economic principles.

But don't take my word for it. Today, go out and ask five members of Sen. Obama's target demographic -- the 18 to 25-year old voter -- to explain how capitalism works.

Then sit and wait for the crickets to begin chirping again.

Joe the Plumber understands free markets because he's operated a business. But without proper economic education or real world experience, young people are left in economic darnkness.

And what about the 46 million Americans who don't even pay taxes?

Do they understand that President-Elect Obama's economic designs only rattle an already rickety economic infrastructure? Of course not.

Republicans must bear much of the responsibility for not communicating these lessons clearly. Unlike Ronald Reagan (who majored in economics at Eureka College), Sen. McCain missed critical opportunities to play the role of "Educator in Chief."

Take, for example, Sen. Obama's "soak the rich" tax proposals. Sen. McCain missed huge opportunities to teach the American voter a lesson that Ronald Reagan pounded home often: businesses don't pay taxes! Oh sure, on paper they pay taxes, but in reality they merely pass taxes along to consumers or cut jobs to make up the difference.

Here's how Ronald Reagan taught this principle during an interview with Reason magazine:

Who pays the business tax anyway? We do! You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects taxes. And if they can't be passed on to the customer in the price of the product as a cost of operation, business goes out of business. Now what they're going to do is make it easier for demagogic politicians -- and you've got plenty of them in the state legislature -- to say to the people, look, we need money for this worthwhile project but we're not going to tax you, we're going to tax business, now that we can do it by a one vote margin. So they'll tax business and the price of the product will go up and the people will blame the storekeeper for the rise in the price of the product, not recognizing that all he's doing is passing on to them a hidden sales tax.

If people need any more concrete explanation of this, start with the staff of life, a loaf of bread. The simplest thing; the poorest man must have it. Well, there are 151 taxes now in the price of a loaf of bread -- it accounts for more than half the of a loaf of bread. It begins with the first tax, on the farmer that raised the wheat. Any simpleton can understand that if that farmer cannot get enough money for his wheat, to pay the property tax on his farm, he can't be a farmer. He loses his farm. And so it is with the fellow who pays a driver's license and a gasoline tax to drive the truckload of wheat to the mill, the miller who has to pay everything from social security tax, business license, everything else. He has to make his living over and above those costs. So they all wind up in that loaf of bread. Now an egg isn't far behind and nobody had to make that. There's a hundred taxes in an egg by the time it gets to market and you know the chicken didn't put them there!

They didn't call Ronald Reagan the Great Communicator for nothing. That's a pretty amazing quote, isn't it? Especially in light of the recent financial meltdown and the rationale used to justify a $700 billion bailout. But here's what's even more amazing: Ronald Reagan said those words in July 1975, a full five years before winning the White House. Put simply, Reagan stayed "on message" for years and didn't relent.

Reagan understood that you have to teach voters why Leftist policies are wrongheaded. He also understood that you have to pound home a message before it will stick.

Rebuilding the conservative message will demand that the next generation of conservative leaders do the same.

Term paper on Adam Smith And Capitalism

Thesis: Capitalist ideology is an economic theory presented by Adam Smith, which separates the state affairs from the economic policies of a state. At the same time it distributes the labor according to their skills in the market. These principle points of Smiths economic theory are also followed in the present order of international political economy i.e. globalization.


Globalization has changed the traditional trends of international relations. Now states are struggling to gain more and more economic power. This economic power is related to their social, political as well as technological development. However, the means to develop economically with a faster speed is the capitalist ideology. Capitalism is such an economic system where the state affairs and market trends has nothing to do with each other. According to the capitalist ideology, markets are enough efficient and do not need any interference of the state for its proper function.

Adam Smith and Capitalism

Adam Smith was a Scottish economist and the founder of the classical economics and the first to complete a comprehensive theory of political economy. According to him, labor is the soul source to measure the economic value of a state. He believed that the value of good is determined by their exchange value instead of the value of usage of these goods. Therefore, the market price needs to be adjusted by the cost price, which is only possible with out the intervention of state and adoption of a free trade policy. Though his theory of free trade symbolized the working class against the orthodox feudalists and aristocrats of that time, but later on his theory became famous to verify the wealth of nations.

Therefore, he introduced a new economic model predicting the wealth of nations. He presented the theory to divide the labor and organize them with in the markets that are driven by coherent self-interest. According to him, only those nations can be wealthier who let the market forces to generate economic growth instead of following the traditional mercantile economic model for trade.

Capitalism and The Wealth Of Nations

The capitalist theory presented by Smith long ago was not much famous and recognized during his time though the present economic trends of globalization are an extension of his theory presented in his work, "The Wealth Of Nations" the contemporary economic trends are formulated on the roots of capitalism as every state is heading towards regional economic integration and following the policies of free trade, market liberalization, privatization. All these approaches are an adaptation from Smith's work of wealth of nation. However, smith has presented a systematic analysis regarding the behavior of individuals. These individuals if taken with in the domestic sphere are the various business merchants and business organizations, while in the international market are the countries. Therefore, every individual and country perusing its self-interest and national interest are facing the various challenges in the competition of economic development. Therefore, now the foreign policy of states and the political dominance of any state have nothing to do with the business policies of any business company. Another instance that makes us realize the authenticity of Smith's economic policy is the increasing rates of MNCs in various countries. Now to mobilize the resources, keeping in mind the skills of the labors, the developed countries are introducing their multinational companies in the developing countries to mobilize their resources and help them develop side-by-side. Yet it is generation so many negative repercussions at the same time, like increasing the gap b/w have and have not instead of bridging. Therefore, according to the economic theory of capitalism, a nation can be wealthier only when the state does not interfere in the economic polices and the labor is divided in to the market where there skills are mobilized in a systematic order.

Furthermore, Smith evaluated the role of government into three basic areas. According to him the legitimate activities of a states revolves around the defense against external threats or insecurities, making of law and norms that restrict the people for doing a wrongful act or hurting the rights of another person living in the society and lastly the government provides certain condition for public goods that the market will not supply. Though smith has done a great job in making the first comprehensive economic theory, there are many critics who do not favor capitalism as it restricts the role of government. At the same time all the countries of the globe are adopting the capitalist ideology. Even the countries that use to cherish communism they are also influenced with the economic model presented by Adam Smith. For instance, China is still politically a communist while it follows the capitalist ideology and presently China's market is overwhelming globally as it is the only market dominating the world economy, which is also threatening the global economic power America.

As much as I agree with you that it's a sad day, you must look back to the turn of the 20th century to find that 'first nail'.

The Marxists started with education, with John Dewey in the 1900s. This continued in 1913, with President Wilson and Col. House forging the destruction of our monetary system and the entirely unconstitutional creation of the Federal Rreserve Bank.

Proceed to the election of Roosevelt and his openly Socialist policies and huge erosion of the Constitution - all coming on the heels of another financial 'crisis', which was engineered by the very people charged with fixing it - Congress and the Federal Reserve!
(This is also exactly true in today's financial situation).

Look ahead to the end of Roosevelt's life and the Truman and Eisenhauer administrations - the executive branch of the Federal Government riddled with Soviet spies and domestic communists.

Then, you have the wonderful 60's of open social revolution, where the dregs of society, aided and abetted by Communist agitators, challenged the very fabric of American society and forced a dishonorable end to the war against Communist brutality in Vietnam and Cambodia.

The next big Democrat administration, under Jimmy Carter, helped to engineer a serious recession, long gas lines, the unforgivable giveaway of the Panama Canal and the pathetic response to the Iranian hostage crisis. This formerly idolized nincompoop has revealed himself to be a vicious, anti-Semitic, hard-core socialist who is held in disrepute by Americans of all political persuasions.

Of course, in 1992 we elected a slick, slimy couple of 'light' Marxist idealogues to the White House, resulting in scandal after scandal, of both personal and policy failures. We breathed a sigh of relief after the Clintons looted the White House on the way out the door,their having proven to be more greedy thieves than hard-core Marxists.

Now, I don't want to just blame Democrats - although they have always been the party of socialism and subversion - but the Republican party died after 1964 and we have had no Republican President who has honored his oath to protect the Constitution. In fact, it's been so long since a Republican President has honored the oath that I don't really feel that I'm qualified to opine on which one it was - certainly way before my lifetime (1954).

Now, we come to the ultimate disgrace: America has elected an open Marxist to the presidency. That he is a Marxist is beyond dispute to anyone examining his record; he is also a racial charlatan who pretends to be an American Negro when he is actually 50% white, 44% Arab, and only 6% Negro. He affects a ghetto slang vernacular and style when his audience is American black people; speaks reasonably good English when he's on the TV with Katie Couric, and
promises to redistribute wealth from those who have earned it to those who don't deserve it.

All of his associations from college on through today are known to be of the extreme left-wing variety, including known Communists and other criminals; black racists like Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan, and disgusting morons like Barney Frank and Charles Schumer and the rest.

Hopefully he will at least condescend to produce his authentic birth certificate now that he, the mainstream media, and Acorn have succeeded in stealing the election. It would be nice to know that he's actually legally eligible to serve as President, which would not be the case if he were indeed born in Kenya as several of his African relatives claim to this day.

The Communists won the Cold War a long time ago, and have caused us to create a nation of ignorant, emotional fools who know nothing of our history, form of government, Constitution, traditions, and values.

The reason I responded to you to begin with is to point out that you, with your good heart and right opinions, are nevertheless a victim of the deliberate under-education which was the ongoing essential primary tactic of the Communists. If you take the time to look back in history for that 'first nail', and then educate your friends and children so that they will be better armed for the struggle, we might be able to prevent another enemy of our country from being elected to our highest office.

The best single source of this history is a book called 'None Dare Call It Treason'. This book was written by John Sturmer in 1964,and updated in 1989 during the fake 'fall' of Soviet Communism. It is available from:

Liberty Bell Press
PO Box 32
Florissant MO 63032

God bless and keep us all.

Ex-Hitler youth compares Obama to Nazi rise
Exclusive: Hilmar von Campe asserts embracing socialism equals insurrection against God

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Editor's note: Hilmar von Campe is author of the new book "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America," which is available at WND's online store.

Socialism is the phantastic younger brother of despotism, which it wants to inherit. Socialism wants to have the fullness of state force which before only existed in despotism. ... However, it goes further than anything in the past because it aims at the formal destruction of the individual … who … can be used to improve communities by an expedient organ of government.
– Friedrich Nitzsche

Nietzsche is an atheist German philosopher who lived from 1844-1900 and together with others of the radical left of that time like Arthur Schopenhower created the intellectual atmosphere for Karl Marx and his Communist Manifesto. They called for changing society – but not to improve the life of people but to use them to gain power and keep it. He created the concept of "overman," the man stronger than others with the right to step over the weak, which attracted Hitler. The alternative to Marxism is not capitalism, as so many people believe. The only alternative is an answer to the spiritual fundament of this godless philosophy. The change they are talking about is no change but a steppingstone to their own power on the way to a totalitarian system. Socialist Hitler destroyed free society in a few months. Socialist Obama is close to his steppingstone. The following is an attempt to clarify the issue.

There is a fundamental difference between Marxism, provider of the socialist philosophy, and Christian teachings. The difference makes the two worldviews incompatible – in other words, you cannot be both. Whoever says that they are compatible either lies or is ignorant.

Marxists believe that a non-socialist society is to blame for what is wrong with people and therefore, change has to begin with those who are responsible for society, mainly "the rich." Others, not they, have to change, and the others are in the end all those who oppose socialism. People are either forced to comply or they are killed, as happened in Nazi Germany. If you put right what is wrong in society, so goes Marxist theory, you will heal injustice and people, products of a hostile society, will become their good selves. Healing is created by installing more and more socialists in office, socialist immorality and socialist programs.

Barack Obama has not touched corruption and moral issues. His plans for dealing with issues are of economic nature and are pure Marxism – blaming the non-socialist enemies and distributing money to bribe poor voters, making them dependent on government and cementing its power. Marxism's concepts lead to the welfare state – and on to a totalitarian system built on lies where government is central. There is no real concern for people; power is at the heart of all their projects.

Christianity teaches that what is wrong is the fallen nature of man, who gives in to the evil inside. Moral change in people and restoring the broken relationship with God will change what is wrong in society. Christian teachings are at the heart of our Constitution. Responsibility for oneself is a pre-condition for a healthy society. That is why America is special and prosperous. Government's task is to clear the way for initiatives of their citizens and not block it. John McCain and Sarah Palin's priority to clean up the government and bring it back to the people is exactly what America needs. They know, as we do, that Republicans, especially those at the center in Washington, are also responsible for ousting our Constitution from American society, with devastating consequences. John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting at this corruption, beginning with their own ranks. Their priorities are job creation, drilling and fighting inflation. They are pro-life and so is the Republican Party.

Sen. Obama answered the question of the Rev. Rick Warren regarding when life begins during a national television interview with "This is above my pay grade." I think he lied. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated, "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 centuries the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. … We don't know. The point is that it shouldn't have an impact on a woman's right to choose." I think she lied. She is neither an ardent nor a normal Catholic; she is a godless socialist pagan. Colorado Archbishop Charles Chaput commented, "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettable, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them." No woman has a right to have her child killed.

I heard Sen. Joe Biden say that he is pro-life but cannot force his religious views on others. So he is part of the abortion gang like a myriad of Democratic colleagues who also like to be on both sides of the issue.

The Democratic Party, with the leadership of Obama, the Clintons, Reid, Pelosi and comrades, is an illegitimate party that is destroying the Constitution – which leads to spiritual, political and economic disaster. It is illegitimate because of policy principles like abortion and also Darwinism being taught in schools. Instead of protecting life, this party promotes killing life. The Republican Party, on the other hand, is legitimate in principle with a majority that wants to do what is right but is lacking a national and personal purpose and therefore so often appeases what is wrong. Nobody wants to risk his position. It is the Appeaser's Party. There are too many who are looking after themselves first and their country second.

One central theme is enough to clarify why I say that the socialist Democratic Party is illegitimate. Their policies are Marxist and not American, and they promote immorality. It was the Soviet Union, for instance, that was the first state to make abortion legal, already at the beginning of the '20s. Having grown up in the godless totalitarian Nazi society, it is appalling for me to watch that in America, politicians can speak of their "Christian faith" and at the same time make abortion, same-sex marriage and homosexuality their party policy. Democrats are not fit for American constitutional government.

No government or parliament across the globe has the authority to overrule God. The godless national Socialists, called Nazis, did it, and my family, Jewish people, all Germans and Europeans paid dearly for it, because millions of us did not see our own evil inside. American soldiers shed their blood to liberate us from Nazi power. It pains me to see America today on the same track. Not only those who actively promote the godless programs allowed by our government establishment but also those who for personal reasons or lack of backbone appease them. They will pay for it, here and when they face their Creator. I know the consequence of a godless government. America must have a God-fearing government. The abortionists are closer to the Nazis than to our Founding Fathers. Both base their philosophy and action on lies.

According to an article by Gary Parker, president of the Alabama Policy Institute, in the Mobile Press-Register, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, the national abortion provider, said, "I am still having trouble expressing the depth of my anger about McCain's choice of a running mate." Richards and Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, were featured speakers at the Democratic National convention in Denver. They endorsed Obama, who supports federal funding for abortions. As Illinois state senator, he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection bill, which would have prohibited the killing of late-term babies that survive attempted abortions. You wonder on what information Obama voted. Does he play superficially with human life? The following information is easy to come by. Pelosi's statement at the beginning of this article clearly means that it doesn't matter whether the baby inside the womb of the mother is alive or not we – will kill it anyway.

There are various ways to perform an abortion, but abortion is said to be more dangerous than childbirth. In a late-term partial-birth abortion, which is also used for advanced pregnancies, the cervix is dilated to allow passage of a ring forceps. A foot or lower leg is located and pulled into the vagina. The baby is extracted in breech fashion until the head is just inside the cervix. The baby's legs hang outside the woman's body. With the baby face down, scissors are plunged into the baby's head at the nape of the neck and spread open to enlarge the wound. A suction tip is inserted and the baby's brain is removed. The skull collapses and the baby is delivered. Sharp and suction curettage is continued until the walls of the womb are clean.

Suction aspiration is the most common method of abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. General or local anesthesia is given to the mother and her cervix is quickly dilated. A suction curette (hollow tube with a knife-edged tip) is inserted into the womb. This instrument is then connected to a vacuum machine by a transparent tube. The vacuum suction, 29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces, which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded.

Another procedure is called Dilatation and Evacuation and is performed during the second trimester, 4-6 months of pregnancy. A pliers-like instrument is needed because the baby's bones are calcified, as is the skull. There is no anesthetic for the baby. The abortionist inserts the instrument into the uterus, seizes a leg or other part of the body and, with a twisting motion, tears it from the baby's body. This is repeated again and again. The spine must be snapped and the skull crushed to remove them.

Let me educate Obama, Pelosi and their abortion gang who are exposing an unbelievable superficiality and disdain for human life in dealing with this subject of central importance for our nation. After all, according to the statistics, around 50 million killings of living human beings took place since the Supreme Court, with a one-vote majority, made unconstitutional abortion legal. The Nazis murdered 6 million Jews and 10 million others – Germans, Slavs, gypsies, handicapped, Christians, their opposition and others.

Life begins at conception. Modern technology allows observing what happens in the uterus of a woman and how in only five weeks a fetus grows from the size of a sesame seed to a baby developing brain, backbone, heart and everything else that makes a person. Science explains that it is possible that from one cell sex, the color of the eyes and hairs and a myriad of other features can be determined. Eighteen days after conception, there is a heartbeat; after 40 days the fetus has brain waves. Nothing changes in the nine months of pregnancy; everything just grows. My wife, Dina, and I can observe photos of how our grandchild grows from the size of sesame seed to a baby. We also saw on Fox News a video of another baby in the womb of her mother, a bit older than our grandchild. It is fascinating! Abortionists must be stopped from killing human beings.

We are living in the middle of humanity's insurrection against God. The insurrection consists of the organized abandonment of God's commandments in the once-Christian Western world and the establishment of a global social and political infrastructure, which is contrary to His order but capable of integrating Christian voters with a toothless Christian understanding. The United States is now spearheading this movement. At the same time, this nation still has a strong moral substance with people committed to reverse the trend into disaster. America will never win the ideological war unless it can defeat the lies that dominate our society. Change must come, but there must be moral change, each person beginning with oneself. Stop lying, make restitution, and stand up for truth. America should be spearheading lasting freedom across the world. Only freedom based on our Constitution and the absolute truth of God can last.

Order von Campe's new book, "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America"

Hilmar von Campe is listed in the 1992 "International Who's Who of Intellectuals" of the International Biographical Center in Cambridge, England. He is the author of "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America." Having grown up under the Nazis, he offers a unique perspective on the rise and fall of Nazi Germany. He warns that there are many similarities between the Nazi society and America of today.

The danger of 'youth movements'
Ben Shapiro compares young people following Obama to those taken in by Hitler

Friday, November 14, 2008
By Benjamin Shapiro

Greg Campbell is an obscure writer for the Fort Collins, Colo., Now. But on Oct. 26, he penned what serves as the perfect window into the mind of many Barack Obama supporters. Campbell attended an Obama rally with his 11-year-old son, Turner. Turner was excited by Obama's typical "American Dream" stump speech. Campbell himself was excited not by Obama, but by his son's reaction: "For me, (Obama's message) sunk in because I could see it through the eyes of an 11-year-old."

We have reached a dangerous point in American politics when parents take their voting cues from 11-year-old children. But Campbell isn't alone. Americans left and right have paid homage to Obama for "getting the youth involved." In fact, young voters barely surpassed their 2004 turnout percentage – voters aged 18-29 comprised just 18 percent of the electorate, as opposed to 17 percent in 2004. Nonetheless, there is a feeling that youth led the way in this election. "A new generation looks ready to engage in American democracy – and not just on Election Day," gushed the Christian Science Monitor on Nov. 10. "Encouragingly, this generation actually wants to interact with government, politics and public service."

And Obama is looking to capitalize on that youth support. Obama's sophisticated online network is geared toward mobilizing teenage minions. Obama's proposed civilian national security force is directed toward calcifying support for him into support for his political program. And Obama's "national service" requirement is an attempt to turn young people into government employees.

There is no question that the Barack Obama Movement was led not by elder statesman, but by college students and twentysomethings. This election cycle provided Generation Y a chance to assume unearned moral superiority over their elders by promoting a black president. It also provided Generation Y a chance to live out the precepts of their public school educations, which focused on "changing the world," as well as "diversity" and "tolerance."

Here's the big question: Why in the world should we be excited about young Americans defining our politics?

No political mass movement led by young people has ever resulted in good. In fact, the most murderous mass movements in history have been led by young people. Nazism became popular among the youth before it became the German national theology; Hitler, of course, cultivated young people by targeting them for service in his SA, or Sturm Abteilung, and later, his Hitler Youth. The movement for Soviet Communism was led by young devotees of Lenin, who swallowed his sadistic ideology wholesale; later, the Soviet system would ask children to spy on their parents in service of the state. Similarly, the Chinese Maoists were largely composed of young people; so were the Vietnamese Viet Cong. It is no coincidence that the current Islamo-fascist movement is dominated by militant young Muslims.

In America, the story is the same. The disastrous 1960s were a result of the Greatest Generation giving full leeway to the baby boomers. Students led the movement for surrender in Vietnam, the anarchist movement, the so-called gay rights movement and the free love movement. America has been plagued with the results of those movements ever since.

Young people have the enthusiasm for politics, but not practical experience or breadth of learning. They spend little or no time studying history. Instead, they are told from birth that they are the future, and that the future is in their hands. They rely on high-flown idealism rather than historical knowledge. Young people largely agree with the following precept: "True idealism is nothing but the subordination of the interests and life of the individual to the community. … The purest idealism is unconsciously equivalent to the deepest knowledge."

Such idealism is the most basic building block for dangerous movements. But young people are not trained to see the danger in such idealism. It is only when young people grow up that they see Hitler in those lines rather than Barack Obama.

Celebrating the leadership of the youth in 2008 election, then, is a foolish exercise. Young people should be involved in politics – they should protect their interests. But they, like all other voters, should be expected to get informed, not just motivated; they, like all other voters, should be expected to learn about policy, not merely follow a leader. And the rest of America should be expected to take the voting preferences of those who have never studied history, held a job, paid a bill, or built a family, with a large grain of salt. What inspires 11-year-olds – or 21-year-olds – should not be what inspires 40-year-olds.

Communist Party hails role of labor unions in Obama win
Socialist activist pledges 'no let down' in helping White House bring 'change we need'

Friday, November 14, 2008
By Aaron Klein

The official magazine of the Communist Party USA has lauded the important role of labor unions in electing Sen. Barack Obama and quotes socialist-aligned labor leaders hoping the unions can work with the president-elect to enact policies related to jobs, retirement security and health care reform.

In a separate article, the Communist Party's Political Affairs magazine quotes a prominent socialist activist and longtime Obama friend petitioning the president-elect to push through a "single payer" health care system, or socialized universal medicine.

In an article titled, "Special Interest or Class Consciousness? How Labor Put Obama in the White House," Political Affairs reports on polling data released earlier this week revealing the extent of union support for Obama.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, or AFL-CIO, sponsored a poll showing union members supported Obama by a 68-30 margin and strongly influenced their family members.

According to the survey, Obama won among white men who are union members by 18 points. Union gun-owners backed Obama by 12 points, while union veterans voted for Obama by a 25-point margin. In the general population, Obama lost these groups by significant margins.

Political Affairs quoted AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, a longtime member of the Boston chapter of the Democrat Socialists for America, expressing hope labor unions can continue working with Obama.

"We have taken the first crucial steps to build a better future for our children and grandchildren. And what we've seen – the stunning voter participation and the common call for change – is an indication of the history we can continue to make together," Sweeney said.

Get the No. 1 New York Times best seller, Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," personally autographed - today !

"The election is just step one in delivering the change we need," Sweeney said. "Working men and women are poised to keep the energy pumping to help the Obama administration lead the change we need. There will be no gap or letdown."

The communist magazine said priorities for labor unions are "regulating Wall Street and restoring fairness to international trade," as well as "health care reform" to provide coverage to "nearly 50 million people without insurance and make medical care affordable for all."

In an adjacent article, the communist magazine features a plea from Quentin Young, a long-time Obama friend and socialist activist, calling for socialized medicine, which is is a major platform issue for both the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists for America.

Quentin Young and Barack Obama

"The only effective cure for our health care woes is to establish a single, publicly financed system, one that removes the inefficient, wasteful, for-profit private health insurance industry from the picture," said Young, who is the national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program.

"Our country is hailing the remarkable and historic victory of Barack Obama and the mandate for change the electorate has awarded him."

Young said the adoption of a single-payer health system should be a "major component of the new president's economic rescue of Main Street."

Young noted Obama previously expressed support of a single-payer universal health care program, although he later waffled when asked about his position.

As an Illinois state senator representing a mostly black district on the south side of Chicago, Obama publicly supported universal healthcare. He also co-sponsored the Bernardin Amendment, which did not pass but which would have amended the Illinois State Constitution to add health care to the list of basic rights for residents.

The New Zeal blog documents how Young has been active in Chicago socialist circles and was previously accused of membership in a communist group. In 1992, Chicago's branch of the Democratic Socialists of America awarded Young, a member, with their highest honor – the Debs Award.

Young has had a relationship with Obama, particularly in the 1990s, when he reportedly advised Obama on issues of healthcare. Young was reportedly present at a 1995 meeting at the home of former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers that was said to have launched Obama's political career.

In a recent interview, Young said his opinion of Obama changed in 2005 after he voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state and waffled on supporting single prayer health care.

"I knew him before he was political," Young said of Obama, speaking to the Health Care Now website. "I supported him when he ran for state senate. When he was a state senator he did say that he supported single payer. Now, he hedges. Now he says, if we were starting from scratch, he would support single payer.

"Barack's a smart man," Young said. "He probably calculated the political cost for being for single payer – the shower of opposition from the big boys – the drug companies and the health insurance companies. And so, like the rest of them, he fashioned a hodge podge of a health insurance plan.

"When I heard about the vote [to confirm Rice], I wrote him a letter," Young said. "I told him I was disappointed in him. Rice was the embodiment of everything that was wrong with this administration. So, he called me back and he said 'Why didn't you pick up the phone and call me?' And he said, 'Do you think Bush would ever send to the Senate a nominee for secretary of state who I could vote for?' I said you are the constitutional lawyer. It's about advice and consent, right? You should have denied him your consent."

The Communist Party USA seems to be thrilled with Obama's win. WND reported earlier this week a newspaper identified with the party hailed Obama's election as a victory for the "working class" and called on the president-elect to carry out his promises, including his noted commitment to "spread the wealth."

Ex-Hitler youth issues dire warning to America
'Every day brings this nation closer to Nazi-style totalitarian abyss'

Friday, November 14, 2008

WASHINGTON – Because it has abandoned moral absolutes and its historic Christian faith, the U.S. is moving closer to a Nazi-style totalitarianism, warns a former German member of the Hitler Youth in a new book.

"Every day brings this nation closer to a Nazi-style totalitarian abyss," writes Hilmar von Campe, now a U.S. citizen, and author of "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America."

Von Campe has founded the national Institute for Truth and Freedom to fight for a return to constitutional government in the U.S. – a key, he believes, to keeping America free.

"I lived the Nazi nightmare, and, as the old saying goes, 'A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument,'" writes von Campe. "Everything I write is based on my personal experience in Nazi Germany. There is nothing theoretical about my description of what happens when a nation throws God out of government and society, and Christians become religious bystanders. I don't want to see a repetition. The role of God in human society is the decisive issue for this generation. My writing is part of my life of restitution for the crimes of a godless government, of the evil of which I was a part."

Von Campe grew up under the Nazis, served in the Hitler Youth and fought against the Red Army in the Yugoslavian theater as a tank gunner in the German army. He was captured at the end of the war and escaped five months later from a prisoner of war camp in Communist Yugoslavia.

"It took me a long time to understand and define the nature of National Socialism," says von Campe. "And, unfortunately, their philosophy continues to flourish under different labels remaining a menace to America and free human society."

He writes: "The most painful part of defining National Socialism was to recognize my own moral responsibility for the Nazi disaster and their crimes against humanity. It boiled down to accepting the truth that 'as I am, so is my nation,' and realizing that if every German was like me, it was no wonder that the nation became a cesspool of gangsters. This realization is as valid today for any person in any nation as it was then, and it is true for America and every American now."

Von Campe's message is that political freedom and democratic rules alone are not sufficient to govern humanity justly.

"Democratic procedures can be subverted and dishonest politicians are like sand in the gearbox, abundant, everywhere and destructive," he writes. "What I see in America today is people painting their cabins while the ship goes down. Today in America we are witnessing a repeat performance of the tragedy of 1933 when an entire nation let itself be led like a lamb to the Socialist slaughterhouse. This time, the end of freedom is inevitable unless America rises to her mission and destiny."

Von Campe says he sees spiritual parallels among Americans and his childhood Germany.

"The silence from our pulpits regarding the moral collapse of American society from within is not very different from the silence that echoed from the pulpits in Germany toward Nazi policies," he explains. "Our family lived through the Nazi years in Germany, an experience typical of millions of Europeans regardless of what side they were on. We paid a high price for the moral perversions of a German government, which excluded God and His Commandments from their policies. America must not continue following the same path to destruction, but instead heed the lessons of history and the warning I am giving."

Specifically, von Campe warns Americans their political leaders are on the wrong footing, "denying our cultural and traditional roots based on our unique Constitution and Christian orientation as a nation. Christians don't understand their mission."

Hilmar von Campe is a former Hitler Youth and soldier in the German army. In America he founded The National Institute for Truth and Freedom.

The lost purpose of history
Hilmar von Campe
Thursday, November 13, 2008

It is about time that America and the Western world go back to their roots in order to understand the nature of our organized enemies, and to defeat them. Such enemies include the Islamic terrorists. The shallowness of our so-called leaders is appalling in that they do not acknowledge this necessity.

Christian teachings include the concept that mankind's history is a moving process that culminates in the Second Coming of Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. Eschatology is the doctrine concerning the "last things" – the final consummation of God's purposes in creation and the final destination of individual souls and all of humanity.

This Christian concept was stolen by the fabricators of materialistic ideologies who replaced the divine link to eternity with a secular culmination in their hate-driven ideologies. The National Socialists, generally called Nazis, had a vision of a German national community and a world run by the master race – they themselves. The final destination for international socialists, the communist Marxists/Leninists, was defined as a global socialist and classless society which, however, would be a totalitarian system run by godless functionaries. The destination of radical Islam is a Muslim world where the Muftis rule and no other religion exists. Those who kill unbelievers refusing to convert to Islam are promised awards in paradise.

Followers of these three godless ideologies consider themselves part of a process in which they change the direction of history to reach the final destination. They are groomed to invest their whole existence and life into achieving victory for their ideology. This is also a perversion of the Christian teaching that Almighty God wants the whole person and not just some part.

The West has lost the concept that history is meant to be a movement of humanity toward God. It has eliminated Christian teachings as irrelevant for the political process and has reduced the Christian message to a purely personal affair. American and Western Christians love their comfort and do not want to risk their existence. Western nations and their political and religious leaders, therefore, do not understand the purpose and motives of their ideological enemies, nor do they understand their mindset. They have their own mindset and mistakenly assume that others think as they do. They don't!

This ignorance leads to dangerous political concepts like believing that we have won the Cold War and the Russians now are our democratic allies. The reality, however, is different. Gorbachev, Putin, Yeltsin and all the others are the same dedicated communists as always, but have only put democratic labels on their outside.

Similarly fatal is to believe that the Arabic Palestinians are the real owners of the land that is "occupied" by Israel, and that peace will be achieved if they get their own government and are given more of "their" land. Ownership and "occupation" is the other way around – Arabs live on land which already thousands of years ago was part of an Israeli state.

Even more dangerous for America is the attempt to form a North American Community. It would destroy our sovereignty and uniqueness, make us a multicultural country with economic reasoning and cripple our mission to carry freedom to the last corner of the world. It is that task which links this nation to the historic movement of humanity toward God. But it needs more than military power.

Freedom without the absolute truth of God as a standard cannot last. Liars are on the wrong side of the ideological battle line. The battle for freedom must be the battle for truth to defeat the power of the lies penetrating our society.

That is the reason Christians must enter into the ideological, political and moral battle for America, beginning with making the family again the center of our society. Pastor Thomas Merton pointed out that a person "who has meditated on the Passion of Christ but has not meditated on the extermination camps of Dachau and Auschwitz has not yet fully entered into the experience of Christianity in our time." Author Richard J. Foster comments that this kind of meditation is best accomplished with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other. Amen!

Hilmar von Campe is a former Hitler Youth and soldier in the German army. In America he founded The National Institute for Truth and Freedom.

Obama Wins, Muslims Divided
by Daniel Pipes
Philadelphia Bulletin
November 12, 2008

Ali ibn Abi-Talib, the seventh-century figure central to Shiite Islam, is said to have predicted when the world will end, columnist Amir Taheri points out. A "tall black man" commanding "the strongest army on earth" will take power "in the west." He will carry "a clear sign" from the third imam, Hussein. Ali says of the tall black man: "Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us."

An Iranian in Tehran sports a badge of Barack Obama. (AP: Hasan Sarbakhshian)

Barack Hussein in Arabic means "the blessing of Hussein." In Persian, Obama translates as "He [is] with us." Thus does the name of the presumptive American president-elect, when combined with his physical attributes and geography, suggest that the End of Times is nigh – precisely what Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been predicting.

Back down on earth, the Muslim reaction to Obama's victory is more mixed than one might expect.

American Islamists are delighted; an umbrella group, the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Election, opined that, with Obama's election, "Our nation has … risen to new majestic heights." Siraj Wahhaj, Al-Hajj Talib Abdur Rashid, the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, and the Muslim Alliance in North America responded with similar exuberance.

Hamas, and Islamist movements in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, India, Indonesia and the Philippines delighted in Obama's election. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch generalizes that jihadists and Islamic supremacists worldwide showed "unalloyed joy." The New York Times finds public reaction in the Middle East mostly "euphoric." John Esposito of Georgetown University emphasizes the Muslim world's welcome to Obama as an "internationalist president."

But plenty of other Muslims have other views. Writing in Canada's Edmonton Sun, Salim Mansur found John McCain the "more worthy candidate." Yusif al-Qaradawi, the Al-Jazeera sheikh, endorsed McCain for opposite reasons: "This is because I prefer the obvious enemy who does not hypocritically [conceal] his hostility toward you… to the enemy who wears a mask [of friendliness]." Al-Qaradawi also argued that twice as many Iraqis died during Bill Clinton's two administrations than during George W. Bush's.

For tactical reasons, the influential Sunni sheikh Yusif al-Qaradawi wanted John McCain to win.

Iran's hardliners also favored a McCain victory (according to Iran's former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi) "because they benefit more from enmity with the U.S., which allows them to rally the Islamic world behind their policies and at the same time suppress dissent at home." The Taliban took note of Obama's election promise to increase U.S. troops in Afghanistan, warning that, should he fulfill this plan, "jihad and resistance will be continued."

Iraqis are intensively divided about Obama's plan quickly to withdraw U.S. troops from their country. That plan, plus promises to end U.S. dependence on Middle East oil and to negotiate with Iranian leaders, rattled the leaders of Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf governments.

Some commentators argue that Obama cannot make a real difference; an Iranian newspaper declares him unable to alter a system "established by capitalists, Zionists, and racists." Predictably, the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Obama's chief of staff confirmed Palestinian perceptions of an omnipotent Israel lobby. A commentator in the United Arab Emirates went further, predicting Obama's replication of Jimmy Carter's trajectory of flamboyant emergence, failure in the Middle East, and electoral defeat.

In all, these mixed reactions from Muslims suggest puzzlement at the prospect of a U.S. president of Islamic origins who promises "change," yet whose foreign policy may buckle under the constraints of his office. In other words, Muslims confront the same question mark hanging over Obama as everyone else:

Never before have Americans voted into the White House a person so unknown and enigmatic. Emerging from a hard-left background, he ran, especially in the general election, mostly as a center-left candidate. Which of these positions will he adopt as president? More precisely, where along the spectrum from hard- to center-left will he land?

Looking at the Arab-Israeli conflict, for example, will Obama's policies reflect Rashid Khalidi, the ex-PLO flak he befriended in the 1990s, or Dennis Ross, his recent campaign advisor and member of my board of editors? No one can yet say.

Still, one can predict. Should Obama return to his hard left roots, Muslim euphoria will largely continue. Should he seek to make his presidency a success by moving to the center-left, many – but hardly all – Muslims will experience severe disillusionment.

From www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/6017

Liberals clinically mad, concludes top psychiatrist
Eminent doctor makes case leftist ideology is a mental disorder

Friday, November 14, 2008

WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

We're hiring an employee, not a savior
Exclusive: Peter Rosenberger uses Constitution's job description to evaluate the candidates

Friday, November 14, 2008

"We, the People," stated that our organization currently had an opening for a chief executive officer. After several dozen candidates, we are left with two – maybe not the two many of us originally wanted, but these are the two that have not been "voted off the island."

Only in politics will job candidates dictate to the employer how they will change the organization, versus the organization presenting a clear job description based upon vision of the organization and evaluating the candidate using time-honored techniques such as experience, education, references and certifications. It is interesting to note that a great deal of the drama and rancor might have been avoided had We, the People, utilized hiring techniques well-proven in the business world.

Should the hiring process be conducted in a job interview format, it would certainly begin by stating the minimum qualifications for the job, as specified in Article II of the U.S. Constitution:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Based on that stipulation, the first thing a candidate for president must do is to provide unquestionable proof of meeting the initial requirement. In any other corporate job, an applicant must present a valid proof of identification such as a driver's license or, in this case, a birth certificate. In the 2008 election, this basic qualification still remains clouded for Sen. Obama.

The job description itself is detailed in Article II, Sections 2 and 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Of those duties, the first would seem to necessitate some level of experience in working with the United States military. Sen. McCain certainly brings experience and a nationwide credibility to that task. Sen. Obama has no experience with the military. The other tasks in that paragraph reflect character and leadership skills. The character and leadership skills of McCain are public knowledge, woven into the fabric of our modern history. The character test of Obama, it seems, suffers under his constant need to defend longtime associations and relationships with people who feel and act hatefully toward the United States … and themselves are of poor character. It seems inappropriate for the first duty of a president to need to exercise his ability to grant reprieves or pardons for his own associates.

Other duties of this job are as follows:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

These duties call for a candidate who can effectively build coalitions with at least two-thirds of the Senate. Since the Constitution does not state that the Senate must be composed of a two-thirds majority from one party, the implication is that the president must reach across party lines to build consensus for the appointments and other tasks specified. This means that We, the People, want a team player. Sen. McCain brings a lengthy history of successful bipartisan accomplishments. Sen. Obama's history of bipartisanship is virtually non-existent.

In Section 3, the rest of the president's duties are listed:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

These duties require communication skills, leadership and judgment. Sen. Obama certainly possesses communication skills. He has shown leadership skills in crafting a strong presidential campaign, but his judgment qualifications are called into question by both his own views of military and economic events, as well as his long-time associations with individuals of serious questionable judgment. His less than candid responses to those who questioned his judgment also reflect poor judgment. Using "spin" to paint the truth as something else does not instill confidence in his judgment and character.

Barring anything other than a fraudulent birth certificate, both men meet the minimum qualifications needed to serve as president of the United States. So, when evaluating the resume of these two men, the decision rests on the candidates' job experience, team skills and character. In a corporate job interview, references would be called upon to help with the decision-making process. In addition to friends, family and possibly a pastor, other employers and respected community leaders are often sought out for background information as to the candidate. If the friends and pastor of Sen. Obama were sought out, the information gathered may produce less than desirable references.

An additional decision-making tool in a corporate job interview is to consider how competitors feel about the candidate. The question should be asked if the enemies of We, the People, are in favor of a particular candidate. Enemy support of a candidate should serve as a rather large red flag regarding the intentions of the candidate and/or the enemy.

The best candidate may not have applied for the job, but We, the People, the organization of the United States of America, must make a hiring decision. We, the People, must consider the position, reference the job description serving the organization for more than two centuries, evaluate the experience and qualifications of the candidate – and then choose. If the shareholders of a major corporation choose a less-qualified candidate simply because they hate the former CEO, then emotion picks the candidate. Emotion cannot, must not, have anything to do with the decision. We, the People, are hiring an employee, not a savior.

This is not simply our privilege as citizens of this great country. It is our responsibility and sacred trust as members of the greatest organization for democracy in the history of the world. With this responsibility in mind, my decision is clear: I choose John McCain.

Emanuel volunteers Americans to do 'a lot'
'If you're worried about having to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes'

Thursday, November 13, 2008
By Bob Unruh

A video of a 2006 interview with now-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for president-elect Barack Obama reveals plans for mandatory induction for all young adults into a civilian "force."

"If you're worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes," Emanuel told the interviewer, a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News at the time.

WND reported last weekend when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.

However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, officials softened the website's wording.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves," Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.

WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which he said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.

Now comes the Emanuel video, which has been embedded here: (www.wnd.com)

In the interview, Emanuel was questioned whether participants in the proposed force would live in barracks.

"Somewhere between the age of 18 to 25 you will do three months of training. You can do it at some point in your college time," he said. "There can be nothing wrong with all Americans having a joint, similar experience of what we call civil defense training or civil service."

Emanuel said the planned requiring service "will give people a sense of what it means to be an American."

He said, of course, the plan at that point was flexible.

"We propose three months [but] at the end of the day [if] someone says it should be four … I'm not going sit here and hold up [plans]," Emanuel said.

When the reporter questioned the commitment, Emanuel responded, "Guess what. We have a lot more challenges. We are going to need a lot to do it. If you're worried about are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes."

He chuckled at the reporters concerns.

"Rather than figure out if whether you take a train ride or a barrack. … Think of it this way, it will be a common experience.

"There will be a body of citizens who are ready, capable and trained," he said.

But the plan, especially its demand that Americans participate in a domestic "force," has been raising questions.

The blogger Gateway Pundit called Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"

Emanuel uses his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," to specify that he would propose, for all Americans ages 18 to 25, that they "serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

Obama, meanwhile, also has yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

The Obama campaign has declined to respond to WND questions on the issue.

But Farah's call generated intense Internet discussions.

The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"

'Civilian national security force' redux
Exclusive: Joseph Farah reveals operative in Bush administration who coined term

Friday, November 14, 2008
By Joseph Farah

It was just over a month ago that I broke the story of what I called "Barack Obama's $439 billion secret."

That was his initiative to create something he called a "civilian national security force" he promised would have a budget as big as the U.S. military's.

Obama made the campaign promise in a July 2 speech in Colorado Springs – then inexplicably deleted references to the initiative from his website while others mysteriously disappeared from transcripts of the speech distributed by the campaign.

In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

I mentioned that I had never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" prior to that speech. But that doesn't mean no one ever used it. I think I have tracked down the answer to what this force is all about. I think I know who coined the term, who came up with the idea and who is pushing for the future.

And the bad news is it is someone in a prominent position in the Bush administration and likely to remain in that post no matter who is elected president Nov. 4

You might ask: "Now, how can that be? You're telling me there is a Cabinet-level operative in the Bush administration who will continue in his post whether John McCain is elected or Barack Obama?"

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. And it is this powerful person who is the mastermind behind the "civilian national security force."

Enough of the mystery – let me tell you who this high-level Bush administration Cabinet officer is and why he will remain in his powerful position no matter who Americans send to the White House in 2009.

His name is Robert Gates, and he is the defense secretary.

Are you shocked?

Are you surprised that a Bush administration defense secretary would find favor in the eyes of both McCain and Obama?

Don't be. It's true. There really isn't that much difference between McCain and Obama, as I keep telling you. When it comes right down to it, even on matters of defense policy, they both like Robert Gates and want him to continue running the Defense Department.

Obama said as much in an interview with the editors of the Army Times July 13: "I do think that Secretary Gates has brought a level of realism and professionalism and planning to the job that is worthy of praise. I think that the Pentagon is operating more effectively. I think he has improved greatly the relationships with the Joint Chiefs and the military generally."

That's high praise from a candidate who won the nomination of his party by telling the American people the Iraq war was a lost cause.

But what does Gates have to do with the concept behind the "civilian national security force"?

Gates invented the idea.

Last fall Gates began giving a series of speeches about the need to create a more modern State Department and a "civilian national security force" that could "deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside the military."

Gates' idea was big – seemingly as big as Obama's $439 billion vision: "If we've got a State Department or personnel that have been trained just to be behind walls, and they have not been equipped to get out there alongside our military and engage, then we don't have the kind of national security apparatus that is needed. That has to be planned for; it has to be paid for. Those personnel have to be trained. And they all have to be integrated."

While McCain hasn't personally suggested keeping Gates on in McCain administration, his national security adviser has.

Besides that, Gates is the establishment's man. Check out the editorials calling on both McCain and Obama to keep him in his position – the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, why even the Roanoke Times, for heaven's sake. The media establishment is gaga over Gates.

So, just wanted to let you know, whether you vote for McCain or Obama, you are very likely to get a very expensive if slightly ill-defined "civilian national security force" either way.

But don't expect any debate about this.

Don't expect either Obama or McCain to tell you they want to create a new multibillion-dollar bureaucracy – within the State Department, of all things.

This is on a need-to-know basis, at this point. And, right now, neither Obama or McCain believe you have any need to know.

Obama's training program described as 'Big Brother'
Critic says plan would herd 'American youth into government-funded re-education camps'

Friday, November 14, 2008

The tax-funded Chicago organization cited as a probable model for programs to integrate youth into the social and political world under an Obama tenure in the White House is the epitome of "Big Brother" that shovels impressionable youth through a course of brainwashing, according to critics.

The organization is called Public Allies and Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of directors in 1992. He later resigned and his wife became executive director of the group.

According to an editorial in Investor's Business Daily, Obama plans to use the non-profit, which is funded partly by the federal government and is featured on Obama's campaign website, as the model for a national service corps, called the "Universal Voluntary Public Service."

WND reported earlier when Obama asserted in a Colorado Springs speech that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force.

In the July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set."

He continued, "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

"Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas," said IBD. "They plan to herd American youth into government-funded re-education camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of 'social change.'"

The organization itself doesn't seem that alarming. It describes itself as serving communities "while developing better leaders for tomorrow." Young adults are placed in "community leadership" posts with various agencies and given weekly "training." They get $1,800 plus health and child care.

But IBD warns the real mission is something else.

That, the editorial said, "is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about 'social change' through threats, pressure, tensions and confrontation – the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul 'The Red' Alinsky."

Dr. Jerome Corsi, a WND columnist and the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-seller "The Obama Nation," agreed. He said the overall intent of the program is much the same as the goals of William Ayers, an Obama acquaintance who spent the 1970s and 1980s as an unrepentant radical, during his various programs regarding public education.

"Remember, Obama has followed Saul Alinsky's ultimate advice," Corsi explained. "Saul Alinsky said radicals like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman could not organize a picnic. Alinsky told his radicals to cut their hair, buy business suits and run for public office," he said.

"Ayers and Obama are both aimed at producing radical socialist change from within – working today to radicalize our institutions, instead of bombing them. Alinsky considered this approach to be much smarter because it was more likely to produce lasting 'change' and less likely to produce a backlash. In other words, the Alinsky-trained radical could apply more easily the Machiavellian technique of lying by denying they were pursuing radical goals if they appeared to be members in good standing of the establishment they were trying merely to 'change,'" he said.

IBD cited statistics from Public Allies itself, in which it boasted, "our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to … engage in protest activities." The organization explains it already has dispatched 2,200 community organizers to agitate for "justice" and "equality" in Chicago, Cincinnati, Los Angeles and other cities.

"I get to practice being an activist," and get paid for it, Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent said, according to IBD.

The organization boasts more than two-thirds of its recruits are "people of color," and 15 percent of "LGBT." When they're not out protesting, IBD said, "they're staffing AIDS clinics, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare."

The Allies' own website confirms it has volunteers working for Planned Parenthood, LGBT centers and Boys & Girls Clubs.

Obama has encouraged individuals to shun the "money culture."

"If you commit to serving your community," he pledged in Denver while accepting the Democratic nomination for president, "we will make sure you can afford a college education."

The IBD said the sales pitch is finding supportive listeners among today's youth.

"I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement," it quotes Brian Coovert, of the Cincinnati Allies chapter saying. "There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I'll have a job."

IBD said taxpayers already fund half of Public Allies' expenses through President Clinton's AmeriCorps, and Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion.

The organization notes that it is a non-partisan organization so it does not endorse candidates. However, it has a lengthy description of the involvement by the Obamas with the organization.

"Under Michelle’s leadership, Public Allies Chicago pioneered many elements of Public Allies' program model. To identify and develop the next generation of Chicago leaders, she recruited young people from housing projects and youth centers as well colleges and universities. Her emphasis on indigenous leadership and belief that all people have potential to lead became a core value of our leadership philosophy. When she left, Public Allies Chicago had a cash reserve, a committed board, a talented young staff, and a network of diverse, talented young leaders in Chicago who continue to serve the community today. Michelle was also a pioneer in the social entrepreneur movement –leaders who create new approaches and organizations to provide new solutions to social problems," the organization said.

"Michelle was an amazing leader and role model for all of us. As a very young staff in the early years, we all emulated Michelle's incredible combination of professionalism, compassion, critical thinking and commitment to her community. For all of her immense talents, she was also one of the most down-to-earth, inclusive, and authentic leaders I’ve ever worked with. She really did believe that everyone could contribute to their communities and that leaders come from all backgrounds and all parts of the community. The Chicago program she pioneered really created the template we all work from today. We are proud of our colleague and wish her well," wrote Paul Schmitz, CEO of Public Allies.

Obama's 'Big Brother' vanishes from speech
'Civilian security force' missing from 'call to service' transcript

Friday, November 14, 2008

Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in a recent speech that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks.

In the July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set."

Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting comment. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.

The lines are not included in a transcript of the prepared remarks published by the Denver Post and Wall Street Journal.

According to the transcript, Obama was to have said:

We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
But a YouTube video of the speech, at about the 16-minute mark, shows Obama added the following lines:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue, and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

He added that he wants the help of "every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election."

Since Farah reported the statement, it's been the subject of intense discussions on the Internet.

In a post on FreeRepublic.com, Sean Robins explains why he believes it's likely one of Obama's handlers counseled him to remove the two lines from the speech and then the senator decided to put them back in.

"Most of the time, when Obama flubs a line and attempts to recover, you can easily spot it," Robins writes, but in this case, the lines are "delivered clearly, concisely, and succinctly, without any hint that they emanate from a flub."

Robins speculates the lines were prepared and rehearsed ahead of time, the handler or handlers counseled him to take them out, and "in the moment of the speech, he decided, 'they're back in.'"

Robins says that while this is speculation, it points to the need to "pay closer attention to Obama's speeches, for what is off the cuff, for what his trainers and handlers might not want him to say, but which he will continue to say anyway. We know he's really good on a fixed script. And we know that he's really bad on his own."

The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion. Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"

On the forum page for Blue Collar Muse, one reader said, "I thought we already had the FBI, DEA, BATFE, U.S. Marshals, TSA, postal inspectors, park rangers, Secret Service, state bureaus of investigation, state police, local police, sheriffs and constables, among others, that already did that."

Added another: "The other, more likely, possibility here is that Obama has absolutely no clue what he's talking about. That would explain why he hasn't elaborated on the idea."

Obama's Colorado Springs speech was about a "call to service."

"I am running for president, right now, because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now. This moment is too important to sit on the sidelines."

And he told the audience he would "ask for your service."

"We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges. … As president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer."

He also talked about additional work for veterans, and a new "Energy Corps" for the two million "young Americans who are out of school and out of work."

Dollars lining up for 'civilian national security force'?
Report cites Frank's proposal to cut military 25%

Friday, November 14, 2008

President-elect Barack Obama raised questions during an election campaign stop in Colorado Springs when he asserted the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force, but few of those questions have been answered.

But now one report is proposing a possible solution for part of the equation: From where would the money for such an organization come? Democrats in Congress now are floating the idea of cutting U.S. military spending by 25 percent, or $150 billion a year, and according to a report from blogger Jay Tea, that could be used for the new "security force."

The idea to cut the military, proposed by Rep. Barney Frank, already is being opposed by Republicans.

Frank, D-Mass., recently told a newspaper the Pentagon will have to start choosing the cuts from its weapons programs because he wants to slash more than $150 billion from the estimated $607 billion in defense spending already approved for fiscal year 2008.

U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., argued America now is fighting terror worldwide, including active wars in Afghanistan and Iran, and that has stretched the capabilities of the military already.

He warned cutting funding in such a drastic way would be irresponsible.

"You know if we don't make the right decisions about the military nothing else will matter will it? Because if we don't have a free country then you know what do these other programs matter at all? That's the number one responsibility," he said.

The blogger, however, saw the plan linked this way: "Representative Barney Frank, apparently not content with his role in wreaking havoc on the nation's financial system, has announced that he will push for a 25 percent cut in defense spending. This could actually work hand-in-hand with one of Obama's proposals for a 'civilian National Security Force,' which he said would be as well-funded as the military. If the defense budget is slashed, then it makes it easier to fund a new organization at the same level."

On the FamilySecurityMatters.org website, blogger Peter Gadiel lamented the lack of information about Obama's plan and its accompanying implied threat.

"Such an outfit would be worse than useless in any foreign action. Its only possible use could be for domestic purposes. Since we already have police forces, and the National Guard what could a 'Domestic National Security Force' possibly be used for? Suppressing dissent? We simply do not know," he wrote.

It was in a July speech in Colorado Springs that Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set."

Obama spokesmen have declined to return WND calls requesting an explanation.

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

His call generated intense Internet discussions.

The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion. Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"

Obama's Colorado Springs speech was about a "call to service."

WND also reported Obama's "Universal Voluntary Public Service" program promoted on his campaign website.

According to an editorial in Investor's Business Daily, Obama plans to use an existing group called Public Allies as a model for his national effort.

"Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas," said IBD. "They plan to herd American youth into government-funded re-education camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of 'social change.'"

The organization itself doesn't seem that alarming. It describes itself as serving communities "while developing better leaders for tomorrow." Young adults are placed in "community leadership" posts with various agencies and given weekly "training." They get $1,800 plus health and child care.

But IBD warned the real mission is something else.

The aim, the editorial said, "is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about 'social change' through threats, pressure, tensions and confrontation – the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul 'The Red' Alinsky."

Jerome Corsi, a WND columnist and the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-seller "The Obama Nation," agreed. He said the overall intent of the program is much the same as the goals of William Ayers, an Obama colleague and unrepentant radical who worked with the Illinois Democrat on funding public education programs.

"Remember, Obama has followed Saul Alinsky's ultimate advice," Corsi explained. "Saul Alinsky said radicals like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman could not organize a picnic. Alinsky told his radicals to cut their hair, buy business suits and run for public office," he said.

"Ayers and Obama are both aimed at producing radical socialist change from within – working today to radicalize our institutions, instead of bombing them. Alinsky considered this approach to be much smarter because it was more likely to produce lasting 'change' and less likely to produce a backlash. In other words, the Alinsky-trained radical could apply more easily the Machiavellian technique of lying by denying they were pursuing radical goals if they appeared to be members in good standing of the establishment they were trying merely to 'change,'" Corsi said.

IBD cited statistics from Public Allies itself, in which it boasted "our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to … engage in protest activities." The organization explains it already has dispatched 2,200 community organizers to agitate for "justice" and "equality" in Chicago, Cincinnati, Los Angeles and other cities.

IBD said taxpayers already fund half of Public Allies' expenses through President Clinton's AmeriCorps, and Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing billions.

Barack Obama's plan for giant police force
Exclusive: Joseph Farah exposes senator's desire for military-sized 'civilian national security force'

By Joseph Farah
Friday, November 14, 2008

With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.

For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.

In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.

Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?

What does it mean?

If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?

I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?

Are we talking about creating a police state here?

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn't count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?

If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?

So far, despite our attempts to find out, the Obama campaign is not talking.

At this point all I can do is enlist your help – and the help of every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election. I also want to ask radio talk-show hosts across America to start asking this same question. I have a feeling if others join our quest, we might yet get clarification on this proposal from Obama.

Who will Obama appoint to administer this new "civilian national security force"? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army?

The questions are endless.

But before we can hope to get to the specifics, we need much more in the way of generalizations from Obama.

Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere – Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?

I have a feeling there would be more questions from the press if I myself had proposed the creation of something as preposterous as a "civilian national security force" than there has been about this proposal by the presidential candidate currently leading in most of the polls. I'm quite sure I would be hung out to dry as some kind of Nazi thug. Meanwhile, Obama makes this wild suggestion and it is met with a collective yawn from the watchdogs.

Help me out here. What am I missing?

Can I get a hand?

Barack Obama's $439 billion secret
Exclusive: Joseph Farah sounds screaming alarm, warns of plan for 'civilian national security force'

By Joseph Farah
Friday, November 14, 2008

It has been a week since I blew the whistle on Barack Obama's secret $439 billion plan for a mysterious initiative called the "civilian national security force."

We don't know any more about this plan than we did when Obama announced it July 2 in a speech, with the relevant part covered by almost no media with the exception of the Chicago Tribune and Congressional Quarterly.

Thanks, however, to talk radio and legions of bloggers, Obama's chilling call to create a "civilian national security force" with a price tag equaling that of the Defense Department is beginning to get more attention.

It was in the context of announcing a plan to expand rapidly and dramatically the size of the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps that Obama dropped this bombshell: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

A few have suggested, I am making too much of a benign proposal by Obama – one that merely calls for a greatly increased commitment to the Foreign Service.

If so, why is it that the Obama campaign has gone mum on this proposal? Why is it that operatives keep promising us clarification that is never forthcoming? And, furthermore, is an expansion of the Foreign Service to the size of the $439 billion Defense Department (in 2007 dollars) really such an innocent idea?

There are many other questions raised by this nebulous proposal:

Why did other reporters covering his July 2 speech fail to cover this big idea for a "civilian national security force"? Obviously, this was a pretty hot sound bite. Why did no one take the bait?
Why was this obviously well-crafted sound bite not a part of the prepared remarks handed out to reporters that day? Had it been scratched from the speech? Or was it added at the last minute? The nation has a right to know!
When can the people expect to get details of this huge initiative from the Obama campaign? Is there a plan at all, or is this just a case of the candidate shooting from the hip?
Does Barack Obama really intend to push the idea of spending as much on the State Department as America currently spends on defense? This should be the No. 1 question he is asked at every campaign stop until we get a coherent answer.
Why do transcripts of the July 2 speech in the Denver Post and Wall Street Journal fail to include Obama's statement about a "civilian national security force"?
Why hasn't the Obama campaign posted a copy of the speech on its website?
Why do Obama campaign officials not respond to WND's repeated requests for more information about his initiative?
Or is Barack Obama's notion of a "civilian national security force" something else entirely? Does it have anything to do with the Foreign Service, or does it have more to do with some kind of domestic Big Brother program as the chilling words first suggested to me?
With all the attention focused on Barack Obama and all the inane questions asked of him by reporters, I find it almost inexplicable that no one has been able to pin him down on his own words uttered 19 days ago. If you doubt that I am quoting him accurately, you can check for yourself:

You can watch a YouTube video of the speech itself: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70160

Or you can read a transcript of the speech made available here for the first time to Internet users.

Once again, I am renewing my call for help.

I have done my best to bring attention to this curious and alarming Obama initiative.

I fully expect the Obama campaign to continue to stonewall my efforts and those of my news organization to get clarification on his remarks.

The only thing that will force Obama to come clean on this plan is public pressure.

I urge you to e-mail this column to everyone you know who might care about the grave constitutional and taxation implications it raises. And I urge my friends in talk radio and my colleagues in the press to talk about this, ask the tough questions and demand that Obama address the issues raised by his own initiative.

Read WND's transcript of Obama's speech about creating a "civilian national security force": http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69960

Obama on 'civilian national security force'
Transcript of senator's controversial remarks in Colorado July 2

Posted: July 18, 2008

Editor's note: The following is a WND transcript of Barack Obama's speech delivered in Colorado Springs, Colo., July 2, based on audio and video recordings.

As some of you know, I spent much of my childhood adrift. My father had left my mother and me when I was 2 years old. My mother remarried and we moved overseas for a time. But I was mostly raised in Hawaii by my mom and my grandparents who were from Kansas. And growing up, I wasn't always sure of who I was or where I was going. That's what happens sometimes when you don't have a father in the home.

But during my first two years of college, perhaps because of the values my mother had taught me, values of hard work and honesty and empathy, perhaps because they had resurfaced after a long hibernation, or perhaps because of the example of wonderful teachers and lasting friends, I began to notice a world beyond myself.

And by the time I graduated from college, I was possessed with a crazy idea: that I would work at the grassroots level to bring about change.

So I wrote letters to every organization in the country I could think of. And one day, a small group of churches on the South Side of Chicago offered me a job working to help neighborhoods that had been devastated by the steel plants that had closed in the early and mid- '80s.

Now, my mother and my grandparents thought it might be wiser for me to go to law school. My friends were all applying for jobs on Wall Street. Meanwhile, this organization offered me $12,000 a year; they gave me $2,000 for all my car expenses for the next several years.

And I said yes. I said yes. I didn't know a soul in Chicago. I wasn't sure what was waiting for me when I got there.

I'd always been inspired by the stories of the civil rights movement and JFK's call to service, but when I got to the South Side, there were no marches, there were no soaring speeches. In the shadows of an empty steel plant, there were just a lot of people who were struggling.

I still remember one of the very first meetings we put together. I was working with lay leaders from churches in the neighborhoods to try to forge this coalition. People had decided that the issue of gang violence was critical, and so they wanted to hold a community meeting to address gang violence.

And we put up thousands of fliers and we made phone calls to everybody we knew in the community. And the night of the meeting happens, and we put out hundreds of chairs like this. And we wait, and we wait, and for people to show up.

And finally this group of older people walk into the hall. And I'm relieved at least somebody's showing up. And they sit down, and a little old lady, she raises her hand and she asks, "When's the bingo starting?"

That was my first meeting as a community organizer. My first... first venture into community service.

It wasn't easy. There were times where it was extraordinarily discouraging. But eventually we made progress. Day by day, block by block, we brought the community together. We registered new voters, we set up after-school programs and fought for new jobs, and helped people live the lives in these communities with more opportunity and some measure of dignity.

And I began to realize that I wasn't just helping other people. Through service, I found a community that embraced me, citizenship that was meaningful, the direction that I'd been seeking.

Through service, I discovered how my own improbable story fit into the larger American story. There's a lesson to be learned from generations who've served: from soldiers and sailors, airmen and Marines, from suffragists and freedom riders, teachers and doctors, cops and firefighters... (undecipherable) … streets, and all these high rises, everybody looking up into the sky, and then going to an office and watching the Twin Towers crumble.

And whether you lived in Manhattan or thousands of miles away in Colorado, you felt the pain and the loss of that day, not just as an individual but as an American.

And then, later, you also felt pride, pride in the firefighters who rushed up the stairs while workers were rushing down; pride in the police who provided comfort and the neighborhoods who lent a hand; pride in your citizenship and the tattered flag that flew at ground zero.

That's why Americans lined up to give blood. That's why we held vigils and flew flags. That's why we rallied behind our president. We were ready to step into the strong current of history and to answer a new call for our country.

But the call never came. Instead of a call to service, we were asked to shop.

Instead of a call for shared sacrifice, we saw tax cuts go to the wealthiest Americans in a time of war, for the very first time in our history.

Instead of leadership that called us to come together, we got patriotism defined as the property of one party and used as a political wedge.

And we ended up going into a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged.

We have lost precious time. Our nation is less secure and less respected in the world. Our energy dependence has risen spectacularly, as has the price of gasoline; and so has the specter of climate change.

More of our children have been left behind, and our American dream risks slipping away.

The burden of service has fallen almost exclusively onto the backs of our military and their families, who have endured tour after tour after tour of duty, bravely and brilliantly, even though they haven't always gotten the care and support that they have earned.

When I was thinking about whether to seek the presidency, there were voices that counseled me to wait. "Why not stay in Washington for a few more years," they said, "to master the game?"

Well, the fact is, I've been in Washington long enough to know that that game needs to change.

And I am running... And I am running for president, right now, because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now. This moment...

This moment is too important to sit on the sidelines. Our country faces determined enemies abroad and defining challenges at home.

I have no doubt that, in the face of these odds, people who love their country can change it. That's why I'm running for president. That's why I'm determined to reach out, not just to Democrats but to independents and Republicans, to every single American who wants to move this country in a new direction.

And that's why I won't just ask for your vote as a candidate, I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I'm president of the United States.

This won't be a call issued in one speech or one program. I want this to be a central cause of my presidency. We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges.

Let me give you some examples.

There is no challenge greater than the defense of our nation and our values. Our men and women of our military, from Fort Carson to Peterson Air Force Base, from the Air Force Academy to the ROTC students here on campus have signed up at a time when our troops face an ever-increasing load. Fighting a resurgent Taliban. Targeting Al Qaida. Preserving -- persevering in the deserts and the cities of Iraq. Training foreign militaries. Delivering humanitarian relief.

In this young century, our military has answered when called, even as that call has often come far too frequently. Through their commitment, their capability and their courage, they've done us all proud. But we need... But we need to ease the burden on our troops while meeting the challenges of the 21st century. And that's why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military and complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.

A call – a call to service must be backed by a sacred trust with anyone who puts on the uniform of the United States. So a young person joining our military must know that we will only send them into harm's way when we absolutely must.

That we will provide them with the equipment needed to complete their mission safely and deployments that allow adequate time back home.

They must see that we'll care for our military families while they're deployed and that we're providing our veterans with the support and benefits and opportunity that they've earned when they return home.

That's what I've fought for on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. That's what I'll promise as commander in chief. And that's what I will deliver.

Just as we must value and encourage military service across our society, we must honor and expand other opportunities to serve, because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but it also depends on the teacher in East L.A. or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the foreign service officer in Indonesia.

Americans have shown that they want to step up. But we're not keeping pace with the demand of those who want to serve or leveraging that commitment to meet national challenges.

FDR not only enlisted Americans to create employment, he targeted that service to build our infrastructure and conserve our environment.

JFK not only called on a new generation, he made their service a bridge to the developing world and a bright light of American values in the darkest days of the Cold War.

Today, AmeriCorps, our nation's network of local, state and national service programs, has 75,000 slots. Now, I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife, Michelle, once left her job at a law firm and at city hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service.

And these programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America's greatest resource, our citizens. And that's why as president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots... and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem -- they are the answer.

So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families.

And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.

And we also need to invest in ideas that can help meet our common challenges, because more often than not, the great social innovations of the future won't be generated by the government. The nonprofit sector employs 1 in 12 Americans, and 150 not-for-profits are launched every day.

You know, while the federal government invest $7 billion in research and development for the private sector, there's no similar effort to support nonprofit innovation. Meanwhile, there are ideas across America, in our inner cities and small towns, from college graduates to seniors getting ready to retire, that could benefit millions of Americans, if they're given a chance.

So as president, I will launch a new social investment fund network. It's time to get the grassroots, the foundations, the faith- based organizations, the private sector, the government at the table together, so we can learn from our own successes.

We'll invest in ideas that work, leverage private sector dollars to encourage innovation, and expand successful programs to scale.

Take a program like the Harlem Children's Zone, which helps thousands of children in New York through after-school activities, mentoring and family support.

We need to make that model work in different cities across America. And just as we support small businesses, I'll start a new social entrepreneur agency to make sure that small nonprofits have strong support from Washington.

That's how we're going to strengthen this sector and empower our citizens.

Now, finally we need to integrate services and education, so that young Americans are called upon and prepared to be active citizens. Just as we teach math and writing, arts and athletics, we need to teach young Americans to take citizenship seriously.

Now, part of that is strengthening our civic education. I've talked about this in my speech in Independence, Missouri, a couple of days ago. We need to teach our children what makes America great, and not take for granted how this country has been built, but rather get them to understand and respect the institutions that we hold so dear, and those documents, those founding documents upon which our freedoms are based.

But we also need to make sure that we're giving them hands-on opportunities for service. Study after study shows that students who serve do better in school, are more likely to go to college, more likely to maintain that service as adults.

So, when I'm president, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year... and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year.

That's two hours a week. It's not a lot.

And by the time you graduate, though, it adds up. You will have done 17 weeks of service. And we can reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school levels, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service plans, and give school resources to offer new service opportunities.

At the community level, we'll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.

And for college students, I've proposed an annual American Opportunity tax credit: $4,000 for every student, every year. But to receive this credit, we will require 100 hours of public service.

You invest in America... America invests in you. That's how we're going to make sure that college is affordable, while preparing our nation to compete in the 21st century.

That's something we can do right now.

And for our veterans – for our veterans, I was proud to be a strong and early supporter of Jim Webb's bipartisan G.I. Bill, so that today's vets... so that today's vets have the same opportunity that my grandfather had under the G.I. Bill when he came back after World War II.

To marshal their talents in building a new energy economy, I want to launch an initiative to give our veterans the training they need to succeed in the green jobs of the future. It's time to end our energy dependence at home so our national security isn't held hostage to oil and gas from abroad.

And we can harness the skills and talents of so many of our veterans to do something about it.

We can also reach out to the nearly 2 million young Americans who are out of school and out of work. We can enlist in our energy corps, so that disadvantaged young people can find useful work, cleaning up polluted areas, helping weatherize homes, gaining skills in a growing industry.

And we can expand the Youth Build program, which puts young Americans to work building affordable housing in America's poorest communities, giving them valuable schools – skills – and a chance to complete a high school education. Because no one should be left out of the American story.

No one should be left out.

Now, I know what the cynics will say. I've heard from them all my life. These are the voices that will tell you not just what you can't do, but what you won't do.

"Americans won't come together."

"Our allegiance doesn't go beyond our political party or our race or our region or our religion, our congregations."

"Young Americans, they won't serve their country. They're too selfish. They're too apathetic. They're too lazy."

This is the soft sell of the status quo, the voice that tells you to settle because settling isn't that bad.

That's not the America that I've seen throughout this campaign. I've seen young people work and volunteer and turn out in record numbers.

I've met members of our military, like the thousands of soldiers and airmen right here in Colorado Springs, who signed up to serve in the wake of 9/11.

I've met community workers who want to care for our children, students who want to end the genocide in Darfur...

... businesses that want to expand opportunity and employ people, farmers who want to help free us from the tyranny of oil, seniors searching for ways to give back, people of every age, race and religion who want to come together to renew the American spirit.

Renewing that spirit starts with service.

Make no mistake, our destiny as Americans is tied up with one another. If we are less respected in the world, then you will be less safe. If we keep paying dictators for foreign oil, gas prices are going to keep rising and so are the oceans.

If we can't give all of our children a world-class education, our economy's going to fall behind. And that is... That's why you matter so much. That's how it should be. That's the bet our founding fathers were making all those years ago, that our individual destinies could be tied together in the common fabric of democracy, that government depends not just on the consent of the governed, but on the service of citizens, the participation of citizens, the leadership of citizens.

That's what history calls us to do, because loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the Fourth of July.

Loving your country – loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it.

If you do, your life will be richer; our country will be stronger.

We need your service right now, at this moment, our moment in history.

Now, I'm not going to tell you what your role should be. That's for you to discover. But I am going to ask you to play your part, ask you to stand up; ask you to put your foot firmly into the current of history. I'm asking you to change history's course.

And if I had the great fortune to be your president, then decades from now, when the memory of this or that policy has faded and when the words that we speak in the next few years are long forgotten, I hope you remember this as the moment when your own story and the American story came together, and, in the words of Dr. King, the arc of history bent once more toward justice.

Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.

Rush Limbaugh: Time to cleanse Republican Party
Says conservatism not on ballot, calls McCain's whole campaign 'concession speech'

November 05, 2008
By Joe Kovacs, WorldNetDaily

Radio host Rush Limbaugh, the loudest conservative voice in American politics, today blasted John McCain's presidential campaign as weak and said Barack Obama's election as president is an opportunity to purge the Republican Party of candidates who abandon conservative principles.

"McCain's whole campaign was a concession speech," said Limbaugh in his post-election analysis. "We've now demonstrated to everyone how to lose."

Limbaugh dismissed any notion that victories by Democrats in the White House and Congress meant a repudiation of right-leaning principles.

Limbaugh explained conservatism was not on the ballot.

"We haven't been on the ballot since 1994," he said, noting that if Republicans wanted to win elections, they should not put so-called "moderates" on the ballot.

"The conservative movement does not need to be rebuilt," he said. "We had some people abandon the conservative movement, and they need to be abandoned."

The broadcaster called last night's results "an opportunity for cleansing ... like we haven't seen in a long time."

Concerning Obama's victory speech in Chicago, Limbaugh noted, "He said nothing better than anyone has ever said nothing."

"We congratulate Obama. We recognize the historical nature. We also understand that more than him being black, he is a radical extremist who is not going to govern from the center. [Nancy] Pelosi and [Harry] Reid are not going to govern from the center. What the hell do people think they wanted to win this election for? When do liberals govern from the center? The only time they do that is when they have to when there are enough Republicans around to keep their extremism in check.

"To hell with defeat!" he exclaimed.

Wanted: Small Government
Terence Jeffrey
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Up until the 1930s, the United States maintained a small federal government that mostly focused on the limited number of things the Constitution authorized it to do.

Americans were responsible for their own food, clothing and shelter, and if they could not take care of themselves, they looked to their extended family, their neighbors, their churches and local governments to give them a helping hand.

Charity in America in those days did not mean the federal government compelling you to hand over some of your property to the state so the state could hand it over to someone else.

Americans did not believe in spreading the wealth -- they believed in earning it. The term compassionate conservative had not been coined.

There was no federal welfare state before the 1930s.

That year, according to historical data published by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the entire federal government spent only 3.4 percent of gross domestic product. Because federal tax receipts equaled to 4.2 percent of GDP in 1930, there was a federal budget surplus equal to 0.8 percent of GDP.

Within a decade, things changed dramatically. In 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- founder of the modern American welfare state -- was preparing to break George Washington's self-imposed limit of two presidential terms.

Although the nation was still at peace, the federal government had grown almost threefold -- when measured as a percentage of GDP -- from what it had been in 1930. Federal spending in 1940 was 9.8 percent of GDP. Federal tax receipts were 6.8 percent. The Treasury borrowed 3 percent of GDP to make up the difference.

In fiscal year 2009, according to OMB's estimates, the federal government will spend 20.7 percent of GDP while taking in 18 percent of GDP in taxes. The Treasury will borrow 2.7 percent of GDP, much of it from foreign creditors, to make up the difference.

And that does not count the $700 billion the Treasury will borrow to fund the financial industry bailout.

Today, the federal government eats up more than twice as much of our national wealth as it did in 1940 and more than six times as much as it did in 1930.

What did Americans get for this massive increase in government? More of their life is now mortgaged to the government, and they are now more dependent on government.

Most of the growth in federal spending has come in the sector that the OMB calls "human resources." As currently budgeted, this includes federal spending on education, training, social services, health programs, veterans benefits and services, income security programs, Medicare and Social Security.

In 1940, the "human resources" part of the federal budget consumed 4.3 percent of GDP. In 2009, it will consume 13 percent, or three times as much.

Before the current economic crisis hit, the American welfare state was on an unsustainable trajectory. The Government Accountability Office informed the Senate in January that it estimated there was a $53 trillion gap between the entitlement benefits the federal government has promised to pay over the next 75 years to people now living in the United States and the tax revenue that can be expected to pay for those benefits.

Then-Comptroller General David Walker said that for the government to cover this gap every American household would need to put up about $455,000.

That is the size of the mortgage the federal government has already taken out in the name of every American family.

We got to this place because politicians for decades have been telling voters they would give them something for nothing -- when what they really meant was they would take money from one set of people and give it to another.

When they borrowed vast sums to keep their welfare-state politics rolling, they were taking money away from future generations -- our children and grandchildren.

Now we are being told we face the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s. And we are being offered the same solution: more federal programs so Uncle Sam can take better care of us.

In other words, the politicians want to take out a second mortgage on top of the $455,000 they have already put on our backs.

America is heading down the blind alley of big government toward the brick wall of national bankruptcy. The only way out is to turn the truck completely around and head back toward small government, self-reliance and freedom.

U.S. Foreign Aid Out of Reason
Paul Weyrich
Tuesday, November 04, 2008

As the American economy continues to struggle through a mortgage crisis, credit crisis and job losses, part of the immense worldwide phenomenon, it would be wise for our elected representatives to consider reducing the amount of taxpayer money they spend annually. One area where substantial cuts could be made is in foreign aid. The United States spends more money on foreign aid than any other nation in the world. Some of this is beneficial in both a humanitarian and a strategic sense. Some, however, should be eliminated.

President George W. Bush's Fiscal Year 2009 Foreign Operations Budget for the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other foreign affairs agencies totals $26.1 billion. The requested amount is an 8.9% increase over the total Fiscal Year 2008 (October 1, 2007-September 30, 2008) amount enacted to date, including emergency funding. In addition, the United States contributes well over $3 billion to the United Nations, an organization which in turn welcomes our enemies to speak against us. The U.S. State Department notes that the United States is a generous supporter - in many cases the largest supporter-of key U.N. programs. In 2004, the U.S. contributed 48% of the budget of the World Food Program to help feed 104 million people in 81 countries; 17% of the budget of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 157 countries; and 31% of the budget of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to safeguard the rights and well being of 19.2 million refugees in 116 countries. According to USAID, such large amounts of money are needed to promote "responsible sovereignty, not permanent dependency" among recipient nations.

After decades of giving ever increasing sums to various countries and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) throughout the world, American taxpayers should see return benefits on their contributions, including the successful development of third-world countries and a decrease in anti-Americanism. Yet it seems that the opposite occurs. More people accuse us of not doing enough to help the poor and the less fortunate; more demand greater sums of money; more hate us, in part through envy; and more seem ungrateful for the benefits they do receive. In addition, few if any countries or organizations ever declare that they have reached the point of self-sufficiency and no longer need to receive monies from the United States. In spite of USAID's lofty rhetoric, it seems that most of the Federal Government's foreign aid creates dependency and enables some foreign bureaucrats and NGOs to enrich themselves at the expense of those they purport to serve and help.

As a new administration prepares to take office, it would be wise for our newly elected officials to consider reforming and reducing the amount of foreign aid. The Brookings Institution noted two years ago that the current system of U.S. foreign assistance is "an incongruent structure that includes 50 separate offices which address a dizzying array of more than 50 objectives ranging from narcotics eradication to refugee assistance. Different agencies pursue these overlapping objectives with shockingly poor communication and even worse coordination between them. At best, the lack of integration means that the United States fails to take advantage of potential synergies; at worst, these disparate efforts work at cross purposes. As a result, America punches well below its throw weight in the international arena as the quality of its aid strategy compromises the quantity of its absolute aid dollars." In order to improve the strategic and humanitarian effectiveness of our foreign aid, we would do well to trim and streamline the bureaucracy which handles it and to demand results from those who receive it.

I should note that in addition to taxpayer-funded foreign aid, Americans are more generous with private donations to charities than other peoples in the world. According to the annual Index of Global Philanthropy and the Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs, in 2005 (the most current data available) $95.5 billion in American foreign aid came from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals. And the dollar amounts do not indicate how much time Americans spend volunteering overseas.

Many American families are making sacrifices this fall and winter, reining in their spending and setting reasonable budgets for themselves. Perhaps the Federal Government can learn from them and do likewise.

The Reign of Lame Falls Mainly on McCain
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Last night was truly a historic occasion: For only the second time in her adult life, Michelle Obama was proud of her country!

The big loser of this election is Colin Powell, whose last-minute endorsement of Obama put the Illinois senator over the top. Powell was probably at home last night, yelling at his TV, "Are you KIDDING me? That endorsement was sarcastic!"

The winner, of course, is Obama, who must be excited because now he can start hanging out in public with Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright again. John McCain is a winner because he can resume buying more houses.

And we're all winners because we will never again have to hear McCain say, "my friends."

After Bill Clinton won the 1992 presidential election, Hillary Clinton immediately announced that, henceforth, she would be known as "Hillary Rodham Clinton." So maybe Obama can now become B. Hussein Obama, his rightful name.

This was such an enormous Democratic year that even John Murtha won his congressional seat in Pennsylvania after calling his constituents racists. It turns out they're not racists -- they're retards. Question: What exactly would one have to say to alienate Pennsylvanians? That Joe Paterno should retire?

Apparently Florida voters didn't mind Obama's palling around with Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, either. There must be a whole bunch of retired Pennsylvania Jews down there.

Have you ever noticed that whenever Democrats lose presidential elections, they always blame it on the personal qualities of their candidate? Kerry was a dork, Gore was a stiff, Dukakis was a bloodless android, Mondale was a sad sack.

This blame-the-messenger thesis allows Democrats to conclude that their message was fine -- nothing should be changed! The American people are clamoring for higher taxes, big government, a defeatist foreign policy, gay marriage, the whole magilla. It was just this particular candidate's personality.

Republicans lost this presidential election, and I don't blame the messenger; I blame the message. How could Republicans go after B. Hussein Obama (as he is now known) on planning to bankrupt the coal companies when McCain supports the exact same cap and trade policies and earnestly believes in global warming?

How could we go after Obama for his illegal alien aunt and for supporting driver's licenses for illegal aliens when McCain fanatically pushed amnesty along with his good friend Teddy Kennedy?

How could we go after Obama for Jeremiah Wright when McCain denounced any Republicans who did so?

How could we go after Obama for planning to hike taxes on the "rich," when McCain was the only Republican to vote against both of Bush's tax cuts on the grounds that they were tax cuts for the rich?

And why should Republican activists slave away working for McCain when he has personally, viciously attacked: John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans, National Right to Life director Doug Johnson, evangelical pastors Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee, various conservative talk radio hosts, the Tennessee Republican Party and on and on and on?

As liberal Democrat E.J. Dionne Jr. exuded about McCain in The Washington Post during the Republican primaries, "John McCain is feared by Democrats and liked by independents." Dionne proclaimed that McCain "may be the one Republican who can rescue his party from the undertow of the Bush years."

Similarly, after unelectable, ultraconservative Reagan won two landslide victories, James Reston of The New York Times gave the same advice to Vice President George H.W. Bush: Stop being conservative! Bush was "a good man," Reston said in 1988, "and might run a strong campaign if liberated from Mr. Reagan's coattails."

Roll that phrase around a bit -- "liberated from Mr. Reagan's coattails." This is why it takes so long to read the Times -- you have to keep reading the same paragraph over again to see if you missed a word.

Bush, of course, rode Reagan's ultraconservative coattails to victory, then snipped those coattails by raising taxes and was soundly defeated four years later.

I keep trying to get Democrats to take my advice (stop being so crazy), but they never listen to me. Why do Republicans take the advice of their enemies?

How many times do we have to run this experiment before Republican primary voters learn that "moderate," "independent," "maverick" Republicans never win, and right-wing Republicans never lose?

Indeed, the only good thing about McCain is that he gave us a genuine conservative, Sarah Palin. He's like one of those insects that lives just long enough to reproduce so that the species can survive. That's why a lot of us are referring to Sarah as "The One" these days.

Like Sarah Connor in "The Terminator," Sarah Palin is destined to give birth to a new movement. That's why the Democrats are trying to kill her. And Arnold Schwarzenegger is involved somehow, too. Good Lord, I'm tired.

After showing nearly superhuman restraint throughout this campaign, which was lost the night McCain won the California primary, I am now liberated to announce that all I care about is hunting down and punishing every Republican who voted for McCain in the primaries. I have a list and am prepared to produce the names of every person who told me he was voting for McCain to the proper authorities.

We'll start with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Then we shall march through the states of New Hampshire and South Carolina -- states that must never, ever be allowed to hold early Republican primaries again.

For now, we have a new president-elect. In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president.

Republicans Need Another Great Communicator
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
By: Ronald Kessler

If one thing has become clear from John McCain's defeat, it is that the next Republican presidential candidate needs to be a great communicator.

To be sure, McCain probably would have won if the economic crisis had not washed away so many Americans' retirement accounts. But that win would have reflected more of Americans' skepticism toward Barack Obama's ultra-liberal agenda than an embrace of McCain.

In this media age, a presidential candidate must have the skills to inspire -- not only in speeches and televised interviews but also in dealings with the media.

In the early days of McCain's campaign, he would joke that his base was the press. That was because he gave the media unlimited access, spending hours shmoozing reporters on his bus. Then last summer, the Bushies took over.

The Bush approach, as explained to me by Dan Bartlett, who was in charge of White House communications as counselor to President Bush, is to present his message publicly in speeches and at news conferences. Bush sees himself as a CEO whose agenda would be undercut if subjected to the constant leaks that occurred when his father was president.

So with the press, the White House became known as a buttoned-down operation, often unwilling to feed reporters even harmless tidbits that would make their stories more colorful.

That policy was epitomized by former Press Secretary Scott McClellan, whose utterances were as repetitious as reporters' questions. It was on display again today, when The Washington Post's Dan Eggen reported that the White House would not say what the menu was at Laura Bush's birthday celebration. Bill Clinton's White House would have leaked the menu a day before to a favored reporter.

Even hostile reporters find it harder to write slanted stories if they are receiving cooperation in obtaining behind-the-scenes vignettes or interviews. If they are not fed stories and leaks, they will look to the administration's enemies for their material. Having been on the other side as a reporter for the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, I can attest to that.

As outlined in the Newsmax story "U.S. Spokesman at the U.N. Makes His Mark", a savvy PR operation can make all the difference in the coverage an individual or institution receives.

In my view, Bush's closed or "disciplined" approach to the press led to many of the myths about him and undercut his support and approval ratings. In turn, that undermined his ability to further his agenda. Although I believe Bush will be seen as a great president some day because he kept us safe after 9/11, he could have accomplished much more if he had adopted the most basic tactics of PR 101.

I am not normally a fan of Maureen Dowd, but she was dead on in her Nov. 2 New York Times column when she described how former Bush aide Steve Schmidt closed down McCain's contacts with the press after he took charge of the McCain campaign in July.

"Before he was bubbled by Bushies, McCain was one of the most known and knowable quantities in American politics," Dowd wrote. "For most of his long public career, he prided himself on his openness with the press -- he even allowed some reporters to watch the results of January's New Hampshire primary in his hotel suite in Nashua. He relished spending all day being challenged by voters and reporters."

Then last summer, Schmidt took over, in effect "shackling" the candidate. Schmidt turned the "vibrant and respected McCain into a shell of his former self," Dowd said. "No more of the oldest established, permanent floating crap game of press confabs."

Although Obama played the same game with his cards close to his chest, he did not need to woo the press. Reporters adore him and tend to favor Democrats in any case. Using the Bush playbook, McCain turned the press into adversaries.

That left McCain only one way to sway voters: his own communication skills. But his disjointed, wooden delivery dismays even his strongest backers. Unlike the eloquent Obama, McCain does not know how to connect with voters by citing their everyday experiences.

Although McCain enunciates Republican principles favoring smaller government, lower taxes, and a strong national defense, he never takes the time to spell out clearly and convincingly why those principles are superior to the Democrats' approach.

In contrast, Ronald Reagan was able to enlist the support of the American public with his direct speaking style, warmth, and humor. Perhaps that was because he genuinely liked people.

After Reagan had been out of office three years, he was to speak at an event in Akron, Ohio. In contrast to the retinue he had as president, Reagan traveled with just one staffer and his Secret Service contingent.

The agent in charge of the former president's protective detail came into the command post and said to other agents, "You know, the president's been sitting in his room alone all morning. And he'd really like for some folks to talk to. Would you guys mind if he came over and sat in the command post and just chatted with you guys for a while?"

For two hours, Reagan chatted with the agents, telling stories and jokes.

To win the presidency again, Republicans must find another Great Communicator.

Joe the Plumber Angered: 'I'm Just a Private Citizen'
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
By: Jim Meyers

Joe Wurzelbacher -- better known as Joe the plumber -- tells Newsmax that he
was "angered" by the background checks Ohio officials ran on him after
he was mentioned by John McCain at a presidential debate.

Asked by Newsmax's Ashley Martella for his thoughts on the Barak Obama election
victory, Joe said on Wednesday:

"I'm disappointed, but the American people have spoken. They've gotten
what they wanted. Now it's time to make sure that he goes to work for us. He's
got a lot of work to do."

VIDEO: Joe the Plumber Interview: 'Angered Me, I'm Just a Private Citizen

He said the multiple background checks by officials in Ohio "angered me. I'm
just a private citizen … That scares me just for the simple fact that other people
might hesitate on questioning our elected officials and that worries me greatly
for America.

"I'm not real happy about that at all."

Asked if he felt the Democratic Party was behind the checks, he responded: "I'm
not going to say they're completely behind it. Maybe people who were connected
to them.

"They wanted to find out something so they could try to discredit me.

"But to sit there and say that Barack Obama was directly responsible for such
a thing -- no, I'm not going to say something like that."

Joe declared that for the Republicans to "get back into the game" following
their election defeat, "they've got to remember that they're conservatives.

"As soon as people say the Republican Party, all they think about is big business
and corporations and guys that make $30 million a year. That's not the case.
I've voted Republican a lot in my lifetime because of conservative core values
that built America. That's what I think they need to get back to."

Asked if he still plans to buy a plumbing business, as he originally stated, or
to run for elected office, Joe said he could "better serve my fellow man by
working with a new watchdog group I'm coming up with," called Secure Our
Dream.com, "that essentially will hold politicians accountable and make them
remember that they actually got into this business to serve their fellow man, and
not themselves."

Americans Embrace Childish Unity
Ben Shapiro
Thursday, November 06, 2008

The Great Election of 2008 is over. Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States.

Now is the time to ask what this election was about.

Here's what this election was (set ital) not (end ital) about: Barack Obama. It was not about his record: He didn't have one. It was not about his views, which are radical in the extreme. It was not about his associations: Americans didn't care about Wright, Ayers, or Khalidi. The media didn't want Americans to know about Obama. Obama didn't want Americans to know about Obama. And Americans didn't want to know about Obama.

This election was not about John McCain. No one cared about McCain, except the liberal media that nominated him president after one win in New Hampshire.

This election was not about President George W. Bush. Bush was used as a punching bag by both sides -- and by election time, he was completely irrelevant.

And this election was certainly not about the issues. In the general election, Barack Obama campaigned as a centrist, titularly abandoning his more extreme positions to do so. He lied about his policies. And no one cared.

This election was about one thing and one thing only: Americans' puerile need for unity through self-congratulatory, cathartic membership in a broad, transformative political movement.

For eight years, Americans have been engaged in hostile politics. And after eight years, Americans were sick of it.

That isn't to America's credit. Hostile politics -- hard-fought political conflict over the issues that matter -- is not a bad thing. It is precisely the sort of messy republicanism the founders embraced. Early elections were replete with mudslinging, character assassination, brawls and scandals. They were also replete with some of the most substantive debate on policy ever put before mankind.

Apparently, we're no longer interested in the dirty business of politics. We'd rather feel ourselves part of a high-minded movement. Not the sort of movement that espouses particular policies -- not the antiwar movement, or the pro-life movement -- those movements are too divisive. We want to be part of a movement that is solely about us.

Barack Obama was the vessel for that movement. He was an utter cipher. But he embodied the need of the American public for unity by hearkening back to the ultimate unifying feature of American life: third-grade slogans. He spouted Hope and Change. He told us, "We're All Americans." He told us, "Yes, We Can."

From any other politician, it would be ridiculous drivel. From a black candidate, it was inspiring. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson didn't talk like that -- they spoke the language of division. Because Obama spoke the language of unity, he had to be a moderate. So went our logic.

Barack Obama had us from the moment he said, "Hope." In that moment, Obama accomplished two simultaneous transformations. First, he transformed himself into a moderate. Second, he transformed himself into a messianic figure, the object of our longing: the physical embodiment of America's progression beyond racial conflict. If America wanted to move beyond conflict, what better way than to embrace a candidate who could end all racial conflict?

And the Obama campaign subtly played on this theme. They implied that if we voted against him, we were engaging in racial hatred; some supporters even implied America would undergo a race war if he lost. That's the last thing we wanted.

We wanted to feel good again. That is what the Great Election of 2008 was about. It was about Americans' desire to feel a part of Something Larger. To do something together, as Americans. In today's day and age, that Something Larger cannot be the America Ronald Reagan preached about -- the left has attacked that America as racist, sexist, and selfish. That Something Larger had to be an individual who could provide us with the feeling of unity.

Barack Obama told us that we could do Something Larger simply by voting for him. When he said, "Yes We Can," and we followed by screaming it, chanting it, shouting his name in unison, we were Doing Something Larger. We were uniting.

America has always recognized that unity for its own sake is useless at best and dangerous at worst. Unifying behind a mysterious charismatic figure promising transformational change may make us feel good, but it is a betrayal of the open and honest governmental debate our Founding Fathers sought and so many Americans have fought and died to preserve.

Americans think they grew up during Election 2008. They think they moved beyond the past. In one way they did. In another, more important way, they regressed dramatically -- to a time before politics mattered. In the next four years, there will be plenty of growing up to do.

Media, McCain Ignored Key Issues
Robert Knight
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

The pundits are already at it, saying that conservatism is dead.

But Barack Obama and Joe Biden were elected in large part because they managed, in the face of all evidence, to run to the right of McCain-Palin.

Obama-Biden pretended they weren't much different from social conservatives. In fact, they didn't look much different from fiscal conservatives, either, and played the bogus "tax cut" card better than McCain. They got away with it for two reasons:

1) The McCain-Palin campaign was so busy being Democrat Lite "mavericks" that they refused to raise issues that would have given voters a stark moral choice.

2) The media were happy to ignore the disconnect between the Obama rhetoric and his radical policies and associates. They had the perfect excuse: If the McCain campaign doesn't make an issue of these things, why should we?

Exit polls showed that at least 60 percent of voters said the economy was the most important issue. That makes sense when the stock market is bucking like a mechanical bull, digging a deep pit. Meanwhile, the media are blaming the government-driven mortgage collapse on (take your pick) Republicans or "the free market." McCain-Palin responded by talking about Wall Street "greed" and "greedy" oil companies This is the language of envy, and the GOP is not in the same league with Democrats when it comes to stoking the sin of coveting. "Did we mention we're mavericks?"

Given the media's Obama infatuation and the McCain campaign's insistence on sticking to a losing script until the last days, it's little wonder that many voters decided to "make history" with the first African-American president. A lot of Americans regardless of party are proud of this, although many would rather it was Michael Steele, Alan Keyes or anyone without the radical resume of Barack Obama.

Absent from the campaign coverage were potent issues like judicial activism, marriage, abortion, gun control, cultural depravity, and illegal immigration. Some of these were triggered by rogue judges, and resulted in state initiatives. As the Committee for Justice's Curt Levey observes, "Even if McCain and his GOP colleagues were squeamish about tackling these controversial issues directly, they could have used the judges issue to tap into the conservative leanings of voters…."

The media made it all about Obama's historic ascendance and McCain's and Palin's quirks and fumbles.

Part of the blame should go to the conservative talking heads who ignored the social issues. In a sort of reverse Marxist vision of man as just an economic animal, they could go on for days about the economy and never once mention the Left's concerted attack on marriage and family. Some did explore Obama's ties to William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and other radicals, but few expounded on the gross immorality of Obama's anti-family agenda.

When people elect a president, they naturally think about their own economic situation, but they are also sizing up a leader's character. When Obama's integrity deficits came into focus, McCain was quick to disparage the source. It's one thing to encourage civility, and McCain gets points for that. It's another thing to keep people in the dark out of fear that the media will make you appear "mean" for conveying inconvenient truths. If there had been a Swift Boat Veterans-type effort exposing Obama's record, McCain probably would have torpedoed them for their trouble.

Given the thin gruel of dueling tax policies, many voters of conservative bent took the media's cue and yawned. Numbers quickly become a bore, especially in an age of text messaging and Saturday Night Live impersonations.

Amid scant media coverage, marriage protection amendments won in California, Florida and Arizona. So much for the end of traditional values. Arizona's vote even reversed the 2006 rejection of a measure protecting marriage, the one ballot victory that gay activists have ever achieved on this issue. In Florida, the measure passed with 62 percent, even as the state went for Obama. In 2004, a marriage amendment sealed Ohio's 20 electoral votes for George W. Bush. This time around, there was no Ohio marriage amendment on the ballot. Even if there had been, McCain might have ignored it as he did the one in Florida, where he forfeited a golden opportunity to reveal his opponents as captive to the radical gay lobby. At the least, McCain could have outed Obama as a man who says one thing and does another.

When the media ignore important issues, it is up to the candidate to raise them. But McCain was so busy distancing himself from Bush that his own "change" theme was barely distinguishable from Obama's.

How many voters knew that Obama/Biden have called for overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and opposed California's marriage amendment? "Obiden" came off as marriage defenders while doing everything possible to undermine marriage law. None of this came up in the three presidential debates. Vice presidential moderator Gwen Ifill gave Sarah Palin at least two chances to draw the distinction. Instead, Palin astoundingly indicated that the two tickets had little disagreement on the issue. That must have had them high-fiving at Democrat campaign headquarters.

Palin's dodge also undoubtedly pleased the homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans, which boasts all of 20,000 members. McCain strategist Steve Schmidt met earlier with Log Cabin operatives and gushed over their agenda. No wonder very few Christian conservatives felt motivated to match the zeal of Obama supporters. Let the Log Cabin crew pick up the slack.

On the abortion issue, Obama has the most radical record of any U.S. senator or presidential candidate in history. His role in killing the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act puts him to the left of the abortion lobby, NARAL Pro-Choice America, which stayed neutral. Obama has pledged as president to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would sweep away any regulations on abortion in all 50 states. This would include bans on partial-birth abortions and even parental notification before minors are taken to abortion clinics. The media were able to ignore all this because the McCain-Palin campaign ignored it.

The media shamelessly shilled for Barack Obama. But they had a lot of help in this campaign -- from the invertebrate wing of the GOP.

Never Give In
Jerry Bowyer
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

"Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." -Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School

Check the date, Churchill was speaking during the depths of the Nazi onslaught. And he was speaking to school children. The quote above is the text of his entire commencement speech to those boys. He rose, stepped to the podium, uttered those two sentences and sat down. Few people could have gotten away with that.

As I hear about the death knell of conservatism, I'm reminded of Churchill. He won WWII, and then lost the next election to a Fabian socialist named Clement Atlee. Brits had become tired of risk, tired of war, tired of privation and so they gave the reins to a man of the left. Atlee began to commandeer large swaths of the economy. In fact, my favorite Churchill story is the one about the time that Churchill was standing at the urinal in the men's room of the House of Commons. Atlee came into the room and stood at the urinal next to Winston's. Churchill looked up at him, zipped up, moved a couple of urinals farther down and resumed his business. "Why Winston, I had no idea you were so modest.", said Atlee. "It's not modesty, Prime Minister. It's only that every time you find something that is large and functions well, you try to nationalize it, and I thought it best not to take a chance!".

Atlee did nationalize whole industries, and the industries and the political opposition resisted. The things that were large and functioned well in the private sector, got larger, but did not continue to function well under socialism, and eventually, Churchill won back the office of Prime Minister.

We will win too. But it won't be with same crew that brought us to defeat. Let me say in print what so many of us believe in our hearts: the present generation of conservative leaders has failed us miserably. For the most part, congressional republicans are a village of pygmies. Few have genuine leadership qualities. Fewer still can compose a clear English sentence in defense of our ideas. Our president, whom I love, certainly cannot. Our nominee is a man who spent too many decades in the DC Skinner Box where he learned to flinch every time his inner Reagan threatened to say something true about the left. Sen. McCain said in his most recent appearance on Meet the Press that he had appeared there more than any other guest in its history. He thought that was a good thing. I thought, "That's why he's losing."

How could he have possibly believed that he could win an investor-bashing bidding war with a utopian socialist?

For the most part, our conservative intellectual establishment is a herd of antelope crowded around a few springs of conservative foundation money, taking no real chances, and forming a ring in which they see and hear only members of their small and shrinking herd. When someone appears who they haven't met, a Palin for instance, they close ranks and exclude the newcomer and reinforce their own tiny circle even more strongly.

I go to DC fairly often, and I find the old guard of conservatives every bit as out of touch with my neighbors and I as the liberals are.

It's not us; it's them. The elements of the Reagan coalition remain alive and intact: practicing Christians and Jews, military families, investors, entrepreneurs -- they're all at least as large and probably larger than they were when Reagan convened them in 1980. We didn't shrink, but our leaders did. After every revolution, the careerists step in. The guys who see a good job in politics or advocacy are a completely different personality type than the guys who leave a good job to go and change the world.

Here's what you're looking for:

If you flinch every time your leader speaks, he's the wrong guy.

If Congress, staffer, policy analyst, etc. is the best job this guy could have ever gotten, he's the wrong guy.

If he's lived in DC more than a decade, he's probably the wrong guy.

If he sounds like the people on TV and not the people in Church, temple, work, or the Rotary, he's the wrong guy.

If he uses hackneyed phrases like 'traditional family values' and 'tax and spend liberal' instead of normal English, he's the wrong guy.

If you wouldn't hire him to run your own business, or recommend him to the owner of the company that you work for, then he's the wrong guy.

History has handed us the founding fathers' worse nightmare: a hyper-articulate, hyper-charismatic man who has a low view of the constitutional limits of government. It's going to take the founding fathers' best dream, a citizen-soldier of wisdom and achievement to get us back on track. He (or more likely, she) is out there already.

The two party system?

Remember Lee Iacocca, the VP at Ford credited with the birth of the Mustang, the man who rescued Chrysler, Corporation from their death throes, and the owner of the famous quote 'Lead, follow, or get out of the way'? Well, he's back! He has a new book, and here are some excerpts.

Lee Iacocca writes:

'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course'

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned 'Titanic' I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!'

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.

The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the 'America' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.

The Biggest 'C' is Crisis !

Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down. George Bush, Dick Chaney and who is this Bozo coming up next? One of the most Liberal Idiots in the U. S. Senate and he is talking about disarming America . I can't believe the American people are seeing what he is about to do to this country. May God have mercy on us all.

On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A Hell of a Mess. So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great Companies are all moving offshore. We're getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are the worst in the world. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed! every which way. These are times that cry out for leadership and we are getting ready to put the most Liberal Senator in the U. S. Senate in as our next President because we want to be fair and elect someone just because of his race. We don't have time to be fair, we need a strong leader.

But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I hope you get the point.

Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is re act to things that have already happened.

Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Well guess what, people? We are having more floods right now. What are we doing to help these people out? Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time. Why are we allowing people to build in flood plains anyway? If you build in a flood area, expect to be flooded and deal with it. Don't expect the Government to bail you out.

Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. All they seem to be thinking now-days is getting themselves bigger salaries and bonuses. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it? Likely nothing!

Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.

I have news for the gang in Congress and the Senate. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change? I honestly don't think any of you have one!

Had Enough?

Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope; I believe in America ... In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments; I've also experienced some of our worst crises: the 'Great Depression', 'World War II', the 'Korean War', the 'Kennedy Assassination', the 'Vietnam War', the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this:

'You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to 'Action' for people who, like me, believe in America . It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had 'enough.'

Make a 'real contribution' by sending this to everyone you know and care about......our future is at stake!'

My 'radical' position re' need for another "Bull Moose Party" was attributed to my being a cantankerous old curmudgeon......
.......now it seems prescient.

Lee Iacocca

The Road to Serfdom
John Stossel
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

It's exciting that the world is so excited about Barack Obama. I'm excited, too. That he achieved the presidency says something good about America.

But the excitement also frightens me. It reinforces the worst impulse of the media and political class: the assumption that all progress comes from Washington. In a free society, with constitutionally limited government, the president would be a mere executive who sees to it that predictable and understandable laws are enforced. But sadly, the prestige and power of the presidency have grown, and liberty has contracted. That is not something to celebrate.

The infatuated chattering classes now demand "action" on the economy. They use positive words like "bold steps." The insufferable New York Times suggests the choice is "between a big-bang strategy of pressing aggressively on multiple fronts versus a more pragmatic, step-by-step approach .... " There is endless talk about how FDR ended the Great Depression and how Obama will apply similar "stimulus."

Please. FDR's "bold" moves didn't end the Depression. They prolonged it by discouraging capital investment. Hoover and Roosevelt turned what might have been a brief downturn into 10 years of double-digit unemployment.

Now Obama says, "we don't have a moment to lose," and he and the Democrats insist that government must unionize most of America by passing "card check" and taxpayers must throw even more money at American automakers.

This is the conceit of what Thomas Sowell calls "the anointed" (http://tinyurl.com/6me8d4). The politicians know best how our money should be spent. The "road to serfdom" is paved with such good intentions.

Obama promises:

"We will change the world ... There is nothing we can't do, nothing we can't accomplish if we are unified."

Who is this "we" politicians always cite?

We can change the world for the better if "we" means hundreds of millions of free people pursuing their interests, inventing, building, parenting, helping.

But the politicians' "we" is different. It means government. "We" will take your money by force and order you about. A democracy can become the tyranny of the majority. That's no way to create prosperity.

Obama is an extraordinarily talented man. But there is one thing he can't successfully do: ignore the laws of economics. No one can do that. That's why we call them "laws."

Ludwig von Mises wrote that once the science of economics emerged in the late Eighteenth Century, people began to realize "there is something operative which power and force are unable to alter and to which they must adjust themselves if they hope to achieve success, in precisely the same way as they must take into account the laws of nature. This realization ... led to the program and policies of [classical] liberalism and thus unleashed human powers that, under capitalism, have transformed the world."

The resulting abundance, which so many people take for granted without understanding its source, allows them to believe that a new president can "stimulate" us out of recession.

But we cannot raise wages or create jobs or eliminate poverty by executive order. We can do so by freeing people to save and invest and accumulate capital. We can't make medical care universal and inexpensive by legislative fiat. But we can approach that goal by permitting a free market in medicine to work.

Government is force, not eloquence. And force is an attempt to defy economic logic. The consequences are often opposite of those intended. "A subsidy for medical insurance increases the demand for services and raises prices. A price ceiling makes those services less available. A floor under wages makes jobs for unskilled workers more scarce, as employers find it a losing proposition to hire them. A subsidy to production means too much produced relative to something else consumers want. A trade restriction lowers living standards at home and abroad," writes Sheldon Richman on the Foundation for Economic Education website.

What will happen when the unintended consequences hit? F.A. Hayek warned that a government serious about enacting its economic plan must be prepared to use heavy-handed measures. Is that what we want?

I fear that today's "forceful actions" will not only be a painful assault on our freedom, they will exacerbate whatever economic troubles we face.

Obama's Illegal Alien Aunti: The Rest of the Story
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

I hope Barack Obama remembered to thank George Bush on behalf of his illegal alien aunt this week. The lame-duck Republican president did the Democratic president-elect a generous -- and dangerous -- favor right before Election Day: Putting politics above homeland security, the Bush administration ordered immigration authorities across the country to halt all deportation enforcement actions until the campaign season was over.

According to my sources, the Bush administration issued a 72-hour cease-and-desist order to all fugitive apprehension teams to spare Obama embarrassment over his Kenyan half-aunt, Zeituni Onyango. The Associated Press reported on Nov. 1 that Onyango was a deportation evader -- one of an estimated 700,000 illegal alien absconders who have ignored orders from immigration judges to leave the country. The wire report mentioned that the Department of Homeland Security distributed "an unusual nationwide directive within Immigration and Customs Enforcement requiring any deportations prior to Tuesday's election to be approved at least at the level of ICE regional directors."

But the politicized order was even worse than the AP reported. The deportation process wasn't simply slowed down for public relations reasons and fear of a media backlash. The process was completely frozen.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement source familiar with Western field offices told me: "The ICE fugitive operations group throughout the United States was told to stand down until after the election from arresting or transporting anyone out of the United States. This was done to avoid any mistakes of deporting or arresting anyone who could have a connection to the election, i.e., anyone from Kenya who could be a relative. The decision was election-driven."

Another source close to ICE operations in a Southern California field office confirmed that immigration officials there received the same directive: "The reason they included all offices in the United States was to show that they were not targeting the district office where Aunti lived. They don't want to pick her up by mistake and cause a big problem."

In other words, the Bush Department of Homeland Security determined that protecting Obama from the negative publicity surrounding a potential arrest of his illegal alien aunt was more important to the general welfare of the country than tracking down untold numbers of deportation absconders who received an extra three-day pass last week. DHS refuses to comment publicly about the case. Warped homeland security priorities are bipartisan. Democratic Rep. John Conyers has called for an immediate investigation -- not into the rank politicizing of our deportation policies, but into who leaked Onyango's deportation fugitive status to the press.

Question: Why shouldn't this information be public?

As for President-elect Obama, his true views about ICE are well known. Despite telling Katie Couric that his aunt should be required to follow the law because "we're a nation of laws. … I'm a strong believer you have to obey the law," Obama scolded ICE agents, who are doing their jobs, for "terrorizing" communities.

Onyango arrived in the United States in 2000 on a temporary visa. Her asylum request was rejected in 2004. She defied the immigration court order to go back to Kenya, moved into Boston public housing and is now hiding with relatives in Cleveland while contemplating how to extend her illegal stay.

Question: Will an Obama White House reinstate the deportation enforcement freeze in Ohio? Wouldn't want to "terrorize" the community.

(Meanwhile, real terrorists have benefited enormously from lax enforcement of deportation orders and asylum loopholes. Ramzi Yousef, Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer and Mir Aimal Kansi all exploited our catch-and-release system by invoking asylum and evading swamped authorities before plotting and executing jihadist attacks.)

Onyango's options, like those of hundreds of thousands of deportation fugitives like her, are wide open. With the help of a seasoned immigration lawyer, she can take another bite at the judicial apple and appeal her deportation order. She can take her case all the way to the Supreme Court. She can find an illegal alien sanctuary church to give her refuge. Or she can take advantage of the longstanding congressional practice of creating "special relief" bills to help individual deportation fugitives escape punishment and acquire U.S. citizenship.

The post-9/11 Bush homeland security equation looks pretty much like the pre-9/11 one, and that will continue under Obama: Cowardice plus rank opportunism times political correctness equals a lasting recipe for immigration chaos.

Getting Beyond Race
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Despite the fact that President-elect Barack Obama's vision for our nation leaves a lot to be desired, the fact that he was elected represents a remarkable national achievement. When the War of 1861 ended, neither a former slave nor slave owner would have believed it possible for a black to be elected president in a mere century and a half, if ever. I'm sure that my grandparents, born in the 1880s, or my parents, born in the 1910s, would not have believed it possible for a black to be president and neither did I for most of my 72 years.

That's not the only progress. If one totaled black earnings, and consider blacks a separate nation, he would have found that in 2005 black Americans earned $644 billion, making them the world's 16th richest nation. That's just behind Australia but ahead of Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. Black Americans have been chief executives of some of the world's largest and richest cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Gen. Colin Powell, appointed Joint Chief of Staff in October 1989, headed the world's mightiest military and later became U.S. Secretary of State, and was succeeded by Condoleezza Rice, another black. A few black Americans are among the world's richest people and many are some of the world's most famous personalities. These gains, over many difficult hurdles, speak well not only of the intestinal fortitude of a people but of a nation in which these gains were possible. They could not have been achieved anywhere else.

Acknowledgement of these achievements is not to deny that a large segment of the black community faces enormous problems. But as I have argued, most of today's problems have little or nothing to do with racial discrimination. That's not to say that every vestige of racial discrimination has been eliminated but as my colleague Dr. John McWhorter said in "End of Racism?" Forbes (11/5/08), "There are also rust and mosquitoes, and there always will be. Life goes on." The fact that the nation elected a black president hopefully might turn our attention away from the false notion that discrimination explains the problems of a large segment of the black community to the real problems that have absolutely nothing to do with discrimination.

The illegitimacy rate among blacks stands at about 70 percent. Less than 40 percent of black children are raised in two-parent households. Those are major problems but they have nothing to do with racial discrimination. During the early 1900s, illegitimacy was a tiny fraction of today's rate and black families were just as stable as white families. Fraudulent education is another problem, where the average black high school senior can read, write and compute no better than a white seventh-grader. It can hardly be blamed on discrimination. Black schools receive the same funding as white schools and most of the teachers and staffs are black and the schools are often in cities where the mayor and the city council are mostly black. Crime is a major problem. Blacks commit about 50 percent of all homicides and 95 percent of their victims are blacks.

Tragically, many black politicians and a civil rights industry have a vested interest in portraying the poor socioeconomic outcomes for many blacks as problems rooted in racial discrimination. One of the reasons they are able to get away with such deception is because there are so many guilt-ridden white people. Led by guilt, college administrators, employers and others in leadership positions, in the name of diversity, buy into nonsense such as lowering standards, racial preferences and acceptance of behavior standards they wouldn't accept from whites. Maybe the election of a black president will help white people over their guilt feelings so they can stop acting like fools in their relationships with black people.

Sanctimonious Stone Throwers
David Limbaugh
Friday, November 14, 2008

God bless Sarah Palin, and shame on elitists from both sides of the aisle who have denigrated, demonized and dissed her. I don't care how many "smartest people in the room" types offer pseudo-sophisticated analyses to prove she was a drag on the GOP presidential ticket. They are all manifestly and embarrassingly wrong -- and woefully out of touch -- which is par for the course for elitists.

Speaking of elitists, it's time to address their contempt for rural and southern America, particularly their ongoing smear of the South (and, truth be told, rank-and-file conservative Republicans) as racist.

For all the accolades Barack Obama is receiving, he should acknowledge a bit of egg on his face for invoking race with his failed prediction that his opponents would play the race card. "They're going to try to … make you scared of me," he said. "You know, 'He's not patriotic enough; he's got a funny name.' You know, 'He doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills."

Then there was Newsweek's poster boy for liberal smugness, Jonathan Alter, hypothecating a scenario in which Obama could lose because of racism. Alter said the following factors would have contributed:

--"Erosion in the critical I-4 corridor near Tampa and in the Panhandle, where the astonishing Republican margins among whites could be attributed only to race."

--"The transformation of the northern part of (Virginia) couldn't overcome a huge McCain margin among whites farther south. They weren't the racists of their parents' generation, but they weren't quite ready to vote for the unthinkable, either."

Alter then cited an earlier Newsweek story, which asked, "Is America Ready (for a black president)?" "The answer: only if Obama proved close to a flawless candidate, and even then, we won't know for sure until Election Day. That doesn't mean Obama lost because all, or even most, McCain voters allowed race to be a factor. But enough did to change the outcome."

While Alter said he didn't think his scenario would play out, it doesn't excuse his presumptuous, unfair and erroneous assessment of people he doesn't know.

But Alter's piece was no more offensive than a postelection story by The New York Times' Adam Nossiter, in which Nossiter echoed Obama's comments about rural America and some people's discomfort with his looks and name (read: race).

Nossiter wrote: "Fear of the politician with the unusual name and look did not end with last Tuesday's vote in this rural red swatch where buck heads and rifles hang on the wall. This corner of the Deep South still resonates with negative feelings about the race of President-elect Barack Obama."

But the South, gloated Nossiter, is no longer going to be a major factor in presidential politics because parts of the "'suburban South' … have experienced an influx of better educated and more prosperous voters in recent years." Southern counties voting more Republican this year, he said, "tended to be poorer, less educated and whiter," as they have been "rural and isolated (and) less exposed to diversity, educational achievement and economic progress." According to the omniscient Nossiter, "Mr. Obama's race appears to have been the critical deciding factor in pushing ever greater numbers of white Southerners away from the Democrats."

Nossiter cited one political analyst saying "there's no other explanation than race" for Obama receiving a smaller percentage of the Alabama white vote than John Kerry did in 2004.

Oh? How about reasonable anxiety about Obama's alliances and gaps in his biography, not to mention that he made the mistake of revealing his socialism and contempt for rural, Bible- and gun-toting Americans when away from his teleprompter?

One might think the liberals' persistent demagoguery on race mostly for partisan gain would subside with the election of Barack Obama, but one would be wrong.

Prescient commentators predicted that if Obama won, there would be no letting up. They speculated that charges of racism might even escalate, as an emboldened left would begin an all-out war against conservative talk radio.

Lo and behold, before the Electoral College has even convened to formalize Obama's victory, the slanderous group e-mails have begun. I personally received a number of them today, one of which said conservative talk radio is "'All Hate All The Time' -- racist, homophobic, sexist."

Don't think they aren't methodically laying a foundation to strip conservative America of its most powerful First Amendment outlet, talk radio, so they can restore their coveted liberal media monopoly.

There's apparently no limit to the shameless tactics of those willing to use false and divisive charges of racism to vilify an entire group of people (which, ironically, is the pernicious thought process inherent in racism) who are probably truer to racial colorblindness than their sanctimonious accusers.

Race Still Matters
Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
Monday, November 10, 2008

Last Tuesday, history was made with the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. Watching the concession and acceptance speeches was extremely memorable. McCain sounded more like a statesman at that moment than any other time in his campaign. Obama's speech was powerful but the tears of the listeners were the most amazing aspect of the event. Some Americans could not understand the tears of Oprah Winfrey or Jessie Jackson; they even had the temerity to assess these expressions from thousands of blacks as proof of black racism. Others declared that Jesse Jackson's emotional meltdown was counterfeit because of his mean-spirited remarks about the president-elect captured on a live microphone, off camera, by Fox a couple of months ago.

To understand the euphoric expressions of the thousands that rejoiced simultaneously around the nation, we must remember the cultural context in which these folks have lived. The level of their personal joy is commensurate with the level of their past pain. Many whites minimize the deep sense of rejection, shame, and inferiority that many blacks have felt all their lives. Yet, unless you have walked in their shoes, no one should deny what these people have experienced. Facing prejudice, injustice, and the social baggage that comes along with being black is still a daunting task 40 years after Dr. King's assassination.

The thousands who shed tears of joy at Obama's victory speech said by their response that we are closer to King's dream. They also simultaneously demonstrated that we have not fully entered into a post-racial political era. The fact is that we are in a very dangerous moment in American history.

Two very different sub-cultures could either collide and explode, or create an opportunity for racial healing and real change. The only glue that can possibly heal our current social breach is a working unity among Bible-believing Christians of all races.

Without a structured leadership intervention, our problems will only get worse. In fact, in less than one week after the election, things are already starting to spiral out of control. The talk about Obama's socialistic roots and his worldview has created a sense of pain within the heart and soul of many black Christian leaders. In their view, racism has motivated many white evangelicals to attack Obama. They have listened to conservative and evangelical radio and television programs that have painted President-elect Obama an "anti-Christ" figure.

On the other hand white evangelicals are expecting a surge of legal measures designed to restrict our freedom to preach the gospel. In addition, many evangelicals are concerned about any number of fomenting conspiracies.

The Bible-believing Church can turn things around. She can negotiate a truce, and evangelical Christian leaders can bridge this divide. Just as in Dr. King' day in which the black church rose to the challenge, a united Church (black and white) must arise to complete King's dream.

In order to pull this off we must have immediate high level summits, strategy sessions, and prayer. This has to occur now. We must invest our time, energy, and resources in creating a new diverse coalition of Christian leaders. All this must be done, as we avoid acting out stereotypes set by our critics.

The liberal press and Hollywood seem addicted to portraying the religious Right as un-American and un -- Christ like. In addition, the evangelical movement has been painted as anti-black, anti-woman, anti-poor, anti-gay -- anti-everything but lower taxes and war. But the average reporter or screenwriter has apparently never been in an evangelical church and is certainly not in touch with the dramatic transition that is already occurring at the grassroots level in the nation today.

The evangelical movement is building bridges and alliances with people and organizations that some might find surprising. But this story won't be on the cable channels or the evening news. In truth, many black churches do not embrace the perspectives of Rev. Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. The new black church is led by an exciting new breed of gifted leaders who are up to the task of leading in the 21st century.

While we count down the days to President-elect Obama's inauguration, let's take four simple, but important steps:

1. Decide to break free from past prejudices.

2. Pray for President Bush and President-elect Obama daily.

3. Engage in building cross-cultural relationships with other Christians.

4. Pray that the Church moves forward to lead the charge toward the change America needs.

Now that the election is over, let's trust that God will guide, direct, and empower a racially unified Church as His agent of healing! Let's love one another, act strategically, and show the world that Jesus is real.

The Republican Party is a Grass-Roots Party
Michael Reagan
Thursday, November 13, 2008

There are a lot of meetings going on among some Republicans trying to figure out what went wrong on Election Day and how the party needs to respond. None of them involve what the media like to call the base, the folks at the grass roots whose votes, after all, determine the outcome of elections.

The gatherings get a lot of media attention because the media mistakenly believe that the people attending them represent the grass roots of the GOP.

They don't. What they represent is the coterie who led the party into eight years of ignoring the traditions and principles of the party pursued so avidly by the Reagan administration, with which they have the effrontery to identify themselves.

They represent the big-government, big-spending Republican Party that turned its back on the grass roots, and to listen to many of them what the GOP needs to do is to do more of the same things that put us where we are.

I have news for them. They are not the Republican Party. They remain wedded to the idea that the party is a party of moderation -- the party that can't make up its mind about what is right to do and what is wrong to do. So they try to come down in the middle.

They forget that Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, warned us not to believe there "is some middle ground" between what is right and what is wrong.

The grass roots haven't forgotten that and the election results prove it. The "values voters" are alive and well, and they spoke loud and clear where values were at stake.

As Brad O'Leary has noted, a majority of Americans still support traditional American values. He cited initiatives to uphold traditional marriage that were on the ballots in two states carried by President-elect Obama, California and Florida.

Says O'Leary: "In both states, voters passed measures to ban gay marriage. In California, where Obama beat McCain 61 percent to 37 percent, 'values voters' beat special interest voters 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent on the issue of same-sex marriage."

In Florida, which he recalls Obama won, the margin of victory for values voters was even more substantial - 62 percent of Floridians voted against gay marriage, while only 38 percent voted in favor.

Most damning for the GOP moderates was Obama's ability to portray himself as a tax cutter. Obama constantly told the voters that his economic plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, which would equate to 274 million Americans receiving a tax cut.

Yet the big-government, big-spending Republicans whose voice is David Brooks, The New York Times columnist who insists that the GOP must abandon its traditions and values and go merrily down to road to the land of moderation where nothing is really right, and nothing is really wrong.

He neglects to tell his readers that this is the road that leads to lost elections.

The future of the Republican Party is in the hands of the party's grass roots. In the months to come some of us will be concentrating on organizing the people who are the real base of the party and fighting to restore the party's values as represented by my father's administration.

What we stand for is worth fighting for. And it is what will save the party of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. Let the moderates have their meetings. We'll be busy taking over the reins and restoring the GOP.

Palin Saboteurs Want to Kill Her Career Now
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Thursday, November 13, 2008

Attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin by McCain campaign staff at first appear to be a case of making her a convenient scapegoat, but the attacks have a more devious motive. This post-election barrage is the first volley of the campaign to choose the Republican nominee in 2012. The Washington, D.C. based establishment that rules the GOP wants her career over now. She threatens them.

Firefighting 101 teaches it is easier to stomp out a wildfire when it is small. Don't allow the fire to grow, spread and become an inferno. Sarah Palin was the spark of McCain's reform campaign. She ignited the campaign and gave the reform message legitimacy.

Those knifing Palin are the old-guard Republicans who don't want to see her as the nominee in 2012. The old-guard GOP candidates are likely Gov. Haley Barbour or former Gov. Mitt Romney.

Sarah Palin brought a vibrant, fresh face to the Republican Party. The GOP elitists saw how she easily connected with voters. Palin drew huge crowds of up to 30,000 people anxious to see and hear her. The crowds flocking to see Gov. Palin bond with her culturally. She has the potential to garner Obama- or Reagan-like devotion.

The Republican Party needs this grassroots energy and her reform agenda after a decade of broken promises and the disappointing Bush presidency.

Looking back at history, you see resemblances of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in Palin. Both Thatcher and Reagan were dismissed and insulted by their own party stalwarts. "Useful idiot" was a term once leveled at President Reagan.

Palin hails from Wasilla, Alaska; Margaret Thatcher grew up in the apartment over her family's grocery store in a small town in England. Thatcher's father taught her never to do things because other people were doing them. He said, "Do what you think is right and then persuade others to follow you." Like Thatcher, Palin's political philosophy and economic policies emphasize reduced government intervention, free markets and entrepreneurialism.

Margaret Thatcher was willing to take a hard line and earned the nickname "Iron Lady" for her tough-talking rhetoric defiantly opposing the Soviet Union. Likewise, Palin is tough enough to stand up to present-day threats. While Thatcher earned the moniker of 'Attila the Hen," Palin calls herself a "Pit-bull with Lipstick" and others dub her "Sarah Barracuda."

Human, likeable, personable and witty like Reagan, with loads of common sense and confidence, Sarah Palin lives what she believes. And the camera loves her as it loved Ronald Reagan.

Grass-roots efforts are sure to encourage Palin to run in for president in 2012. Meanwhile, she trusts a higher power, saying she is, "Putting my life in my creator's hands---that is what I always do." She also said, "I'm like, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, .don't let me miss the open door.And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."

This rising star is now too bright to be extinguished by attempts at sabotage. She has addressed the criticism, setting the record straight concerning the purchase of clothes for herself and her family by the Republican National Committee, saying, "Those are the RNC's clothes, they are not my clothes. I never forced anybody to buy anything. I never asked for anything more than maybe a Diet Dr Pepper every once in a while." And then there's the ridiculous rumors regarding the debate prep about NAFTA and Africa. Palin summed it up well, calling it "cruel, it's mean-spirited, it's immature, and it's unprofessional," and said, "Those guys are jerks if they came away with it taking thing out of context, then tried to spread something on national news."

Yet Palin realizes criticism is to be expected in politics. "Your life is an open book and you open yourself up to criticism and you'd better be ready to take that criticism," she said. "In other words, don't run for office if you can't handle it."

Those staffers guilty of anonymous attacks are cowards. Their agenda to control the GOP needs to be seen for what it is -- an attempt to kill the career of Sarah Palin because it threatens them. Americans can see through the falsehoods and love the real Sarah Palin. Nearly 400 letters arrive daily addressed to Gov. Palin and are now piled high in big bags waiting for her.

Fifteen Questions For People Who Say the GOP Should Become More Moderate
John Hawkins
Friday, November 14, 2008

After a second crushing defeat in a row, it's not surprising that there is a debate in the GOP about whether the party should move to the right or even further towards center.

Like many conservatives, I'm of the opinion that we should move back to the right and try to formulate some new ideas and messaging using conservative principles. However, some people disagree. For the people who do, I have some pertinent questions for which no convincing answers have yet been offered.

If you're going to argue that the party needs to move even further away from conservatism, especially on issues like fiscal conservatism and illegal immigration, I'd suggest that these are questions that need to be answered first.

#1) If both the GOP and the Democrats support bigger government, how does the country survive long term given the size of the debt we already have and the deficits we're running right now? In other words, how can running massive deficits possibly be sustainable over the long haul?

#2) If the GOP were to officially become a big government party, wouldn't there be a real danger of having a large third party spring up that would represent the considerable number (I'd say a majority, at least in the abstract) of Americans who do want smaller government and less spending?

#3) If the GOP becomes a big government party, how do you see us differentiating ourselves from the Democratic Party? Do we spend almost as much as they do, but not quite as much? Do we spend even more? Do we favor deficit spending, but just on different things? Isn't there a real danger that Democrats -- since their base tends to generally be OK with excessive spending -- could simply outbid us on anything we offered to the American people?

#4) Since the majority of the GOP's core supporters don't agree with "moderate" positions like big spending or amnesty, feel very strongly about it, and feel those positions harm the party politically, how can the party continue to hew to those positions over the long term without being permanently at odds with the people who should be their strongest supporters?

#5) Let's do the math on amnesty: there are roughly 12-20 million illegal immigrants, most of whom are Hispanics. Hispanics broke 70/30 for the Democrats in 2006 and 69/31 for the Dems in 2008 according to the latest exit poll data. If the split stayed at 70/30 and 12-20 million new illegals were made citizens, that would mean the Democrats would add another 4.8 to 8 million potential new voters as a result of amnesty. The top end of that scale is a larger margin than what Barack Obama won by in 2008.

Additionally, even if the GOP improved our numbers with Hispanics -- which we certainly need to do -- we've never come close to getting 50% of the Hispanic vote. With all that in mind, isn't amnesty political suicide for the GOP?

#6) Some people tend to assume that Hispanics vote almost entirely on the illegal immigration issue, but I would assert that there is very little objective evidence for that. George Bush and John McCain are the two biggest proponents of amnesty in the Republican Party and neither of them is particularly popular with Hispanics today. In fact, according to exit polls, against a candidate who was thought to be weak with Hispanics, John McCain only got 31% of the Hispanic vote. So, what objective evidence convinces you that Hispanics vote largely on illegal immigration and that if the GOP supports amnesty, it will get us over the 50% threshold with Hispanics?

#7) Given that the mainstream media overwhelmingly supports the Democrats, it's extremely important for the GOP to have the support of conservative talk radio hosts, magazines, and the RightRoots. Since the new media is overwhelmingly comprised of conservatives, how does a moderate GOP gain their genuine support over the long haul?

#8) Follow-up question to #7: If the GOP can't get the new media back enthusiastically on its side -- which is likely to be the case unless there are changes on spending and illegal immigration policies -- how does the GOP get the base fired up? In other words, if Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, etc., etc., are telling everyone who'll listen that the Republicans stink, how does the Republican Party work around that?

#9) Setting aside the conservative media, obviously the conservative movement is lacking energy and passion right now. Many people, myself included, would say that this has a lot to do with the position that the GOP has been taking on immigration and spending issues. How does the GOP get conservatives supporting the GOP again, instead of just opposing the Democrats, if the party continues to pursue big government policies and amnesty?

#10) If amnesty, big government, and deficit spending are winning issues for the Republican Party, why did we take such a huge beating in 2006 and 2008 despite pursuing those very policies?

#11) Over the last two elections, moderate Republicans haven't quite been wiped out, but percentage wise, they've suffered much higher losses than conservative Republicans. If moderate Republicans can't even win elections in moderate districts now, why would we want to adopt that losing philosophy across our whole party when conservatives are winning at a much, much higher clip across the country?

#12) As moderate columnist David Brooks has said,

There is not yet an effective Republican Leadership Council to nurture modernizing conservative ideas. There is no moderate Club for Growth, supporting centrist Republicans. The Public Interest, which used to publish an array of public policy ideas, has closed. Reformist Republican donors don't seem to exist. Any publication or think tank that headed in an explicitly reformist direction would be pummeled by its financial backers. National candidates who begin with reformist records -- Giuliani, Romney or McCain -- immediately tack right to be acceptable to the power base.
So, there are no moderate think tanks, no moderate donors, the new media is overwhelmingly conservative, the Republican base and activists are overwhelmingly conservative -- shouldn't that tell people something about whether the idea of a moderate GOP is workable?

#13) Follow-up question to #12: If a moderate Republican Party is workable, how do you make it work without the new media, think tanks, money, or an excited base on your side?

#14) John McCain was the most moderate candidate the GOP has run since Richard Nixon. In fact, he's the standard bearer of the "moderate Republican" wing of the party and yet the media trashed him, he had trouble raising money -- and other moderates, including prominent moderate Republicans like Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley, voted for Obama. In the end, McCain received almost 4 million less votes than Bush did in 2006. Doesn't that suggest that moderate Republican candidates may have trouble raising money, retaining moderates, and generating the enthusiasm from the Republican base that will be needed to win?

#15) When the Democratic Party was out of power, the party moved to the left, not to the center. They obstructed the GOP at every opportunity, put hard-core left-wingers in charge of everything, and ran an extremely liberal candidate in 2008. Granted, they also had moderate Democrats that they ran in states and districts that leaned red, but those people are almost completely locked out of power and their agenda is largely ignored. Since that strategy worked so well for the Democrats, doesn't it make more sense for the GOP to pursue the same strategy instead of continuing the move to the center that has done so much damage to the party over the last two elections?

Mourning in America
Burt Prelutsky
Friday, November 14, 2008

It's been a while now since the election took place, but it's still not easy for me to come to grips with it. Strangely enough, I slept okay the night I learned that Barack Obama had defeated John McCain. It was only when I awoke and realized that Sen. Obama would soon be President Obama that the nightmare began. I truly felt overcome with grief, the kind you feel when a loved one dies. In this case, the loved one was America.

I have been listening to conservative commentators on radio trying to put a good face on it. At times, they've sounded like they're angling for the same White House dinner invitations they got from George Bush. But perhaps they're just hoping if they do enough kissing up, they can somehow dissuade the Democrats from passing the misnamed Fairness Doctrine. I think they might as well expect that Al Gore and Robert Kennedy, Jr., will acknowledge that global warming has been a gargantuan hoax.

Liberals, after all, never admit their mistakes, never take responsibility for, say, destroying public education or taking an axe to the black family structure. But, then, liberals never take responsibility for anything. If they did, they'd be conservatives.

I know that a lot of Republicans are busy playing the blame game. Some, myself included, are pointing fingers at John McCain for running the lamest presidential campaign in memory. Others, not I, are pointing at Sarah Palin, while a few are singling out Mike Huckabee, suggesting that if he had dropped out when he should have, Mitt Romney would have won the primaries, thus preventing McCain from getting to do his dead-on impression of Michael Dukakis.

Some people simply blame the economy for Obama's victory. They may be right, but I'd prefer not to believe that a sizable number of Americans think that electing a Socialist is a really clever way to solve a financial crisis.

Many of my friends and colleagues are already looking to 2012, vowing to learn from the mistakes of this campaign. Perhaps in four years, I'll find a reason to share their optimism, but, frankly, I doubt it. When I look at the election numbers, I see no reason to believe that things will improve by then. After all, in spite of hearing how brilliant, how inspiring, how charismatic -- and how I hate hearing that word applied to a politician! -- Obama is, he's the same guy whose friends, wife and religious mentor, combined with his nearly blank resume, should have kept him in the Illinois state legislature with all the other Chicago-based grifters.

The numbers, I'm afraid, tell the tale. When it came to young voters, 69% went for Obama; Jews, 78%; blacks, 96%; Catholics, 54%; Hispanics, 67%; females, 56%; 90% of Muslims. When you factor in birth rates, I'm not sure that in 2012, Republicans will get more votes than Libertarians.

Looking back, I think the left-wing cancer took root in the 1960s and the funeral took place on November 4th. That's why I'm having a really hard time putting up with people who are so darn jubilant about Obama's victory. To me, it's as if they're dancing on America's grave.

I know that a lot of people will regard me as a racist for being so depressed over the election result. I am probably the least racist person in America. As I've always said, people who hate others because of their race, religion or national origin, are just plain lazy. After all, once you get to really know people, there are always better reasons than that for despising them.

Besides, it does no good to deny being a racist. Once you have to deny it, you've already been labeled. But I have to ask, if Hillary Clinton had been elected president and I had been upset about it, would I be branded a misogynist? The fact is, I would have been less upset if she had been elected. But that's only because I only object to her politics and her voice. Her circle does not include the likes of Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Father Pfleger, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Louis Farrakhan and Rashid Khalidi. Aside from Hillary Clinton's colleagues in the Senate, her only questionable associate is Bill.

Now that American conservatives have become an endangered species, I'm wondering if Obama and his gang of compassionate liberals will give us the same consideration they give polar bears and snail darters.

One of my friends wondered how it could be that I wasn't thrilled to see millions of black people, including Jesse Jackson and all of Kenya, in rapture over Obama's victory. I told him it's one thing for Obama to garner 96% of the black vote when he's running against a Republican such as John McCain, but quite another when he got 91% of the vote in the primaries when he was running against a liberal such as Sen. Clinton. That, to me, reeks of racism, and I see no reason to celebrate it.

I went on to say that it often seems to me that it's only conservatives who ever took to heart Martin Luther King's fervent wish that we all learn to judge our fellow men by their character and not by the color of their skin.

I concluded by telling him that he had every reason to be ecstatic that a man who shared his politics was elected, but that Obama's color shouldn't enter into it, and that if I and many like me were disgruntled about the election, it had nothing to do with Obama's pigmentation, everything to do with his character and his leftist agenda. We elected a president, after all, the leader of the free world, not a prom king.

If there is one bright spot in all this, it's that I won't have to spend the next four years listening to John McCain begin every sentence with "My friends." The sad truth is, I pick my friends far more wisely than we pick our candidates or, for that matter, our presidents.

GOP Comeback? Been There, Done That
Michael Medved
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Pouring over the numbers in the Presidential and Congressional elections of 2008, there's an eerie parallel that deserves far more attention than it's received.

In races for the House, the Senate and the Presidency, the final totals match almost precisely with the results of the last Democratic sweep in 1992.

That election gave the Democrats 57 Senate seats to 43 for the Republicans. So far, with three races yet to be decided in 2008, Democrats (and the two independents who caucus with the Democrats) control 57 seats and the Republicans control 40. Assuming that the GOP's Norm Coleman hangs on to win his seat after a recount in Minnesota, that Saxby Chambliss wins his run-off election in Georgia, and that Ted Stevens (or a GOP replacement) secures the seat in Alaska, the Senate lineup will match exactly with its contours in 1992 -- 57 to 43. Even if the Republicans lose one of the undecided seats, it's possible that Independent Joe Lieberman will decide (or find himself forced) to caucus with them, still giving them the same 43 seats they won in '92.

On the House side, the resemblance is similarly close to the line-up sixteen years ago. After the Clinton landslide (beating President George H. W. Bush and eccentric "Reform Party" contender H. Ross Perot), the Democrats nabbed 258 seats in the House and the GOP controlled 176. At this point in 2008, the Dems have secured 255 seats and the Republicans 174, with six seats unsettled. The most likely outcome of the races yet to be decided would be an exact replica of the House of Representatives that convened in 1993.

As to the Presidential race, sixteen years ago Bill Clinton cruised to victory with 370 electoral votes to 168 for President Bush (Ross Perot drew 18.9% of the popular vote but, like most third-party vanity candidates, earned no electoral votes). In 2008, assuming that John McCain carries the officially undecided state of Missouri (where he's maintained a slight but steady lead) the final outcome will be an Obama victory by 365 to 173 electoral votes--- just a five vote difference from the 1992 race. In the popular vote, Obama prevailed by a margin of 6.5%, while Clinton beat Bush sixteen years ago by a strikingly similar margin of 5.5%.

The resemblance in election outcomes between the triumph of Clinton Democrats in 1992 and the resounding win by Obama Democrats in 2008 ought to fill disheartened Republicans with determination and hope.

Just two years after the electoral disaster of '92, the GOP came roaring back to capture both houses of Congress in the "Contract with America"/Newt Gingrich revolution. And six years after that epic triumph, Republicans recaptured the White House under George W. Bush in the impossibly close election of 2000.

For several reasons, the election of 2008 left Republicans in an even better position for a quick comeback if they handle their opportunities intelligently.

Above all, the situation with the economy should work to the GOP's advantage in the Congressional elections of 2010 and perhaps even in the Presidential race of 2012.

When Bill Clinton came to power in 1993, the recession that destroyed the first Bush presidency had already begun to recede and the economy had already begun its recovery, which ultimately morphed into the "Clinton Boom" and secured Slick Willy's reelection. No one expects a similar economic turnaround for President-elect Obama in the three months before his inauguration and perhaps not even in the first two years of his presidency. If unemployment continues to rise, the deficit continues to explode, and personal income continues to stagnate or decline, the Obama reputation as a messianic miracle worker could collapse in a hurry. As with Clinton, the great expectations surrounding Obama's election could quickly transform to a sense of betrayal and even disappointed rage.

Clinton survived the turmoil of his first term largely because he faced no credible rivals within his party. While he suffered sharply reduced approval ratings and rising public contempt in the first years of his presidency, the Democrats nonetheless rallied around him because they had no viable challenger to embrace.

Barack Obama enjoys no comparable luxury: Hillary Clinton remains a formidable force within the party and an entirely plausible Democratic challenger if Obama stumbles in his first term. In the same way that Lyndon Johnson conducted his entire presidency with a wary eye on Bobby Kennedy and those family loyali--
who yearned for a Camelot restoration, Obama will need to use extreme caution in the management of the Senator from New York and all those operatives who yearn for another Clinton White House.

At the same time, Obama's Congressional allies will bring him far more problems (and far fewer political assets) than did the House and Senate leaders who gave Bill Clinton their loyal support in the first two years after his election. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine and House Speaker Tom Foley of Washington both came across as solid, serious, strikingly articulate public servants and presented themselves as moderate (or at least mainstream) Democrats.

Current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, looks like an addled and terrified ditz in all her TV appearances and counts as the most unabashedly leftist leader in the long history of the House. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (or "Dingy Harry" as Rush Limbaugh appropriately describes him) performs more feebly on television than any politician of modern times; his speech at the Democratic Convention in Denver was a veritable masterpiece of stomach-churning and whining excess, which I played several times for the delight of my radio audience. Reid also will face heightened scrutiny in the next few years for his numerous shady Las Vegas real estate transactions and his four sons who work as gold-plated lobbyists with notably unsavory connections. Meanwhile, the lobbyist son of Vice President Biden could provide additional embarrassment-- not to mention the likelihood of uncomfortable questions about the highly dubious financing and tax reporting of the Vice President's own 7,000 square foot, 6.5 acre lakefront mansion.

In general, both Congressional caucuses contain fewer moderates and more true believers than they did in 1993 -- a situation that will almost certainly benefit the opposition party. The Democrats in both House and Senate feature more strident "progressives" than any Congress in 60 years (imagine Al Franken inserted into the "world's most exclusive club"!) and these liberals will make it more difficult for President Obama to implement centrist policies or rein in the ideological excesses of his own party's militants. Meanwhile, the surviving Republicans and their leaders embrace a far more coherent conservative outlook than ever before: for better or worse, Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith and Mike DeWine are gone. In 1993, Republican House leader Bob Michel of Illinois endorsed a go-along-to-get-along philosophy that John Boehner and his hard-charging new whip, Eric Cantor, emphatically reject. Though the partisan alignment may look identical in House and Senate, the 111th Congress that convenes in January should prove even more challenging for Barack Obama than did the 103rd for Bill Clinton.

Then, finally, there's the question of national party leadership. In 1992-93, the Republicans looked disheartened and shattered, with no credible potential candidates to challenge Bill Clinton for re-election. The first President Bush had retired to Texas and Kennebunkport, with few insiders thrilled by the presidential prospects of his much-derided Vice President, Dan Quayle. The National Review, surveying the dearth of GOP leadership, ran a famous cover story featuring a caricature of Rush Limbaugh as "The Leader of the Opposition."

Well, Rush is still there, joined today by a dozen other conservative radio hosts with significant national impact and loyal followings. Fox News also helps in providing an answer to distortions by the alphabet networks. More importantly, the Republican Party features any number of bright young stars who could challenge Obama in 2012 or his successor in 2016. Governors Jindal of Louisiana, Pawlenty of Minnesota and, yes, Palin of Alaska, all could make serious races for national office, as could the formidably gifted former governors Huckabee of Arkansas and Romney of Massachusetts. Congressmen Pence of Indiana and Cantor of Virginia also qualify as rising political stars with nearly limitless futures, as do Senators Thune of South Dakota or Coleman of Minnesota (if he survives the ongoing recount against Al Franken).

This situation compares highly favorably to the Republican dilemma in challenging Bill Clinton in 1996, when the party in desperation embraced the desultory candidacy of Majority Leader Bob Dole after a primary campaign featuring flawed or listless figures such as Pat Buchanan, Lamar Alexander, Phil Gramm, Bob Dornan, Steve Forbes, Dick Lugar and Adamant Alan Keyes (who's still available, no doubt, if anyone wants him). Dole lost, of course, by a margin of 8.53%--- a far more decisive thumping than John McCain just received.

In short, neither the lop-sided Democratic numbers in the House and Senate, nor the solid (but hardly overwhelming) victory by Barack Obama, should cause Republican partisans to despair. Bill Clinton -- an even more experienced and savvy politician than Obama -- boasted nearly identical strength, and a similarly fawning press, when he took office in 1993.

Nevertheless, Republicans came together behind conservative principles and took full advantage of the inevitable stumbles of the rookie president. With vision and resilience, they rebuilt the party surprisingly quickly, and won a string of Congressional victories that defied all the gloomy predictions. In terms of staging a dramatic and improbable comeback after a dispiriting defeat, we've been there, done that.

Obama Not Garnering Financial Confidence Internationally
Donald Lambro
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. economy is shrinking, unemployment is at its highest level since 1994, manufacturing is at its lowest point in 26 years -- and Barack Obama is pushing a stimulus bill to rebuild bridges and roads.

Whatever the long-term infrastructure needs of the nation may be, we are not going to pull this economy out of its hole with a bunch of government public-works projects. The question is, did Obama's economic advisers tell him that?

If they did, that wasn't what he told the American people last Saturday after meeting with his 20-member advisory team. Instead, he went before the TV cameras and called on Congress to move ahead on a so-called "stimulus" package hatched by House Democrats that has very little, if any, economic stimulus in it. A better name for it would be a "status quo" plan.

Here's some of what this plan contains: a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits, more money for food stamps and billions in federal infrastructure projects and funding for state Medicaid costs to help poor-to-low-income people. There was also maybe $50 billion for cash-strapped automakers to encourage them to build more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Let's say all of these things need to be done. They will not, in and of themselves, create a single job, expand production or boost U.S. exports in the global economy.

Infrastructure spending has failed just about everywhere it's been tried. Ask the Japanese who poured billions into public works to pull itself out of its last long recession, without much success.

Ask Obama's chief economic adviser, Jason Furman, who told Congress in January that infrastructure spending was a very inefficient and ineffective economic-stimulus tool. Why? Because by the time the money that is appropriated makes its way through the government's bureaucracy, through state channels to contractors and toward implementation, the recession is usually over or ending.

And who will decide which infrastructure spending will get funded? You can bet the farm lawmakers will have a long laundry list of local pork-barrel projects of dubious value will get added under the guise of "stimulus."

If any of Obama's advisers told him the stimulus plan, along the lines of the one the House approved Sept. 26, wouldn't produce any short-term stimulus, no one would say. But then, his advisers are the last people on Earth you would seek out for financial advice.

There is Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm standing to Obama's right. She is not a doctor but practices the economic equivalent of bleeding the patient -- like when she raised taxes on her state's anemic economy (where unemployment is 8 percent) as it was sinking into recession.

Nearby was former House Democratic Whip David Bonior, a fierce foe of any trade agreement, especially NAFTA, who could become Obama's secretary of Labor, handing the AFL-CIO just about everything it wants.

Still, in the pantheon of anti-trade desperadoes, Obama is second to none. He opposed trade agreements with South Korea and Colombia, voted "no" on the Dominican Republic-Central America Trade Agreement and sought to impose tariffs on goods from China if it didn't readjust its currency exchange rate.

But others on Obama's "team of economists can explain why these positions were wrong-headed. Economic nationalism is not in the national interest," writes Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, an adviser to Mitt Romney in the GOP primary campaign.

Indeed it isn't. Economic recovery will require having all our oars in the water, pulling in the same direction at once. It won't be fixed with a stimulus package that does not create any new jobs in the months to come, or that raising taxes on the engines of job growth: businesses, investors, venture capital and entrepreneurial risk-takers -- and certainly not by slamming the brakes on opening new trading markets for America's manufacturers.

But this is what Obama ran on doing and what he intends to do once he takes office. Back-peddling on NAFTA with our two best trading partners and killing additional trade agreements is not a recipe for growth.

The pivotal question in the president-elect's economic strategy is simply this: how can you stimulate a $14 trillion economy that is plunging into a recession when you've taken so many proven fast-growth initiatives off the table? You can't.

The White House has signaled that President Bush will not sign an infrastructure spending package with projects that are at best "very limited and very ... long range," taking years to complete, his spokesman says.

So this is where matters stand as financial markets here and abroad turn increasingly bearish about the future -- a sign of declining confidence that Obama understands what is needed to put the nation on a long-term growth path.

The Sheer Idiocy of Following Youth Movements
Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Greg Campbell is an obscure writer for the Fort Collins, Colo. But on Oct. 26, he penned what serves as the perfect window into the mind of many Barack Obama supporters. Campbell attended an Obama rally with his 11-year-old son, Turner. Turner was excited by Obamas typical American Dream stump speech. Campbell himself was excited not by Obama, but by his sons reaction: For me, (Obamas message) sunk in because I could see it through the eyes of an 11-year-old.

We have reached a dangerous point in American politics when parents take their voting cues from 11-year-old children. But Campbell isnt alone. Americans left and right have paid homage to Obama for getting the youth involved. In fact, young voters barely surpassed their 2004 turnout percentage -- voters aged 18-29 comprised just 18 percent of the electorate, as opposed to 17 percent in 2004. Nonetheless, there is a feeling that youth led the way in this election. A new generation looks ready to engage in American democracy -- and not just on Election Day, gushed the Christian Science Monitor on Nov. 10. Encouragingly, this generation actually wants to interact with government, politics, and public service.

And Obama is looking to capitalize on that youth support. Obamas sophisticated online network is geared toward mobilizing teenage minions. Obamas proposed civilian national security force is directed toward calcifying support for him into support for his political program. And Obamas national service requirement is an attempt to turn young people into government employees.

There is no question that the Barack Obama Movement was led not by elder statesman, but by college students and twentysomethings. This election cycle provided Generation Y a chance to assume unearned moral superiority over their elders by promoting a black president. It also provided Generation Y a chance to live out the precepts of their public school educations, which focused on changing the world, as well as diversity and tolerance.

Heres the big question: Why in the world should we be excited about young Americans defining our politics?

No political mass movement led by young people has ever resulted in good. In fact, the most murderous mass movements in history have been led by young people. Nazism became popular among the youth before it became the German national theology; Hitler, of course, cultivated young people by targeting them for service in his SA, or Sturm Abteilung, and later, his Hitler Youth. The movement for Soviet Communism was led by young devotees of Lenin, who swallowed his sadistic ideology wholesale; later, the Soviet system would ask children to spy on their parents in service of the state. Similarly, the Chinese Maoists were largely composed of young people; so were the Vietnamese Viet Cong. It is no coincidence that the current Islamofascist movement is dominated by militant young Muslims. In America, the story is the same. The disastrous 1960s were a result of the Greatest Generation giving full leeway to the baby boomers. Students led the movement for surrender in Vietnam, the anarchist movement, the so-called gay rights movement, and the free love movement. America has been plagued with the results of those movements ever since. Young people have the enthusiasm for politics, but not practical experience or breadth of learning. They spend little or no time studying history. Instead, they are told from birth that they are the future, and that the future is in their hands. They rely on high-flown idealism rather than historical knowledge. Young people largely agree with the following precept: True idealism is nothing but the subordination of the interests and life of the individual to the community The purest idealism is unconsciously equivalent to the deepest knowledge. Such idealism is the most basic building block for dangerous movements. But young people are not trained to see the danger in such idealism. It is only when young people grow up that they see Hitler in those lines rather than Barack Obama. Celebrating the leadership of the youth in 2008 election, then, is a foolish exercise. Young people should be involved in politics -- they should protect their interests. But they, like all other voters, should be expected to get informed, not just motivated; they, like all other voters, should be expected to learn about policy, not merely follow a leader. And the rest of America should be expected to take the voting preferences of those who have never studied history, held a job, paid a bill, or built a family, with a large grain of salt. What inspires 11-year-olds or 21-year-olds -- should not be what inspires 40-year-olds. Ben Shapiro, 24, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School. He is the author of the new book "Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House," as well as the national bestseller "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth." To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Obama's Great Expectations Encounter Sudan
Austin Bay
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Ecstatic Kenyans declared a holiday, waved flags and expressed deserved pride when Barack Obama, the son of a Kenyan, was elected president of the United States. They also killed bulls.

In East Africa, killing a bull is more than a barbecue. In southern Sudan, a sacrifice followed by festivities plays a central role in public celebration and in tribal peacemaking.

In 2002, the New Sudan Council of Churches published a handbook titled "The Story of People to People Peacemaking in Southern Sudan." I picked up a copy in a Kenyan church in fall 2002 and use it in a strategy class I teach at the University of Texas, in a course section asking, "What is peace?" The handbook is quite practical, the product of wisdom informed by facts and suffering -- suffering through Sudan's decades-long "North-South" civil war pitting the northern Islamist government (the "Arab" Sudanese) against the predominantly Christian and animist ("black African") south. It is also unblinkingly frank when discussing divisions within southern communities.

The handbook is a first-rate work in applied diplomacy, with resonance for Chablis sippers in Geneva and policy wonks in Washington, providing gritty lessons in the complexities of embedded conflicts where violence, greed, fear and corruption insistently erode common interests in physical and economic security. Peace may emerge among warring clans, tribes and even wealthy nation-states when common interests trump the hellacious forces of division. I repeat "may," for peace is never a certainty.

The handbook's guiding concept is that creating peace in Sudan begins by addressing divisions in south Sudan, where Kenyan churches in concert with southern Sudanese could encourage "factions for peace." I've used this pun in class: Think of creating a mosaic, piece by small piece, to forge a broader peace. Call it the incrementalism of realistic diplomacy, meeting small expectations by achieving reachable goals, a process certainly empowered by hope, but in the case of south Sudan permitted and protected by the battlefield successes of the rebel Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) -- in other words, soldiers from the Christian and animist tribes.

The handbook includes case studies where mediators used reconciliation rituals to help amenable leaders draw antagonized tribesmen into a peace process with their enemies. The description of the sacrifice of a bull at a peace conference between southern Nuers and Dinkas is poignant. The "Bull of Peace" is sacrificed as an act of reconciliation. Participants get a slice of the meat. A curse is placed on "any who partake" and later "break the oath for peace ..."

This process contributed to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which supposedly ended the north-south war. However, the CPA left several hundred details unresolved -- tough ones like a definitive north-south border, refugee resettlement and a satisfactory split of oil profits from Sudanese fields.

Meanwhile, in Sudan's miserable west, Darfur bleeds despite the presence of U.N. peacekeepers. The United Nations also has a peacekeeping force in south Sudan, which hasn't prevented occasional firefights between the North and South.

The 2005 CPA created a "national unity" government in Khartoum, but North and South Sudan are increasingly appropriate names. The SPLA has become the GOSS -- Government of South Sudan, which regards Kenya as an ally. Recall the Somali pirates who hijacked a freighter loaded with tanks and other weapons. The bill of lading said Kenya. The likely destination? The GOSS.

Now back to President-elect Obama. After his election, a GOSS spokesman requested a U.S.-led peacekeeping force in south Sudan. Why? Perhaps expectations spurred Kenya's holidays as much as pride. Kenya and GOSS may assume they will have a great deal of influence on U.S. policy in the region.

Obama rhetorically promised hope and change, and seeded great expectations.

As 2005's fragile peace frays, more war threatens Sudan. Of course, war threatens Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti, and war rages in Somalia, in Chad, in Congo ... and the daunting list goes on.

Beware this irony: Great expectations unmet seed grand disappointments -- and add new bitterness to devilishly complex conflicts.

Getting Out Of the Republican Coma
David Harsanyi
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

The Republican National Committee recently launched a Web site devoted to giving "users the opportunity to discuss their reasons for being a member of the Grand Old Party and what being a Republican means to them."

It means having their butts kicked -- big-time. The rest, I assure you, is a profound mystery.

So the battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party is on. Then again, many Democrats probably contest the notion that Republicans own a heart or a soul. On the latter, they may have a point.

The prominent conservative columnist David Brooks recently declared the coming Republican war would pit "Traditionalists," conservatives who believe Republicans have strayed too far from Reaganism, against "Reformers," who, he argues, want to modernize, moderate and expand the party.

Traditionalists vs. Reformers. If only it were that clinical.

For the past eight years, we haven't had a Republican Party that was excessively conservative or too moderate; we've had a party that employed no principles to speak of -- unless securing power for power's sake is now a creed.

After all, what exactly did Republican candidate John McCain stand for? The Republicans (and independents) conferred the mantle of leadership to a media darling and longtime Senate insider who based his entire campaign on fighting the entrenched establishment and media.

It was almost satirical.

McCain was the most "moderate" candidate Republicans could unearth -- in effect a non-pick of a lethargic party -- and they were thumped, while Democrats nominated their most liberal candidate in history.

Conservative leaders from all sects promptly converged in Virginia after the election to plot ways to stop the Obama agenda. Good plan. But there has to be more. Movements aren't hatched in think tanks or in top-down dorm-room bull sessions (by the geniuses who brought you compassionate conservatism!).

After the 2000 Bush victory, elite Democrats spent years whining about a stolen election, while grass-roots progressives, instead, channeled their anger into a revolutionary movement that, with the help of a charismatic leader, carried the day in 2008.

Nearly every faction of the Democratic Party's coalition is willing to live together (for now) in the name of victory. The left stiffened resolve, targeted traitors and sharpened rhetoric.

Such is not the case on the right. Republicans can't afford to purge mushy apostates. They can't afford to christen the half of the country that listens to Hank Williams Jr. as the "real" America and ignore the half with taste. They can't afford to entice Middle America with a round of wonky remedies.

The Republican stupor is not a result of a lack of moderation; it's about a lack of purpose.

Economic conservatism -- not the "slashing" of government, as Brooks contends, but a tenuous control of massive government growth and intrusion -- is a moderate pursuit. The pursuit of free and international trade and the fight against collectivist policies in energy and health care are also moderate pursuits.

For now, the best antidote for Republicans is a child's timeout. Sit, think about what you've done -- and plot your revenge. Conservatives will be willing to fight the battles of tomorrow once they know what they are. What they need now is a shot of idealism and then a renewed intellectualism.

Now they're stuck with neither.

All the News That's Fit to Censor
Burt Prelutsky
Monday, November 10, 2008

Quite recently, it struck me that it's not that the MSM has done everything in its considerable power to spin, deny or conceal, all the unpleasant truths about ACORN, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers and the Annenberg Challenge, that upsets me the most. The thing that truly depresses me is that millions of my fellow Americans know the truth, but simply don't seem to care.

They also don't seem too concerned that in a 2001 radio interview, Obama declared that his problem with the Warren Court was that although it ruled in favor of Civil Rights, it was not sufficiently radical when it came to redistribution of wealth. Apparently, Obama thinks the Founding Fathers should have included that in the Bill of Rights.

Obama can deny it all he likes, but anyone who subscribes to the belief that we should adopt a fiscal policy based on "From everyone according to his abilities to everyone according to his needs" is a disciple not of Warren Buffet, but of Karl Marx. Still, as some cynic once observed, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, don't expect Paul to raise any objections. So, even though Obama claims he will cut income taxes for 95% of us, even though he knows full well that over 30% of us don't even pay a single penny in income taxes, millions of Pauls are ready and eager to vote for this con man.

Frankly, I find it amazing and pathetic that so many Americans are anxious to finish the job begun by FDR to turn us into a socialist state. Is it simply because they long for America to go the way of China, the Soviet Union, Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba, or do they simply not give a damn? Sheep, after all, are not known for their spirit of independence or their intelligence.

When I suggest that socialism often leads to tyranny, I am not indulging in right-wing hyperbole. After all, aside from control of capital and the means of production, one of the essentials of all dictatorships is central control of the media. In 2008, the left already controls most of the MSM, not to mention the liberal arts departments on most college campuses.

The warning signs are all around us. Recently, as you may have heard, Beverly West, a reporter with Florida television station WFTV, dared to ask Joe Biden whether Obama's connection to ACORN was a legitimate concern and whether Obama's response to Joe the Plumber was Marxist. As a result, the Obama/Biden campaign informed WFTV that it was cutting off access because of such rude questions.

The American Issues Project, whose TV ad called for an examination of the Obama/Bill Ayers connection, led to the Obama machine's demand that the Justice Department begin a criminal investigation of the AIP. The idea that the AIP should be investigated for running a legitimate TV ad, but ACORN should not be prosecuted for perpetuating voter fraud is the sort of thing that George Orwell would have dealt with if he'd lived long enough to write a sequel to "1984."

If Obama is elected, there's no question that the Democrats will pass the ill-named Fairness Doctrine, thus ensuring that talk radio, the only part of the MSM not fully under control of the far left, will be silenced once and for all.

After that, our only means of communication will be smoke signals. That is assuming that under Obama's new order we'll be able to afford blankets.

Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Among the many wonders to be expected from an Obama administration, if Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times is to be believed, is ending "the anti-intellectualism that has long been a strain in American life."

He cited Adlai Stevenson, the suave and debonair governor of Illinois, who twice ran for president against Eisenhower in the 1950s, as an example of an intellectual in politics.

Intellectuals, according to Mr. Kristof, are people who are "interested in ideas and comfortable with complexity," people who "read the classics."

It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

Adlai Stevenson was certainly regarded as an intellectual by intellectuals in the 1950s. But, half a century later, facts paint a very different picture.

Historian Michael Beschloss, among others, has noted that Stevenson "could go quite happily for months or years without picking up a book." But Stevenson had the airs of an intellectual -- the form, rather than the substance.

What is more telling, form was enough to impress the intellectuals, not only then but even now, years after the facts have been revealed, though apparently not to Mr. Kristof.

That is one of many reasons why intellectuals are not taken as seriously by others as they take themselves.

As for reading the classics, President Harry Truman, whom no one thought of as an intellectual, was a voracious reader of heavyweight stuff like Thucydides and read Cicero in the original Latin. When Chief Justice Carl Vinson quoted in Latin, Truman was able to correct him.

Yet intellectuals tended to think of the unpretentious and plain-spoken Truman as little more than a country bumpkin.

Similarly, no one ever thought of President Calvin Coolidge as an intellectual. Yet Coolidge also read the classics in the White House. He read both Latin and Greek, and read Dante in the original Italian, since he spoke several languages. It was said that the taciturn Coolidge could be silent in five different languages.

The intellectual levels of politicians are just one of the many things that intellectuals have grossly misjudged for years on end.

During the 1930s, some of the leading intellectuals in America condemned our economic system and pointed to the centrally planned Soviet economy as a model-- all this at a time when literally millions of people were starving to death in the Soviet Union, from a famine in a country with some of the richest farmland in Europe and historically a large exporter of food.

New York Times Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for telling the intelligentsia what they wanted to hear-- that claims of starvation in the Ukraine were false.

After British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge reported from the Ukraine on the massive deaths from starvation there, he was ostracized after returning to England and unable to find a job.

More than half a century later, when the archives of the Soviet Union were finally opened up under Mikhail Gorbachev, it turned out that about six million people had died in that famine-- about the same number as the people killed in Hitler's Holocaust.

In the 1930s, it was the intellectuals who pooh-poohed the dangers from the rise of Hitler and urged Western disarmament.

It would be no feat to fill a big book with all the things on which intellectuals were grossly mistaken, just in the 20th century-- far more so than ordinary people.

History fully vindicates the late William F. Buckley's view that he would rather be ruled by people represented by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard.

How have intellectuals managed to be so wrong, so often? By thinking that because they are knowledgeable-- or even expert-- within some narrow band out of the vast spectrum of human concerns, that makes them wise guides to the masses and to the rulers of the nation.

But the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking.

Liberal Censorship and Its Roots
David Limbaugh
Tuesday, November 11, 2008

The most unnerving aspects about the Democrats' sweeping victory Nov. 4 are their intolerance for dissent and their willingness to censor and otherwise suppress their opponents. Consider:

We keep hearing that Sarah Palin's criticism of Obama for "palling around with terrorists" increased death threats against him, which is bogus in the extreme but consistent with the inveterate liberal tactic of chilling conservative speech by saying it incites violence.

Ohio state employee Vanessa Niekamp said she was ordered to run a child-support check on Joe the Plumber, the man who asked Barack Obama an innocuous question about redistributing taxpayer income. Niekamp doesn't remember ever having checked into anyone else without having a legitimate reason to do so, such as discovering that someone recently came into money.

Democratic prosecutors in St. Louis threatened criminal prosecution against candidate Obama's critics. In Pennsylvania, lawyers for Obama wrote intimidating letters to TV and radio stations that aired unflattering ads documenting Obama's anti-gun record. The Obama campaign complained to the Department of Justice about the American Issues Project's ad tying Obama to William Ayers. Obama supporters flooded Chicago radio station WGN with harassing calls during its interviews of conservative writers investigating Obama.

On election night, Philadelphia police arrested a man who dared to wear a McCain-Palin '08 T-shirt at an Obama celebration rally. What's scarier is that the Obama crowd reportedly chanted with joy as cops arrested the man for exercising his freedom of political expression. According to the liberal worldview, arresting someone for disagreeing with you is not censorship, but implying someone is not patriotic is.

Obama has made no secret of his plan to pass "card-check" legislation, which some have described as the most radical revision of labor law since 1935. It would permit unions to eliminate secret ballots -- against the wishes of 78 percent of union members -- which would represent a radical blow to democratic principles.

Democrats fully intend to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, a euphemistically named regulation aimed at shutting down conservative talk radio, which Sen. Chuck Schumer has compared to pornography. Remember that conservatives have never advocated government action to suppress or censor the liberal media monopoly, which has existed for decades and still dominates mainstream media today. Their answer was the alternative media.

But what is even more frightening than the sinister schemes of liberal politicians to silence and criminalize political opposition is the apparent eagerness of rank-and-file liberals to go along with them, as witnessed by the many examples I've cited and numerous gleeful e-mails I get taunting me about the imminent re-invocation of the Fairness Doctrine.

I believe this arrogant attitude can largely be traced to the top-down indoctrination in our schools, cultural institutions and media that liberalism is morally superior because it is tolerant, diverse, intellectual and enlightened. This view holds that conservative expression doesn't deserve constitutional protection because it is inherently evil. As one liberal academic administrator said in justifying his Draconian action in suppressing a Christian viewpoint, "We cannot tolerate the intolerable."

This self-blinding, superior mindset explains how liberals can accuse conservatives of racism for their legitimate political differences with Barack Obama while demeaning, with racist epithets, Condoleezza Rice or Clarence Thomas. It's how they can mock conservatives for being close-minded while unilaterally declaring the end to the debate on global warming because of a mythical consensus they have decreed. It's how they can demand every vote count and exclude military ballots. It's how they can glamorize Jimmy Carter for gallivanting to foreign countries to supervise "fair elections" and pooh-pooh ACORN's serial voter fraud in their own country. It's how they can threaten the tax-exempt status of evangelical churches for preaching on values, even when the churches don't endorse candidates, but fully support a liberal church's direct electioneering for specific candidates. It's how they can ludicrously depict President Bush as a dictator while romanticizing brute thug tyrants Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. It's how they can falsely accuse President Bush of targeting innocent civilians in Iraq when he does everything possible to avoid civilian casualties but demand our withdrawal from South Vietnam, which resulted in the massacre of millions of innocents. It's how they can advocate the banning of DDT in the name of environmental progress but be unconcerned about the untold malaria deaths that resulted. It's how they can oppose the death penalty for the guilty but protect the death penalty for the innocent unborn. It's how they can prevent the teaching of "intelligent design" in schools in the name of science but defend the many documented myths of biological evolution in public-school textbooks, also in the name of science.

If you believe the left is tolerant, open-minded and democratic, you're in for a rude awakening.

Obama, Now That You Work for Me (A Letter to the President-Elect)
Chuck Norris
Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Dear President-elect Obama:

First, congratulations on your victory. The historical magnitude of your presidential win is nothing short of stupendous and a colossal fulfillment of the American dream (an achievement embedded long ago in the equality clauses of the Declaration of Independence).

It's likely no big surprise that I don't see eye to eye with you politically. Actually, I stand in stark opposition to most of your politics. Still, I realize that we must learn to work together if we are to see our country get back on track. After Election Day, I asked myself, "How can I work for our new president to help better America?" Then a thought occurred to me. The first question that should be answered is: How will you work for me? After all, "We the People" of the United States employ you, correct?

So here are a few ways you might begin to gain the respect of those who oppose you and to show that your campaign pledges to bridge the divides were not empty promises to get you into office. And these requests I make are based upon the inaugural oath you will make Jan. 20, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." No doubt these won't be my only requests through the years, but they serve as a good beginning:

--Use and cite the Constitution. If that constitutional oath ("preserve, protect and defend") is the central duty of your job description, then I assume we will be hearing often from you about exactly how you are doing just that. There is no replacement for strict adherence, application and defense of the Constitution. And it's high time that presidents quit reciting the presidential oath tritely and then abandoning its tenets when they enter the Oval Office. You should be quoting from the Constitution publicly as often as a preacher quotes the Bible to his congregation -- at least weekly. If you take this oath and challenge seriously, you will limit the powers of federal government, reduce taxes (for everyone), encourage the freedom of religion and expression (even in the public square), and stand up for such things as our right to bear arms. The American public and the government have lost their grip on the content and role of the Constitution, but if you daily choose, you can help to re-educate and model its usage for them.

--Protect American life. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." Those are powerful and enlightening words. Of course, such a role was created and secured in the very fabric of our nation -- in the Declaration of Independence. The commitment to protect life should serve as the basis for all you do, even as a foundation for your national defense strategy. I'm sure the first of your secret briefings this past week on our global security threats have opened your eyes to the extensive onslaught of our enemies. Don't allow your pride, partisanship, personal bias or political abilities to jeopardize the safety of Americans lives. As commander in chief, you are called to preserve American life. Quite frankly, that is why I'm surprised that a man such as you, who professes to fight for minorities, would not recognize the clear value of a human life in a womb. Federal law should not decree the sacrifice of one human life for the preference of another. Both lives should be protected. Otherwise, what do Jefferson's 1809 words mean? As president, you are called to protect (not destroy) human life; it is the "first and only legitimate object of good government."

--Lead more from the center. It's been pointed out by countless pundits, and your track record is clear: You have one of the most liberal records in the Senate. You've had the liberty of voting and fighting for an agenda "from the left" as you've tried to persuade state and federal lawmakers to do the same. But if you continue to lead our country down a more liberal road, you will follow the peril of Bill Clinton, who stepped into office and initially tried to lift the ban on gays in the military and extend abortion rights, only to prompt the creation of a more balanced and strong Republican Congress in the 1990s. Don't underestimate the resurrecting power of the conservative voice. You observed in last week's election how three states across this union voted to protect marriage in their constitutions (the 28th, 29th and 30th states to do so -- California, Arizona and Florida).

We will be watching who you choose to be in your Cabinet. We will discern how you lead Pelosi and Reid. We will be observing those you select as candidates for Supreme Court justices. The election is over. No more promises. No more words. You might work well in a team, but this time, you don't have congressional members to hide behind. You're on your own -- leading the pack -- and the whole country is watching. I, especially, am watching. So make sure you lead more from the center.

One of your 300 million bosses,

Chuck Norris

Losing the War in Iraq
William Rusher
Monday, November 10, 2008

The first big step of Barack Obama's administration, and quite possibly its defining achievement, will be abandoning America's military involvement in Iraq. Obama can argue, quite plausibly, that he has a mandate from the American people to do exactly that.

He certainly has made no secret of this intention. In September of last year, he asserted that "the best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year, but now." And on May 16 this year, he spelled out his plan: "Nobody's talking about bringing them home instantly, but one to two brigades a month. It'll take about 16 months to get our combat troops out."

He has since been elected president of the United States, and there is no reason to suppose that he has changed his mind. So it is as predictable as anything in politics can be that we are indeed going to pull out of Iraq. The long effort to bring about a sensible solution to the problems of the Middle East is over. The Americans who died there, at the behest of our government, died in vain. The very short list of wars that America lost is about to receive a notable addition.

Whether the American people intended this result is certainly open to argument. But nobody can contend that Obama's decision is devoid of justification. He has been perfectly candid about his intention and has plenty of political support for it. Where it will lead, however, is -- to put it mildly -- open to debate.

The American withdrawal from Iraq will amount, for all practical purposes, to an American abandonment of any hope of influencing developments in the Middle East. There is no way we can pull out of Iraq and yet hope to retain any serious clout in that crucial region. Its vast supplies of oil are not essential to the United States (since we have other sources for it, at home and in the Western hemisphere) but are absolutely crucial to our allies in Western Europe and elsewhere. Control of those supplies by local powers in the Middle East, let alone more distant meddlers like Russia and China, will drastically alter the global balance of power.

How Obama intends to cope with this new strategic situation isn't clear. If he has a plan, he certainly hasn't revealed it. The European powers are in no condition to step in and impose the political stability that the Obama plan will wreck. And the notion that the local powers could do so by themselves is laughable. Within months, the whole region will simply be a plaything for troublemakers in Moscow and Beijing.

Conceivably, the situation could rapidly become so desperate that Obama would be forced to embark on military measures that would make the current efforts of American forces look positively puny. But his own commitment to nonmilitary means makes this highly unlikely. More probably he will simply abandon any nondiplomatic effort to influence events in the area and attempt to defend a broad strategic retreat.

You can be sure that this will rouse bitter opposition from his opponents in the United States. A great many policy experts on all sides of the political spectrum will resist American abandonment of our strategic interests in the Middle East. And the American people, confronted with the global economic consequences of losing control of Middle Eastern oil, may want to rethink -- alas, all too belatedly -- their eagerness to pull out of Iraq.

So we are in for some extremely rough political weather in the fall-out from Obama's abandonment of the Middle East. He may soon find that it's closer to the south side of Chicago than he realized.

Yes, You Can Try
Bill Steigerwald
Monday, November 10, 2008

Mr. Obama, bring on the change.

Bring on that new dawn of American leadership you say is at hand.

Bring on your soaring rhetoric, your mandate from the media, your party's near veto-proof legislative majority.

Get down to Washington in January and use your political superpowers to begin solving what you say are "the greatest challenges of our lifetime -- two wars, a planet in peril and the greatest financial crisis in a century."

Yes you can try.

We your people understand, as you have said, that the road ahead will be long, our climb will be steep and we may not get to wherever very liberal place you're taking us to as a nation in one year or -- rather conveniently for you -- even in one term.

But we know you and your cronies from the hard-left side of Chicago are already working on where you'll find the money to pay for that generous to-do list of neo-New Deal stuff you've been promising your adoring fans for the last two years.

There's a recession on, but yes you can try.

Meanwhile, if you truly want to make America a better place and change the cruddy way things have been done in Washington for the last 60 years by both major political parties, here are a couple of daring ideas to get you warmed up and let you prove that you're more than just talk:

First, you should fulfill your old promise to get us out of Iraq ASAP. And you should do the same with the war in Afghanistan, an even more hopeless quagmire. Despite the hawkish hallucinations you had during the election campaign of winning the war in Afghanistan and capturing bin Laden, Afghanistan also does not deserve to have another American drop of blood or dollar spent on it.

While you're at it, and if you're serious about bringing real change, try ratcheting down the bloated warfare state that Republicans and Democrats have built and abused for their political ends.

First, tell the thugs of the world we'll leave them alone if they don't threaten our national security or harbor al-Qaida summer camps, but if they mess with us we'll quickly kick their butts.

To save scores of annual billions, close 75 percent of our overseas military bases -- we have more than 820 installations in at least 39 countries. That includes 56,000 people in Germany, 33,122 in Japan and 10,000 in Italy -- three rich nations that can and should be providing for their own defenses.

Good luck. But yes you can try.

You might be impeached within 24 hours. But yes you can try.

Yes, They Can
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Monday, November 10, 2008

Senator Barack Obama became President-elect on the uplifting, if inexact, slogan, "Yes, we can." This week, there is growing evidence that people who have in mind doing away with the presidency of the United States -- and all other aspects of our secular, democratic and constitutional form of government -- are similarly convinced of their inevitable success. Judging by the sheer audacity of their agenda, "Yes, they can" would appear an apt description of the prospects for the Saudis and other champions of the totalitarian program they call Shariah.

In the run-up to an emergency summit outgoing President George Bush has called to address the now-global financial crisis, the oil-rich Islamists of the Persian Gulf led by Saudi Arabia have not only established that their petrodollars are indispensable to any solution. They also seem to have secured the Bush Administration's acquiescence to the sinister strings attached to any bail-out of the West in which they might participate.

Specifically, the Saudis and their friends want the United States to join those, particularly in Europe, who have accommodated themselves to Shariah. No, we are assured, they aren't taking about the brutal theo-political-legal code that features such barbaric practices as beheadings, floggings, stonings, amputations, female genital mutilation and misogyny more generally.

All they want, those in the know insist, is for Washington to encourage Wall Street -- more and more of which is owned by the U.S. government -- to embrace Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF). A Treasury Department seminar convened last week depicted SCF as nothing more than a kind of socially responsible investing vehicle that respects Muslim religious beliefs by eschewing interest-bearing transactions and those involving pork and "sin" stocks. So, what's the big deal? The Catholics, Methodists and Jews have their funds, why not the Muslims?

What makes the Shariah-Compliant Finance gambit both a big and troublesome "deal" is that, unlike these other religious traditions, Shariah's adherents are pursuing a global theocracy. They believe they must impose their agenda on everybody else, religious and secular alike, using violence if necessary. And SCF is explicitly described by leading practitioners as a complement to violent holy war: "financial jihad" and "jihad with money."

In other words, there is no such thing as free-standing Shariah-Compliant Finance. According to all of the recognized authorities and institutions of Islam, Shariah is a unified, indivisible program to which all faithful Muslims must adhere comprehensively.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the Saudis & Co. are not simply seeking to insinuate Shariah-Compliant Finance into our capital markets. They are also advancing the creation of a parallel Shariah-governed society through various other means.

One of these techniques will be in evidence when the Saudi monarch himself convenes a meeting in New York City in the hope of imposing Shariah blasphemy laws worldwide. In light of the stated, and seemingly benign, purpose of the so-called "Culture of Peace" event hosted by King Abdullah at the United Nations -- namely, promoting interfaith understanding and tolerance, numerous world leaders, including President Bush, will be present. Never mind that Saudi Arabia is arguably the most intolerant nation on earth, a fact even some in the Bush administration have acknowledged.

The real reason attendance at the King's séance is going to be impressive, of course, has more to do with the hope that petro-largesse will flow to those who ingratiate themselves to the House of Saud. Abdullah appears confidently to have signaled that, if the West plays ball on the "Culture of Peace" agenda, the Saudis and their fellow Islamists will be constructive at what might be called the subsequent "Culture of Money" meeting in Washington.

What will the answer be when the Islamists insist that free speech must not allow the slander, libel or defamation of Shariah, or other aspects of their faith? If the European Union and the United Nations Human Rights Council have already accommodated themselves to this demand, why should we object? So what if, by so doing, we would effectively thereby be precluded from talking about -- or even understanding -- the Islamist threat we face, to say nothing of eviscerating the First Amendment? As the Treasury Department can attest, we need the money.

Unfortunately, this is no time for us to be diminishing awareness throughout the Free World of the various, grave dangers we face from adherents to Shariah's seditious program. London's Sunday Telegraph reported this weekend that a classified British government assessment has concluded that there are "some thousands of extremists in the U.K. committed to supporting Jihadi activities, either in the U.K. or abroad."

Such extremists are said to be engaged in attack planning in the United Kingdom "either under the direction of al-Qaeda, or inspired by al-Qaeda's ideology of global Jihad" (read, Shariah). They may inflict "mass casualties" and constitute a "severe" threat to the Government Security Zone (including the Houses of Parliament and key executive offices) in the heart of London.

At such a moment, a federal judge in Oregon has held the law criminalizing material support for terror is unconstitutionally "vague." Taken together with the other manifestations of our capitulation, is it any wonder the champions of Shariah are convinced that "yes, they can" have their way with us? Who will disabuse them of this terrifying notion? We can, but will President-elect Obama lead the way?

"The Conservative's Handbook"
Rebecca Hagelin
Thursday, November 13, 2008

In the wake of last Tuesday's election, there's a lot of soul-searching going on among conservatives. Where, many ask, did we go wrong? It's not simply a matter of tactics. Some are wondering what, exactly, we believe and why. Enter "The Conservative's Handbook."

Clearly, at such a pivotal time, the need for fact-based, reliable information on the issues couldn't be greater. And that's what Phil Valentine provides in "The Conservative's Handbook: Defining the Right Positions on Issues from A to Z." With so few students learning about civics in school anymore, Valentine, a popular radio host heard in more than 40 markets across the nation, clearly and accurately explains America's success as a free and prosperous nation.

Don't be intimidated by the scope of his topic. Valentine's book couldn't be more reader-friendly. From "America's goodness" to "Zero tolerance on crime," he takes readers on a tour of the seminal issues they face today, allowing them to test themselves on the topics that matter most to an informed electorate.

But Valentine also makes you think about the Big Picture. He answers thought-provoking questions about freedom, where it came from, and what maintains it. There's a reason, after all, that America is the country that people flock to from all around the world -- and as informed conservatives, we need to be able to explain what that is. Valentine reflects on our responsibility as citizens to be involved in our government by holding our leaders accountable, and why it's critical that we realize why and how our freedoms are at stake.

When liberals ask why you don't believe in big government, what do you say? Valentine will help you explain your views in ways that help people understand how history has repeatedly shown that it is freedom, hard work and personal responsibility -- not government intervention -- that produces the strongest and most prosperous nations.

Think about it. What do you believe about taxes? How do fiscal issues relate to your freedom and that of your family? What about education? What would happen if only your children were allowed to walk through the school doors because parents were no longer allowed to take part in their children's education? And were you aware that where gun control is stronger, crime rates are higher? "The Conservative's Handbook" outlines a principled approach to explaining the conservative values that are the bedrock of American freedom.

Valentine explains that America was founded as a capitalist nation, and that the country has survived because its Constitution provides ultimate control to citizens, not to their government. He shows the stark contrast between America and nations that run on socialism. History has proven repeatedly that people prosper and succeed when they are free to build businesses, order their lives as they see fit, and exercise their own free will to give to those in need.

Yet in far too many nations today, people are not free to do as they please. Many are killed for speaking their minds, for standing up for what they believe. And unless we want to see the same fate to someday befall our beloved country, we need to protect our freedoms.

Don't assume we have nothing to worry about. Even now, American citizens are fighting in court to protect their freedoms from those who believe America is a bad place. Valentine shows how America is good and how it provides its citizens unique opportunities to become whatever they want through hard work and individual responsibility.

Timely and thoroughly researched, "The Conservative Handbook" may either be read straight through or searched by topic.

Readers also would do well to tune in to "The Phil Valentine Show," which was syndicated in 2007. Valentine started out in radio challenging listeners to consider their beliefs. He wants them to know what they believe -- and why. He built up radio stations throughout the years and has won prestigious awards for his outstanding show.

He's also written "Tax Revolt" and "Right From The Heart: The ABC's of Reality in America," a 2003 release that has been listed among Amazon.com's bestselling books.

"One cannot be simultaneously free and dependent on the government," he writes. "Our freedom to be all we can be is what makes the United States unique. It's also what makes us good." Good words to ponder, especially at a time when conservatives are trying to find their way again. They would do well to consult "The Conservative's Handbook."

What Conservatives Believe
By Phil Valentine
August 3, 2008

Conservatism is not only viable, it's essential for a free society. The difference between liberalism and conservatism is best summed up in the old Chinese proverb: "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime." Liberals have been handing out fish. Conservatives have been handing out fishing poles.

1. Conservatism makes for a productive society. Alexander Tytler said of democracy: "It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." Liberalism has raided the treasury to take from the producers and give to those less productive, leaving neither side with an incentive to work for either themselves or a nation.

The Right Way

What's The Matter With New York City?

2. Conservatism is compassionate. Liberals measure compassion by how many people are on the government dole. Conservatives measure compassion by how many people are off of it. While liberalism, by its very nature, looks down its nose at the less fortunate, conservatism sees all people as worthy of making it on their own. Conservatism is about preserving one's dignity, not robbing it.

3. Liberals are pessimists by nature. The currency of liberalism is fear. It trades on the fear that something disastrous will happen unless liberals are there to stop it. Global warming, losing Social Security, banning guns; they all work from the vantage point that if liberals aren't in charge something horrific will happen. The allure of Ronald Reagan was his positive message. He spoke of America's greatness. He inspired pride and patriotism instead of trying to tear the country down and blame it for all of the world's problems as many liberals do.

4. Military strength deters aggression. Peaceniks look upon our military as a war machine, and use any moment of calm as an excuse to cut its budget. It is a peace machine. Each time we fail to back our military, it emboldens those who would undermine our democracy or that of our allies.

5. Belief in God is a cornerstone of our republic. Try as the liberals may to separate them, there is no Constitutional separation of church and state, only a protection of religion from the state. Our founders believed this country was divinely inspired and it was only by remembering our religious roots that we would survive.

6. Conservatism believes in the entrepreneur. People who start companies take huge risks and they deserve everything they get if they succeed. Liberals want to punish entrepreneurs through confiscatory taxes. That's why the IRS tells us that the top 5 percent of wage-earners pays more than 50 percent of the income tax. If you want to create jobs and, in turn, more money in the treasury, you must lower taxes on the rich and allow more people to take more chances.

7. Political correctness is the liberal version of fascism. Liberals have attempted to control the debate in America by attempting to control the language, and they've succeeded to some degree. There's been no bigger muzzle on free speech than political correctness.

8. Guns are good. Liberals are quick to defend our freedom of speech, press and our right to protest but they ignore our right to bear arms, which figures prominently into our Bill of Rights. These selective constitutionalists will erode all of our constitutional rights if they succeed in being able to cherry pick them when they're convenient.

9. Quotas are wrong. Society seems oblivious to the obvious solution to discrimination: strict enforcement of antidiscrimination laws. Making innocent people pay for the sins of previous generations runs counter to our fundamental principles and undermines race relations in our society.

10. Conservatism is still relevant today. Both Democrats and Republicans have veered from the basic philosophy of less government and more personal responsibility. Government is these to do only what the private sector won't, can't or shouldn't do. That means the government shouldn't be subsidizing professional sports or multi-million-dollar corporations any more than it should be subsidizing an able-bodied man who can work but chooses not to. Government must return to the basic conservative philosophy, as Jefferson said, "The government is best which governs least."

Phil Valentine's forthcoming book is "The Conservative's Handbook: Defining the Right Position on Issues from A to Z" (Cumberland House): http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Handbook-Defining-Position-Issues/dp/1581826621/

Obama Faces Biggest Threat to Democracy: China
Thursday, November 13, 2008
By: Lev Navrozov

As Election Day (Nov. 4, 2008) was approaching, arguments seemed to focus on which of the two candidates would enrich a greater number of Americans.

However, any wealth can be destroyed by war, including expropriations of the wealth by the war enemy, and the 20th century already demonstrated how a war may become a world war. Nothing had been said about this possibility for the days, months, and years preceding Election Day.

In the 20th century, the danger of a world war was demonstrated by Germany, which was assumed to be highly civilized and unique in regards to music, philosophy, and science.

Germany failed to make its domination global only because, first, Hitler attacked Stalin's Russia too early and hence could not finance adequately his ongoing atomic project in order to be the first to have atomic bombs, and, second, because his anti-Semitism led to the emigration from Germany of some unique scientists of genius such as Einstein.

Presumably most of the world outside the United States is also wishing as many Americans as possible to be as wealthy as possible, and hence as happy as possible, for happiness is a direct consequence of wealth.

As it is sung in Gounod's "Faust": "On the earth, the entire human race worships only one sacred idol . . . And that idol is the Calf of Gold."

Certainly the totalitarian rulers are not averse to the worship of wealth for themselves, even though they keep it secret.

On every anniversary of the "Great October Socialist Revolution" Stalin appeared at the top of the stepped pyramid of Lenin's tomb, called the Lenin Mausoleum, so that Muscovites could see him as they passed by in a festival procession.

Our neighbor, a physician, carried his elementary-school-age daughter on his shoulders so that both of them could see Stalin as well as possible.

During one period of his life, 1918 to 1923, Stalin was a military officer, and so in 1938 or 1948 he would appear at the top of the Mausoleum wearing that same military dress of 20 or 30 years ago to save on his dress and thus to show his beloved people how thrifty he was for their sake. But the best palaces of the Russian pre-1917 counts and princes were preserved for him in case he would like to drop in.

In 2000, a new "five-year plan" began in China, and in 2010, China is expected to have more Ph.D. scientists and technicians than the United States, except that an overwhelming majority of them will be concentrated on the development of post-nuclear super weapons. How can we know this?

China produces statistical yearbooks, and although they do not state as much in a direct manner, conclusions can be drawn from their numbers.

Yet, perhaps no CIA consultant to President George W. Bush did such school math for him, or perhaps he forgot such trifles and rushed to grace with his personal attendance the Chinese Olympic Games. Indeed, in the eight years of his presidency, Bush never spoke about China as a viable threat.

It is ironic that Germany with its national socialism seemed to be incomparably more dangerous in the United States than does China with its Marxism-Leninism (and its 1.3 billion people as against 80 million people of Germany today).

A lethal abyss opens before the 44th U.S. president: the world of post-nuclear superweapons, being developed in a country whose population exceeds that of the United States more than four times and which is using "capitalism" as effectively all over the world as was the "state slavery" of Stalin or Hitler, in which a human being could always be converted into a detail of a military machine, employing the latest in sciences and technologies.

Since I acquire all books published by Western sinologists, analyzing the military advance of China, I bought Steven W. Mosher's "Hegemon: China's Plan to Dominate Asia and the World." Copyrighted in 2000, that is, the year when China's military development boost started, and George W. Bush became the U.S. president for two terms.

Dr. Mosher knows both Mandarin and Cantonese. He conducted anthropological research in rural China and was predictably banished from China as a spy.

For good measure, a Yahoo! search reveals that he was expelled from Stanford University because his book "Broken Earth" caused so much controversy between China's government and the rest of the nations.

But why did he use the word "Hegemon" in the title of his book? This is a Greek, not Chinese, word.

In Soviet elementary school, we read "The Wolf and the Lamb," the fable by the famous Russian fabulist "Grandfather Krylov

Obama Won the Election using the Gipper's Playbook
Donald Lambro
Friday, November 14, 2008

Ronald Reagan's legacy is being kept very much alive here at a time when Republicans have lost their way and are looking for a new voice to lead them out of the political wilderness.

The richly detailed testament Reagan left behind in his archives and writings, much of it still unknown to the public at large, is being uncovered, re-examined, recorded, studied and preserved at the Hoover Institution, the venerable think tank where many Reaganites of that age continue to work, breathing new life into his legacy for future generations. Much of that work is being done in the lofty Hoover Tower that stands in the middle of Stanford University's sprawling, bucolic campus, where former Reagan adviser Martin Anderson and his wife, Annelise, have been the faithful chroniclers in chief of the late president's life and times.

Their detective work began with the extraordinary discovery of boxes full of hundreds of legal-pad pages of radio commentaries handwritten by Reagan in the 1970s that dealt with everything from nuclear arms to farm subsidies to the free-enterprise system.

"In His Own Hand" revealed the former president's well-stocked mind and intellectual curiosity -- far from the media-mythology that portrayed him as a dunce who didn't know much. A map of the country in Anderson's suite of offices has colored pins all over it, showing the hundreds of radio stations that regularly broadcast Reagan's five-day-a-week, five-minute commentaries that made him a well-known radio voice across the country long before the Washington media elite caught on to what was about to change the face of American politics.

Then came "A Life in Letters," a fascinating documentation of his highly disciplined habit of writing thousands of letters over his career, detailing his views on a wealth of issues and ideas through a copious exchange of correspondence with the high and the mighty and the ordinary John Q. Citizen. The Reagan letters that have since surfaced now stand at about 10,000 and counting.

That was followed by the publication of Reagan's White House diaries, which he penned meticulously at the end of each day, recording his daily thoughts, triumphs, defeats, crises and disappointments, seasoned liberally with his undiminished good humor.

Now word is seeping out that the Andersons will be coming out with yet another blockbuster book on Reagan's presidency sometime early next year, this one dealing with his handling of the nation's foreign policy during the Cold War that eventually led to the dismantlement of the Evil Empire.

Mr. Anderson, who has been working on the book for seven years, declined to talk about what their meticulous research discovered. But the buzz in knowledgeable circles is that it will reveal how the Gipper shaped and steered the nation's national security apparatus throughout the eight years of his presidency.

It has been two decades since Reagan left the White House at the peak of his popularity, but his influence is still very much with us today.

Early in his campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama gave a speech in which he talked of political figures he most admired. One of them, he said, was Reagan. He called him a "transformational" leader who had appealed to the nation's hopes instead of its fears, and lifted up a dispirited nation with his optimism for the future. Last week, pollster Scott Rasmussen wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled "The Polls Show That Reaganism Is Not Dead."

"Barack Obama won the White House by campaigning against an unpopular incumbent in a time of economic anxiety and lingering foreign policy concerns," Rasmussen wrote. "He offered voters an upbeat message, praised the nation as a land of opportunity, promised tax cuts to just about everyone, and overcame doubts about his experience with a strong performance in the presidential debates."

"Does this sound familiar? It should. Mr. Obama followed the approach that worked for Ronald Reagan," he said. Well, up to a point. Unlike Obama, Reagan would never propose raising taxes on anyone in a recession when the nation needs all the economy's cylinders running at full throttle. And at his very first 1980 general election campaign event near the Statue of Liberty, he outlined his vision for what became the North American Free Trade Agreement -- a pact Obama wants to dismantle.

But like the former president he so admires, Obama exuded a sense of self-confidence and optimism in his campaign and talked often about his belief in America's can-do spirit and enduring goodness.

One of the polling questions Rasmussen asked voters on Oct. 2 found that 59 percent still agreed with the belief expressed by Reagan in his first inaugural address: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Notably, his poll also found that 44 percent of Obama's supporters "agree with Reagan's assessment." Now Reagan's party is leaderless and in disarray, looking for someone to rekindle that same spirit of optimism and transformational leadership. So far, there seems to be no one like that in sight.

Send Your Children to D.C. Public Schools, Mr. President-Elect
Terence Jeffrey
Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Barack and Michelle Obama are poised to commit a classic act of limousine-liberal hypocrisy -- in this case, turning their backs on tens of thousands of inner-city kids in Washington, D.C.

Public schools, it seems, are good enough for poor and middle-class families, but not for rich families like the Obamas.

In July, when he addressed the NAACP's annual convention, Sen. Barack Obama expressed his devotion to American public schools, vowing he would not "walk away from them" by supporting school-choice programs like Sen. John McCain did.

"What he's offering amounts to little more than the same tired rhetoric about vouchers," said Obama. "Well, I believe we need to move beyond the same debate we've been having for the past 30 years when we haven't gotten anything done. We need to fix and improve our public schools, not throw our hands up and walk away from them."

In October, in the last presidential debate, Obama specifically attacked McCain's support for the school-choice program in Washington, D.C., which gives 1,900 lower-income students a voucher worth up to $7,500 to attend the private school of their choice -- and which McCain wanted to expand to include more students.

"The centerpiece of Sen. McCain's education policy is to increase the voucher program in D.C. by 2,000 slots," Obama said derisively. "That leaves all of you who live in the other 50 states without an education reform policy from Sen. McCain. So if we are going to be serious about this issue, we've got to have a president who is going to tackle it head-on, and that's what I intend to do as president."

In case anyone doubted that he still opposed school-voucher programs, Obama made his position clear in Time magazine just before the election. The magazine asked: "Should parents be given vouchers to enable them to send their children to any school?" Obama answered: "No: I believe that public education in America should foster innovation and provide students with varied, high-quality learning opportunities."

The practical effect of Obama's policy in Washington, D.C., is that tens of thousands of students will remain trapped in what are simultaneously the most expensive and worst public schools in America.

According to "Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: School Year 2005-2006," a report published by the Department of Education in July, total expenditures per pupil in the District of Columbia's public schools was $15,798, more than the per pupil spending of any state.

Yet, in the National Assessment of Education Progress mathematics and reading tests administered to fourth- and eighth-graders in 2007, D.C. students did worse than students in any state.

Only 12 percent of D.C. eighth-graders were rated grade-level "proficient" or better in reading, only 8 percent in math.

There were 59,616 students enrolled in the D.C. public schools in 2006, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. If McCain's plan to increase by 2,000 the number of vouchers available in the District were enacted, taxpayers would still be spending $15,798 per student per year to send more than 55,000 kids through a school system where about nine out of 10 students do not learn to read or do math at grade-level proficiency by the time they "graduate" from elementary school.

What is Obama's plan to deal with this? Spend $18 billion more in federal tax dollars on public education (as he promised in his campaign) -- and send his own kids to extremely expensive private schools. Currently, Obama's two daughters (ages 7 and 10) attend the University of Chicago Lab School, where tuition is $18,492 for grades 1-4 and $20,286 for grades 5-8.

When Michelle Obama visited Washington this week, she toured only two prospective schools for her daughters: Sidwell Friends, where lower-school tuition is $28,442; and Georgetown Day, where tuition is $27,445 for grades 1-5.

If Barack Obama backed legislation giving all students in D.C. a voucher worth the $15,798 D.C. public schools spend per pupil, poor and middle-class families -- especially those with more than two children -- would still not be able to afford Sidwell Friends and Georgetown Day. But they would be able to afford most of the other private schools in the Washington area, including almost all of the Catholic schools.

But that would contradict Obama's vision of America, a place where poor children remain trapped in public schools, rich children go to very expensive schools, and middle-class parents who work hard and struggle to send their children to religious schools that share their values and commitment to excellence must expect to pay not only for their own children's education but also escalating local and federal taxes to ill-educate their neighbor's children.

Put your children where your ideology is, Mr. President-elect. Send them to public school.

Obamas Practice School Choice
Cal Thomas
Thursday, November 13, 2008

President-elect Obama and his wife Michelle came to town and did what people with young children usually do before moving. They looked at their new house and then Mrs. Obama checked out the school choices for their two young daughters.

The schools Mrs. Obama visited were private, not public. While no decision has yet been made, it seems obvious the girls enjoy their private school in Chicago and have flourished in it. Would the Obamas, in order to pander to the teachers unions, place their daughters in one of Washington, D.C.'s miserable public schools? Let's hope not. That would be a form of intellectual and social child abuse.

Should they choose either Sidwell Friends School (where Chelsea Clinton attended) or Georgetown Day School -- Mrs. Obama visited both -- or a public school, the Obamas have the ability to make a choice for their children, a choice the president-elect would deny to every other American who cannot afford to pay private school tuition. This is not the vaunted fairness for which Obama campaigned. This is not spreading the educational and intellectual wealth around.

During the campaign, Obama praised D.C. school superintendent Michelle Rhee for her commendable attempts to improve the Washington public school system, but the schools still have a long way to go and continue to underperform the rest of the country. Surely the Obamas care more about their daughters than the teachers unions and will place them in private schools.

Parents who put their children first are to be admired and emulated. Politicians who are parents and who have the power to let others make the choices they can make, but refuse to do so, are inconsistent at best and hypocrites at worst.

Throughout the campaign, Barack Obama presented himself as a champion of the poor and middle class. Poor and middle-class parents do not love their children any less than the Obamas love their daughters. They want their kids to have a good education, realizing it is their ticket to a better life. But liberal politicians deny them that right. Is that fair?

This year, 1,900 D.C. schoolchildren were allowed to attend private schools, thanks to congressional vouchers. With Democrats about to be in charge of all three branches of government, will Obama and his fellow Democrats send them back to failed schools? D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton has suggested as much. Parents interviewed by Washington TV stations overwhelmingly want their children to remain where they are. Is it not cruel to force them back into a broken system?

Many Members of Congress choose private schools for their children. Senators Edward Kennedy and Hillary Clinton have been outspoken opponents of school choice yet have sent their children to private schools. According to a 2007 Heritage Foundation survey, "...37 percent of representatives and 45 percent of senators in the 110th Congress sent their children to private schools -- almost four times the rate of the general population." Yet many of them vote against letting the rest of us have the same choice.

In its recently released annual report, the privately underwritten Children's Scholarship Fund outlines the assistance it is offering parents of disadvantaged poor and minority students. It isn't welfare, because parents contribute to the cost of their child's education. As the annual report states, after 10 years "the lives of 96,000 children across the United States have been changed for the better by CSF scholarships worth $315 million."

What do the children think? Fatouma D., a CSF sixth-grader says, "I love my school so much. We have so many programs. The best part is the fun never stops until 6 o'clock." Here's Jonathan C., a second-grader: "When I grow up I want to be a Marine so I can save people trapped in water." And Madysen D., a first-grader, "I can't wait to start working on fractions."

If Obama and his fellow Democrats won't "let our people go," the rest of us have options. We can send our children and grandchildren to private schools -- or home school them -- and act compassionately toward the less fortunate by contributing to the Children's Scholarship Fund (8 West 38th Street, 9th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10018).

This will offer children trapped in bad schools the brighter future they deserve and the country will get the better educated citizenry it desperately needs.

Obama's School Choice
Linda Chavez
Friday, November 14, 2008

Democratic politicians like to see themselves as champions of public education; but when it comes to picking schools for their own children to attend, their support disappears. President-elect Obama is no different than hundreds of other Democratic elected officials across the nation, from members of Congress to big-city mayors and city council members. The president-elect's daughters have been in private schools in Chicago -- and all indications are that they will enroll in one of Washington's elite private schools when the family makes its big move to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

That's too bad because it insulates the Obamas from what other families must deal with: a failing public school system that resists genuine reform. And in Washington's case, it deprives a courageous new school chancellor of what would be her most powerful constituents, the First Family.

D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee could use the Obamas' help -- especially in taking on the teachers union. Rhee has proposed a dramatic reform package aimed at removing incompetent teachers and rewarding excellence.

She wants to get rid of tenure -- a job protection that is no benefit to students and helps keep some of the worst performing teachers in the classroom. And she is willing to pay top dollar to teachers whose students make real progress. What's more, she will use private dollars to fund the increases. The extra money for Rhee's proposal would come from private foundations, which have already pledged an additional $75 million a year for five years, much of which would go to raise teacher pay.

Rhee's bold plan encompasses a voluntary, two-tier track for teachers. Each teacher could choose whether to enroll in the green plan or the red plan, both of which would increase pay but with strings attached. Teachers who choose the green plan could potentially double the pay they could earn, but they would have to give up tenure for a year and would then need a principal's recommendation to keep their job or face dismissal.

Those who choose the red plan would get smaller pay increases but would lose their seniority rights so that they could not bump more-junior teachers for school assignments if their own school closed or was reorganized.

The idea behind the plan would be to weed out the poor performers from those who were doing a good job, and reward merit rather than longevity. In other words, public schools would begin to operate like most other segments of our society: Those who failed would feel it in their paychecks and those who succeeded would be rewarded there. But unions don't cotton to merit-based pay, insisting that seniority is what really matters.

The unions' interest is solely in filling their own coffers with dues and maintaining their political power. An incompetent teacher who pays dues is just as valuable to the union as an excellent teacher, and the bad teacher may be more beholden to the union to protect his or her job. No wonder, then, the Washington Teachers Union, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers, is resisting Rhee's plan.

The union is refusing even to put Rhee's proposal to a vote of its membership, reportedly because of pressure from the AFT's new president, Randi Weingarten. Rhee and Weingarten have locked horns before when Rhee worked for a nonprofit education group in New York City, where Weingarten also leads the local United Federation of Teachers.

Weingarten won her battle against reforms Rhee proposed for the New York schools -- but Rhee has a powerful ally in Washington's mayor Adrian Fenty. Now if only the Obamas could be enlisted to her side, Rhee might actually prevail in D.C.

President-elect Obama wants the best education for his girls -- what parent doesn't? But as someone whose own children attended D.C. public schools, I know what it means to push for reform of public education from within. The Obamas could send a powerful message if they were to enroll their daughters in the D.C. system, either in a regular or a charter school. And it would certainly give them a window into the problems those schools face.

But I won't hold my breath. Democratic politicians' support for public education usually amounts to spending other people's money and keeping their own kids out.

'Smears' About Obama Largely True
Monday, October 20, 2008
By: Lowell Ponte

The Obama campaign says its candidate is a victim of "smears" -- and has even created a Web site to fight such attacks.

But a Newsmax investigation finds many of the so-called smears are largely based in truth -- and the Obama campaign uses half-truths, clever language, and ad hominem attacks to spin the facts.

Obama's www.FightTheSmears.com focuses mainly on anti-Obama messages being repeated on the Internet and talk radio, the only media where Obama's ideological allies are not dominant.

These "smears" and the Obama rebuttals are often framed in lawyerly language that leaves much wiggle room in the candidate's answers.

FightTheSmears.com also makes no attempt at objectivity, describing Obama's critics as "pushing misleading research and distorted claims" because they are "ideologues" busy "spreading a 'pack of lies' about Barack."

In a section of the site titled, "Who's Behind the Smears?" visitors can see a chart naming seven groups and six individuals with lines that suggest multiple, sinister connections between them.

The people and groups named are real and are members of Washington's small but conservative sphere of power and influence. The Obama conspiracy chart links all of these conservative individuals and groups back to the critics who dogged the "Clinton 1992 Campaign."

This may come as something as a surprise to Hillary Clinton, as many of the "smears" against Obama first surfaced during her heated primary contest with him.

Newsmax reviewed 10 random claims and related rebuttals posted on Obama's ever-changing FightTheSmears.com to gauge their veracity. Here's what we found:

Claim No. 1: Obama's campaign is funded by the rich, big corporations and foreigners.

"Barack Obama was the only major presidential candidate this year to completely reject contributions from The Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs that have dominated our politics for years," the Obama site says of the persistent online criticisms of its fundraising.

"Instead, this campaign has been owned by the more than 3.1 million everyday Americans who have donated in small amounts."

Not so, according to campaign finance records. Nearly half of the $600 million raised by Obama to date has come from wealthy donors and special interests. Obama's allies months ago dropped their ad linking Republican rival "Exxon John" McCain to Big Oil after it came to light that Obama had taken far more money from Exxon-Mobil than McCain.

"The Obama campaign has complied fully with federal election law," claims the Obama site, "including donor eligibility and contribution disclosure requirements."

However, one giant loophole the politicians wrote into the law allows contributions in amounts of $200 or less with no donor identification. Obama claims that $300 million in campaign funds was given by these small donors, and he won't release their names and addresses.

McCain has released his whole donor database, including those who have contributed less than $200.

Critics argue that the other half of Obama's campaign haul -- the part not raised from big corporate donors and special interests -- came in a small flood of anonymous donations that might be foreign or corrupt, or both.

Claim No. 2: Obama has had a close, ongoing relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

The Obama site acknowledges that its candidate and Ayers "served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990s," but maintains most stories about the links between Obama and Ayers are phony or exaggerated.

It does not mention that Obama and Ayers worked together on the board distributing millions of dollars with the aim of radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren.

Nor does the site acknowledge that Obama kicked off his first political campaign in the living room of Ayers, the former Weather Underground leader. (Obama is currently saying it was not the first event. There is no dispute that one of Obama's first political events in his first run for public office was held in Ayers' home.)

There is also no dispute the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon the Capitol, the home of a New York Supreme Court justice, and a police station, among other targets. FBI agent Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the group, has recounted Ayers teaching him how to make bombs and saying, "In the revolution, some innocent people need to die."

"Smear groups and now a desperate McCain campaign are trying to connect Barack to William Ayers using age-old guilt by association techniques . . ." says the Obama Web site.

Actually, McCain and Obama critics are questioning why Obama would continue to associate with a man who, as recently as 2001, said he did not do enough and wished he had bombed more.

Conservatives also note that if Ayers had bombed abortion clinics, the liberal media would brand him a pariah forever. What does it tell us about the liberal media's and Obama's judgment and values that they see nothing wrong with embracing unrepentant terrorist Ayers today?

Claim No. 3: Obama takes advice from executives of troubled mortgage backer Fannie Mae.

"John McCain started smearing Obama about non-existent ties to Fannie Mae in some of his deceptive attack ads," says FightTheSmears.com. The site downplays connections between Obama and two former heads of the giant mortgage-backing institution -- James A. Johnson and Franklin D. Raines -- whose corruption played a key role in the current financial crisis.

But an editorial in the Aug. 27, 2008, Washington Post described Johnson and Raines, as "members of Mr. Obama's political circle."

Raines advised the Obama campaign on housing matters. Obama chose Johnson to select his vice presidential running mate. But because neither are advising Obama today, this Web site's present-tense claim that he "doesn't [not didn't] take advice from Fannie Mae execs" is technically, if deceptively, true.

Johnson also reportedly helped raise as much as $500,000 for Obama's campaign.

And despite Obama's lack of seniority in the U.S. Senate, he pocketed more than $105,000 in political contributions, the third-highest amount given to any lawmaker, directly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama's Web site leaves all this unmentioned.

Claim No. 4: Obama has close ties with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a group suspected of massive voter registration fraud.

Obama's site says the candidate was never an ACORN employee and that ACORN "was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive [Obama] ran in 1992."

In defending Obama, the site resorts to smearing former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell -- calling him a "discredited Republican voter-suppression guru" -- for daring to fight the vote fraud so often associated with operatives of ACORN, among the largest radical groups in the United States.

As Newsmax has documented in ["Clever Obama Tries To Bury ACORN Past,"] Obama's Web site is attempting to deceive when it says Obama was never "hired" to work as a trainer for ACORN's leaders. In fact, he did the work for free from at least 1993 until 2003.

ACORN spokesman Lewis Goldberg acknowledges in the Oct. 11, 2008, New York Times that Obama trained ACORN leaders. And Obama worked as a lawyer for ACORN.

As to heading up Project Vote in Illinois, Obama said during a speech to ACORN leaders last November, "[When] I ran the Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack-dab in the middle of it."

Veteran journalist Karen Tumulty described Project Vote in the Oct. 18, 2004, issue of Time magazine as "a nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now" after interviewing its national director.

The co-founder of ACORN, former Students for a Democratic Society official Wade Rathke, described Project Vote as one of ACORN's "family of organizations."

Over the years, ACORN and its front groups, like the one Obama ran in Illinois, have registered more than 4 million voters. When authorities in Virginia checked ACORN registrations, it found that 83 percent were fraudulent or had problems. This, in theory, could mean ACORN may have created the opportunity for stealing more than 3.3 million votes in this November's election, a margin far wider than that by which Obama is likely to win.

Claim No. 5: Obama has shown only wavering support for individual gun-ownership rights.

"During Barack's career in the Illinois and United States Senates, he proudly stood to defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen," says Obama's Web site, "while doing everything he could to protect children -- including his own two daughters -- from illegal gun violence."

But the National Rifle Association, it continues, "is distributing a dishonest and cowardly flyer that makes confrontational accusations and runs away from verifying them."

Actually, the NRA does a meticulous job of laying out documentation, as Newsmax reported in September ["NRA to Fight Obama Over Gun Rights Flip-Flops,"] to show that Obama has supported handgun confiscation; the handgun ban in Washington, D.C.; a virtual ban on high-powered rifle ammunition; and many other draconian restrictions on Second Amendment rights.

If elected, wrote the NRA, Obama "would be the most anti-gun president in American history."

Claim No. 6: A fervent supporter of abortion rights, Obama supports late-term and partial-birth abortions.

The Obama Web site dismisses such criticism as the work of "radical anti-abortion ideologues running ads against Barack."

But as an Illinois state senator, Obama voted repeatedly against legislation to protect infants who, during a late-term abortion, were "born alive." Such protection, he has argued, already exists in Illinois; it does, but is subject to the abortionist's decision whether such an infant has a good likelihood of survival.

Nurses have reported instances in which surviving aborted babies were left by abortionists to die without water, food, or warmth.

Obama's Web site notes that even the Republican author of one of these bills, former state Sen. Rick Winkel, has written that "none of those who voted against [his bill] favored infanticide."

True, but Obama's site does not quote the rest of Winkel's statement: "[T]heir zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive."

Obama has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record according to NARAL Pro-Choice America; his rating from the National Right to Life Committee is zero.

How extreme is Obama on this issue? In the U.S. Senate, he has voted against bills that would prohibit minors from crossing state lines for abortion without parental notification.

"Look, I got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old," Obama has said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

Claim No. 7: Obama showed little interest or support for American combat troops during his overseas visits.

Doubts about Obama's true support for the military cropped up during a campaign trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Europe.

A widely circulated e-mail, penned by Army Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter, described Obama's visit to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan: "As the Soldiers lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off . . . He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service . . . I swear we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from [Obama]."

Porter later recanted, sending a follow-up e-mail that said, in part: "After checking my sources, information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong." He did not specify which information was wrong, leading Obama skeptics to suspect that this officer has been disciplined by his superiors.

Heading home, Obama touched down in Germany, where he "was scheduled to visit the American hospitals at Ramstein and Landstuhl." But as The Washington Post reported, Obama "canceled the trips after being told by Pentagon officials that he could only visit in his official capacity as a senator, not as a candidate" and could not have his visits with hospitalized soldiers videotaped by the media.

Prominent liberal mainstream media reporters such as NBC's Andrea Mitchell rushed to defend Obama, saying that the press had never planned to cover his visits to military sickbeds. But Obama canceled both visits and used his free time instead to shoot hoops, with the media recording his best shots.

Claim No. 8: Barack Obama is a Muslim.

FightTheSmears.com states bluntly that Obama is a Christian, not a follower of Islam.

In fact, Barack Hussein Obama's Kenyan father was raised Muslim, though he reportedly was not religious.

His mother divorced and remarried another man, a Muslim from Indonesia. As a youngster in Indonesia, Barack Obama attended two schools and was registered at both as a Muslim. He received religious instruction in both schools as a Muslim, including studying the Quran. According to a childhood friend, Obama occasionally attended services at a local mosque.

Obama's Muslim upbringing has been detailed in a 2007 Los Angeles Times report (reprinted in The Baltimore Sun) headlined "Islam an Unknown Factor in Obama Bid." Middle East expert Daniel Pipes has studied the question of Obama's Muslim faith and says he is "lying" when he says he was never a Muslim.

It's important to note that Obama's Web site does not say he was never a Muslim. But in the past, Obama's site and FightTheSmears.com did make the claim Obama was never a Muslim. Since that claim is obviously false, it is no longer used.

Obama says he became a Christian in his late 20s. He now describes himself as Christian. Until recently, he spent two decades as a member of a Chicago United Church of Christ congregation that embraces Black Liberation theology. Somewhat like the Roman Catholic liberation theology of Latin America, the Chicago UCC church preaches elements of neo-Marxist class warfare. It combines these radical socialist elements with black racialism.

Claim No. 9: As president, Obama would raise taxes dramatically for most Americans.

Millions of Americans recognize that Obama is likely to raise taxes. But like a good conjurer, who tricks you into watching his right hand while doing things with his left, the Obama Web site assures readers with a red herring.

The Illinois senator will not tax your water, as claimed in some fringe e-mails, FightTheSmears.com maintains.

What Obama will do, however, is tax businesses and capital gains more heavily, even though America already has the world's second-highest business taxes.

"Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases" said former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson at the 2008 Republican National Convention. "They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax businesses! So unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline . . . or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small business, don't worry. It's not going to affect you."

During his campaign, Obama has promised to raise various taxes that will fall on most economic classes, including the dividend tax, the FICA tax cap, the capital gains tax, the estate tax, and new taxes on gasoline.

He also called for the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which will automatically raise taxes on most Americans. By letting the Bush cuts expire, Obama would produce a $2 trillion tax increase that some economists predict will rumble through the already weakened economy like an earthquake.

Claim No. 10: Obama was born outside the United States and is ineligible for the presidency.

The Obama Web site dismisses the claim that the candidate was born anywhere but in the United States as "completely false" and "groundless."

As proof, the Obama's campaign has produced a "certificate of live birth" from Hawaii indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born Aug. 4, 1961. Critics, however say the document could have easily been forged and is not a substitute for a certified birth certificate.

No reporter has been allowed to see the original certificate of live birth or its certificate number, which is blacked out on copies of it on the Obama site.

Skeptics note that Obama's "Father's Race" is identified on this document as "African," a geographic and modern politically correct term rather than a 1961 racial designation. The standard term used on American birth certificates until the U.S. Census changed it in 1980 would have been "Negro."

Former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, a Democrat with mixed credibility (he has supported conspiracy theories involving 9/11), has filed a lawsuit to force Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate. According to Berg, Obama's paternal grandmother has said she was present at his birth in Kenya, after which his mother promptly returned with her baby to the United States.

If that is true, Obama could be constitutionally ineligible to be president.

The Party Of Interests Versus The Party Of Values
Michael Medved
Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Regardless of the final tallies in the Presidential election, the two major parties will retain their identities as distinctly different sorts of political coalitions: the Democrats as the party of interests and the Republicans as the party of values. Until the nation again faces an undeniable threat to its security and survival, this contrast gives a formidable, long-term advantage to the Democrats.

Consider last night's Democratic victory parties in every corner of the Republic. Prominent among the most enthusiastic celebrants, it's easy to spot the interest groups who provided the party with most of its energy, enthusiasm and money. Labor unions, trial lawyers, alternative energy entrepreneurs, gay activists, teachers, environmentalists, community organizers, university faculties, ethnic advocates, multiculturalists, feminist militants, welfare rights agitators and other liberal constituencies came together in enthusiastic support of the Obama-Biden ticket -- and with the virtual certainty that they'd receive their payoffs from the new administration. Without exception, every important component of the Democratic coalition expects a direct reward from the government under President Obama. Union bosses will get an easier time organizing small business work forces due to the end of secret ballots;"civil rights" leaders will get new support for reparations, ethnic studies and affirmative action; teachers will get raises from federal tax dollars; homosexual organizers expect the transformation of marriage and protection as a persecuted minority; and feminists will run a massive new bureaucracy to administer "comparable worth" laws to set salary levels Because the Democrats promise a vast expansion of governmental spending and power they credibly can pledge benefits for all of the party's most committed loyalists.

Republicans, on the other hand, lack the mobilized interest groups that power the Democrats in every election cycle. None of the most prominent components of the GOP coalition expect to gain directly or personally from political victories. Pro-lifers, for instance, don't seek protection for their own babies, but rather for the disregarded children of others and for a generalized culture of life. Military families pay a formidable, direct price for an unwavering U.S. commitment to fight Islamic terror but still favor such policies because of their view of national honor and security. Gun rights advocates and defenders of traditional marriage seek no benefit from governmental favoritism; instead, they work to protect cherished and time-honored American values from unprecedented assault. Even in the contentious arena of tax policy, few of today's Republicans expect that political victories will bring their personal enrichment. Their chief aim in this political season involved the defeat of Democratic plans to increase tax burdens, government spending and deficits. Senator Obama repeatedly promised that he'd lower, rather than raise, taxes for all but the wealthiest Americans, but even solidly middle class conservatives opposed those plans because of concerns over fundamental economic fairness (should any American give up half his earnings to the government?) and the health of the overall economy.

In the election of 2008, Republicans operated from the beginning under a profound handicap. While the Democrats appealed to specific, well-organized constituencies with the prospect of taxpayer money and bureaucratic favor, the GOP tried to make arguments in behalf of the common good and the general welfare. For many voters, the prospect of short-term gain ("free" health care, subsidized college tuition, and even federal pre-school) trumped any concerns over national security, long term deficits or bureaucratic bloat.

How can the GOP hope to overcome the semi-permanent edge for a rival party that bases its appeal on promises of instant assistance to major chunks of the American electorate?

Following the Republican takeover of both houses of Congress in 1994, the conservatives made a conscious, concerted attempt effort to build a permanent governing majority based on interests and not just values. Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, House leader Tom Delay, lobbyist Jack Abramoff and others launched "the K Street Project" --- an ambitious plan to align major industries and lobbying concerns with the Republican Party in the same way that organized labor, teachers, social workers and trial lawyers became permanently bonded with the Democrats. The effort to expand the party's base and raise unlimited funds through the prospect of constituent gain brought notable election victories for the Republicans but also led directly to the lavish spending on "earmarks" and other dubious appropriations that represented the most conspicuous failing of the Bush administration. When it comes to federal activism or sweeping new initiatives, no party of small government and constitutional limits can hope to compete with its welfare state opponents without sacrificing its credibility and its very soul. In part, the GOP effort to out-do the Democrats in pandering and the service of special interests led directly to the disastrous Congressional defeats of 2006, and to the difficult campaign season of 2008.

The Republicans can only return to a position as the dominant party if some sense of international peril, some imminent and undeniable threat, forces the electorate to focus more on the fate of the country as a whole above the prospect of instantaneous advantages for particular constituencies.

In the last 60 years, Republicans only won electoral majorities and captured the White House from Democrats when Americans found themselves at war. In 1952, the great general Dwight Eisenhower took power from Harry Truman with the U.S. mired in a Korean conflict that the Democrats seemed powerless to win. Richard Nixon took over from Lyndon Johnson in 1968 at the very height of a profoundly bloody Vietnam conflict that claimed hundreds of American lives every week with no end in sight. In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter only after the abject failure of a military expedition to rescue our hostages in Iran, and humiliating Soviet advances in Central America, Africa and Afghanistan. In the election of 2000, George W. Bush sought to oust the Democrats during a time of relative international peace and, predictably, lost to Al Gore in the popular vote. Four years later, with the United States engaged in two costly wars and determinedly facing down the threat of Islamo-Nazi terror, he won a far more clear- cut popular and electoral vote victory.

In the same time period that Republicans seized control from Democrats only at moments of international crisis, Democrats drove out Republicans only at times of relative global calm when promises of self-interested gain could resonate without shame among the electorate. Kennedy replaced Nixon in 1960 only after Eisenhower's restrained and steady leadership led to a relative lull in the Cold War, giving voters the chance to cast their ballots on promises of Medicare for seniors and other big government programs. Carter took over from Ford and Nixon after Americans had withdrawn from Vietnam, Nixon had brought softening relations with both China and Russia, and Kissinger and Nixon had helped the world survive the horribly dangerous Middle Eastern War of 1973. Most famously, Bill Clinton turned out George H.W. Bush with the slogan "The Economy, Stupid!" after the triumphant conclusion of both the Cold war and the first Gulf War gave the public the luxury of ignoring international issues.

Obviously, the campaign of 2008 bears far more resemblance to the "promise-them-anything," domestically-focused elections of 1960, 1976, 1992 and 2000, than to the war-torn, face-down-the-international-threat electoral battles of 1952, 1968, 1980 and 2004. All the polls show that voters placed national security and terrorism far down their lists of priorities this year. The success of the Bush-McCain surge strategy drove the Iraq war off the front pages, with American and Iraqi casualties reaching a new low in the month of October. After seven years of safety from major terrorist attacks, not even disturbing news from Afghanistan could divert the electorate's attention from the huge new governmental initiatives proposed by Barack Obama to benefit his various supporters.

John McCain and his advisors picked an appropriate slogan when they came up with the phrase "Country First." Those two words neatly contrast the Republican emphasis on lasting values and long-term security with the Democratic preference for feel-good, immediate gratification initiatives to pay off the party's hungry and demanding special interests. The final results will indicate whether the people saw the current global economic crisis as serious enough to warrant transcending narrow advantage for the sake of the Republic at large, and placing the security of the national whole above politically popular efforts at pleasing one party's favored parts.

Subject: Fw: From my Boss!

Dear Fellow Business Owners,

As the owner of a business who employs 30 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama will be our next President, and that my taxes and government fees will go up in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, I figure that the Customer will have to see an increase in my prices to them of about 8%. I will also have to lay off 6 of my employees.

This really bothered me for a while, as I believe we are family here and didn't know how to choose who will have to go.

So, this is what I did. I strolled thru the parking lot and found 8 Obama bumper stickers on my employees' cars. I have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem.

If you have a better idea, let me know. I am sending this letter to all Business owners that I know.



JOOA Corp.

Be careful what you and your family wish for...

Obama tax cut 'refunds' those who don't owe tax
Critics call it 'welfare'
Donald Lambro
Monday, October 13, 2008

Barack Obama says he will give 95 percent of all American workers a tax cut but does not mention that his plan would send checks to tens of millions of tax filers who pay no personal income taxes - payments that critics say look "suspiciously like welfare."

Mr. Obama's campaign promise, which he has repeated in his speeches and in the presidential debates, stems from his "Making Work Pay" tax cut that will give a $500 refundable tax credit to every worker or $1,000 to each working couple. But because this provision in his economic-recovery plan is "refundable," a large number of middle- to lower-income workers who have no income-tax liability after taking tax credits and deductions the that Internal Revenue Service allows, will be given the equivalent of the tax cut in the form of direct payments from the U.S. Treasury - funded by higher-income taxpayers.

Because the IRS says that nearly 46 million tax filers - one-third of all filers - had no tax liability in 2006, there is the question of how millions of Americans can receive an income "tax cut" when they pay no taxes.

"It's got to raise alarm bells when you claim you are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families when more than 40 percent of them pay no income taxes," said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity, a grass-roots free-market advocacy group.

"What he's really talking about doing is mailing a check, and to me, that looks more like a welfare program than the kind of real tax relief that would encourage work, savings and investments," Mr. Kerpen said.

The freshman senator's campaign Web site defines the Democrat's tax-relief proposal only in terms of offering workers "middle class tax cuts" and "for 10 million low-income Americans, will completely eliminate their federal income taxes."

But in a recent research paper on federal taxpayers, Scott Hodge, president of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, said, "There will be 47 million tax returns with zero-income tax liability in 2009 under current law. That's one-third of all tax returns and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals."

Mr. Obama repeatedly says in his speeches that almost all workers and "working families" will benefit from his "tax cuts." In last week's second presidential debate with Sen. John McCain in Nashville, Tenn., he said, "What I want to do is provide a middle-class tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans."

At another point in that debate, he enlarged the universe of his tax-cut recipients, saying, "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans."

Investor's Business Daily pointed out earlier this month that Mr. Obama's " 'working families' does not include all households. Throw in singles, retirees, students and the unemployed, and the share getting some tax-related benefit is a good deal less."

No Access For Hollywood?
Brent Bozell III
Saturday, November 01, 2008

Hollywood celebrities campaigning and cavorting with national contenders is a staple of presidential politics. Frank Sinatra is remembered for backing Jack Kennedy. Paul Newman made waves for Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Warren Beatty was part of George McGovern's "Malibu Mafia" in 1972. Ted Kennedy used Carroll O'Connor, famous for playing Archie Bunker, to add to his lunch-bucket appeal in 1980.

Republicans, too, had their moments. Nixon had Hope; the Gipper had the Duke, Jimmy Stewart and others. But these were exceptions to the rule. For a generation this industry comprised of the very rich and very famous has been dominated by the Left. Some know whereof they speak, many are intellectual embarrassments, and all believe the Earth's axis revolves around the 90210 zip code.

In 1992, they flexed their muscle in a spectacular fashion, seemingly everywhere in support of the Man from Hope. The exercise would be repeated every four years thereafter; in the last go-round John Kerry lined up every Affleck and DiCaprio he could find.

Something else was happening within this industry. It has become increasingly radicalized, angry and ugly. The Alec Baldwins were taking to the airwaves to spew venom on anything conservative, while Jessica Lange held a press conference in Spain to denounce America, and Whoopi Goldberg took to the stage in New York to grab her crotch and make jokes about President "Bush."

So what's happening in The Year of the One, with all of Barack Obama's charismatic appeal to the liberal stars? You'd expect a mass levitation, so smitten are they by this man and his message. Instead, there's, relatively, an eerie silence.

Yes, Tinseltown titans have been furiously active with fundraising, but much of that is very hush-hush, behind closed doors, like Barbra Streisand's $9-million soiree in September. Babs kept off camera and kept her verbosity under lock and key.

A few have publicly endorsed him. Many recall how a cavalcade of cool celebrities and singers were featured in a popular YouTube video, but that was in the primary season, when Obama was still battling with Hillary Clinton for the liberal base in Hollywood.

On the other hand, many celebrities have made rapid motions backward to avoid being too closely associated with Obama. Take George Clooney, who publicly declared back in February that he told Obama he thought he was as inspirational as a Jack or Bobby Kennedy, but "I don't want to hurt him by saying that."

Then when it was rumored this summer that Clooney was offering Obama foreign-policy advice, Clooney furiously denied it in a statement: "I have never texted or emailed Sen. Obama. And I'll offer a million dollars to anyone who could prove otherwise. In fact, I've only talked to the senator once in the last year and a half on the phone I would hope that my friend John McCain would join me in condemning this kind of politics."

Translation wasn't necessary: Please don't ruin Obama by associating him with me.

The stars of rap music have been trying to keep their names and faces out of the Obama publicity as well. Vibe magazine lined up a list of hip-hoppers to express their opinions on Obama. Rapper Brad Jordan, who commercially goes by the name "Scarface," was blunt: "Hip hop needs to shut the f--- up right now to get Obama elected."

It appears Camp Obama has sent a message to Camp Hollywood. Keep it down, for now. The last thing he wants is for their radical agenda to be seen as his radical agenda.

Celebrities might also have been watching what happened to Oprah Winfrey, the billionaire Queen of Daytime, after she lent her whopping women's appeal on the campaign trail. She oozed over Obama as "The One," the untouchable leader of the new generation.

But her ratings declined, and her partisan activism eroded her approval ratings: Pollsters found her favorables fell from 74 to 55 percent. An AOL survey of 1.3 million Americans that found 46 percent said the daytime TV host who "made their day" was Ellen DeGeneres, while only 19 percent chose Oprah. Faced with all this, Winfrey retreated to a less activist role, foregoing her traditional role in the last several cycles of interviewing both party nominees on her show when the fall season kicked into gear.

The celebrity aversion to adding their glitzy names to the list of famous people associated with Barack Obama shows something obvious. Celebrities are out of touch with mainstream America, and they know it.

Who Will Run America?
John Stossel
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Some of you think you went to the polls yesterday to pick someone to run America.

"Who do you want to have run this country?" Chris Matthews asked repeatedly on MSNBC.

"One of these guys is going to be running the country," said Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News.

Really? Run the country?

"That has to be a joke -- or a misunderstanding," said George Mason University economist Walter Williams on my recent TV special, "John Stossel's Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics".

Williams pointed out that the White House doesn't govern what happens in your house. And a president certainly cannot control the economy. We, all of us, run the country.

"Politicians have immense power to do harm to the economy. But they have very little power to do good," Williams says.

The failure to understand this is at the root of many of our problems.

"Most of life is outside the government sector," says David Boaz of the Cato Institute. "Most change in America doesn't come from politicians. It comes from people inventing things and creating. The telephone, the telegraph, the computer, all those things didn't come from government. Our world is going to get better and better, as long as we keep the politicians from screwing it up."

It's easy to find examples of government screwing up what it should have left alone.

Take farming. Every year politicians promise to save the family farm, and this year, Congress passed another $300-billion farm bill. More subsidies after generations of subsidies. John McCain opposed the bill, saying that it will "do more harm than good." But Barack Obama and most of Congress supported it.

"Small farms are important," Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas, told me.

"I don't think we want anybody in this country to starve," Rep. Randy Kuhl, a Republican from New York, added.

People would starve?

"They go out of business, and then they'd be forced to move elsewhere and find different jobs," Kuhl replied.

That's not starving. That's finding a different job.

"But if they don't have a job, then they're going to starve."


He and others in Congress also claim that subsidies "insure a food supply for this nation."

That's more nonsense.

It's the free market that "insures" the food supply. You may not know that most farmers get no subsidies. Growers of apples, bananas, broccoli, cabbage, cantaloupe, carrots, cauliflower, grapes, lemons, limes, lettuce, onions, oranges, peaches, pears, pineapples, potatoes, spinach, squash, tangerines, tomatoes and dozens of other crops are on their own. There's no cabbage crisis or pineapple panic.

The farm bill doesn't even keep its other promise: saving family farms.

It's why although Nebraska corn farmer Mike Korth received about half a million dollars in subsidies, he's still against the farm bill. "We sold this on the fact that this is helping the family farmer and the small beginning farmer. It's not. It's hurting them."

That's because most subsidies go to those that are best at manipulating government: the agribusiness giants. Small farms can't compete.

A Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City study found that the more farm aid a county gets, the more likely it is to lose population.

So not only do farm subsidies cost every taxpayer $550 per year, they also raise food prices by paying farmers not to grow certain crops. Other crops are subsidized and exported, destroying the livelihoods of poor farmers in the Third World.

"This is just a crazy system," said the Cato Institute's David Boaz (www.cato.org). "It's left over from the 1930s, left over from the Depression. And it's a great example of how nothing is as permanent as a temporary government program."

Of course, without subsidies, some farms would go out of business. That's OK, says Walter Williams. It's the creative destruction that makes America strong.

"The guy who delivered ice to my house, he doesn't have a job because we have refrigerators. We're better off. We would have been held back if we had tried to save his job."

I said to Congresswoman Jackson Lee, "If this works so well, why don't we just subsidize everything?"

Her answer? "You don't want to push us."

How frightening is that?

Peggy the Moocher
Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Sorry to break the bad news to Joe the Plumber. But the winner of Campaign 2008 is Peggy the Moocher. No matter who moves into the White House, Peggy has good reason to do a happy dance. The plain, ugly fact is that both major political parties are committed to spreading the wealth in one form or another. It's all just a question of how much and how quickly.

Who is Peggy the Moocher? She's Peggy Joseph, a voter in Sarasota, Fla., who exulted earlier this week at a Barack Obama rally that this was "the most memorable time of my life." Why? As she told a Florida reporter on a YouTube video that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands: "Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help [Obama], he's gonna help me."

You can't blame Peggy the Moocher for viewing Obama as the superior Santa Claus. With a relentless messianic campaign, a grievance-mongering wife touting him as the country's soul fixer and a national infomercial promising to take care of every need from night classes to medical bills to rent and fuel-efficient cars, Obama effectively channeled Oprah Winfrey's Big Give.

"Everybody gets a car!" "Everybody gets a car!" And gas. And mortgage payment relief.

But the damning reality for fiscal conservatives is that John McCain's plan for homeowners underwater on their mortgages was even more generous than Obama's.

His $300 billion "rescue" involved directing the Treasury Secretary to "purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers." That was on top of the trillion-plus-dollar "bank" bailout supported by both presidential candidates, the White House and the Democratic leadership; the $85-plus billion to AIG; the $25 billion to automakers; and the $200 billion in capital and credit lines to Fannie and Freddie. And who knows what else we'll be redistributing to the indebted states of New York, California, Massachusetts and all the other Peggy the Moochers, large and small, lining up for their piece of the bailout pie.

McCain assailed massive government spending -- while promising to heap on more massive government spending to pursue home ownership and retention at all costs. It was the Republican, not the Democrat, who entrusted the Treasury Department to renegotiate individual home loans and become chief principal write-down agents for the nation. Both private and public entities are planning for a McCain-esque homeowner salvation plan for borrowers in the red.

It's a swell idea for everyone who bought overpriced homes with Adjustable Rate Mortgages. Those who rented, bought within their means or locked into fixed-rate loans that they could afford are out of luck, naturally. The only sane thing to do in response? Stop paying your mortgage and get in line.

"E Pluribus Unum" is no longer our national motto. These three words are: "Do For Me." As in: What will the government do for me?

On Election Day, the federal government quietly reported that it will borrow a record $550 billion in the current quarter to fund the bipartisan bailout. The Treasury Department plans to borrow more than a half-trillion dollars in the current October-December quarter and another $368 billion in the first three months of next year.

Estimated total for the whole year: $1.4 trillion. Democrats plan to add another $500 billion in "stimulus"-palooza legislation. Credit card companies, utilities, insurance companies, and car loan and student loan debtors await their turn.

The bailout bonanza blurred the differences between the two major political parties, but the Peggy the Moocher video shows there are still basically two starkly contrasting views of government in this country among the rank-and-file electorate. Unlike Joe the Plumber, Peggy sees government as her salvation and the president as her subsidizer-in-chief. She voted with the expectation that the Spreader of Wealth will reward her with payback. Joe just wants Washington to leave him alone to fend for himself.

Obama wants his own SS: 'Civilian National Security Force'!

(YouTube) We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful...

Repub workers thrown out in Philly by Obama thugs

(Townhall.com) GOP Election Board members have been tossed out of polling stations in at least half a dozen polling stations in Philadelphia because of their party status...

Other good articles: http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/

Black Panthers brandishing nightstick intimidates voters: 'We're tired of white supremacy'
November 04, 2008
By Chelsea Schilling

Black Panthers blocked a doorway to a polling station and intimidated voters in Philadelphia, according to a Republican poll observer.

After one of two men wearing Black Panther gear brandished a nightstick to threaten voters, the poll observer called police.

"As I walked up, they closed ranks, next to each other," he told Fox News. "So I walked directly in between them, went inside and found the poll watchers. They said they'd been here for about an hour. And they told us not to come outside because a black man is going to win this election no matter what."

He said he then walked back outside and the man with a night stick told him, "'We're tired of white supremacy' and he starts tapping the night stick in his hand. At which point I said, 'OK, we're not going to get in a fist fight right here,' and I called the police."

Officers escorted the man with the night stick away from the polling location, but the other person in Black Panther gear is a poll watcher and lives in the building where voters are scheduled to cast their ballots. He was allowed to remain on the premises.

To Conservatives Who Are Thinking About Tomorrow
Tony Blankley
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire.

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green & pleasant Land.

In regard to attitude, America's conservatives could do worse than to be moved by those lines of Robert Blake from another place and another time on behalf of a similar sacred cause then not yet realized.

Conservatism always has been and always will be a force to reckon with because it most closely approximates the reality of the human condition, based, as it is, on the cumulative judgment and experience of a people. It is the heir, not the apostate, to the accumulated wisdom, morality and faith of the people.

As a force in electoral politics in any given season, conservatism, like all ideas and causes, is hostage to the effectiveness of the party that carries its banner, the candidates and leaders who articulate its principles and programs, and the engagement and spirit of the people who are its natural adherents.

A dispassionate critique of the performance of each of those elements would have to conclude that the core of the conservative people -- our natural adherents -- were inflamed with both passion and knowledge of conservative principles. It was the party and the candidates, leaders and conspicuous advocates (with some honorable exceptions) who failed both in their visions and their performances a cause that yearned to be well-led.

But fate (if you are a classicist) or the mystery of God (if you are religious) also has played its part this season. Only once since FDR-Truman has the American electorate elected the same party to the White House three times in a row (Reagan, Reagan, Bush -- 1980-1992). And by the way, only once since 1896, when Grover Cleveland declined to run for re-election and William McKinley won, has the American voter not elected the same party to the White House at least twice in a row (Carter, Reagan -- 1976-1980).

Moreover, the Republican Party, our reluctant champion, naturally (if, in a few instances, unfairly) was held to account for two unpopular wars, manifest corruption and managerial incompetence, a collapsed housing market that resulted in a 20-50 percent crash in the home values for most Americans, and a financial crisis that threatens world prosperity and has reduced the value of the average American's stock portfolio by about 40 percent.

But as someone who has been banging around American politics since the Goldwater glory and defeat of 1964, I need to observe that the first explanation of losing causes and losing parties (liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans) almost invariably is to blame incompetent candidates, ineffective messages, and overwhelming events.

At a technical level, that is often true. But at a deeper, historical level, the failure was that the cause was not yet ready to lead. We conservatives were not ready to lead in 1964. By 1980 and 1994, under Reagan and Gingrich, we had figured out how to talk to a majority of the country with both principles and programs that gained a majority endorsement. We no longer were just standing on our high horse declaiming to a nation. We were on the ground, with the people, leading them into the citadel of power.

At a practical level, it is worth considering how Benjamin Disraeli reformed the modern British Conservative Party in the 19th century. (For a fuller account, see David Gelernter's Feb. 7, 2005, article in The Weekly Standard, "The Inventor of Modern Conservatism.")

Disraeli envisioned the Conservative Party as the true national party, while the Whigs were merely the party of intellectual ideas. In that time, English intellectuals and progressives were fascinated with German ideas, just as today Democrats are enchanted with European ideas. Disraeli judged: "In a progressive country, change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change, which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of the people or in deference to abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrines." By championing the vote for the people in a century in which that was inevitable, Disraeli formed a conservative party that dominated British politics for 150 years.

Today there are certain profound values -- free markets and respect for life -- that are renounced at the price of our soul. Free markets, particularly, are under the immediate, explicit assault of the next government. Life may be undermined more surreptitiously.

But as a national cause championed by a national party, a conservative agenda must, for example, learn to speak persuasively to a near majority of Hispanic-Americans, or we will be merely a debating society. When Texas joins states such as Colorado, New Mexico (and even North Carolina, Virginia, Arizona and Florida), where Hispanic votes are necessary for victory, there is no possibility of national governance without finding that voice.

Our challenge is not to retreat to the comfort of self-congratulatory exile but to sweat and bleed -- and be victorious -- in the arena of public opinion.

From: Human Events <HumanEvents@HumanEventsOnline.com>
Subject: President Obama: The Grim Reality

Date: Nov 5, 2008

The Grim Reality, and how to get the truth about Obama you won't find anywhere in the mainstream media

Dear Fellow Conservative:

The Presidential elections are over, but the mainstream media's torrid love affair -- as you can tell from their hideous bias during the campaign with liberal Barack Obama -- will now continue unabated. You cannot count on the liberal mainstream media to give you the truth on Obama's policies and decisions.

President-elect Obama's tax-and-spend policies and international inexperience will have far-reaching, dire consequences. Indeed, this is one of the most crucial times in the history of our nation, both politically and financially. You'll be in the dark unless you let HUMAN EVENTS help keep you up to date.

For instance, all of these stories appeared in HUMAN EVENTS, but were virtually ignored by the mainstream liberal media:

Obama's Thought Police - The Obama campaign demanded that the Justice Department bring criminal charges against a non-profit advocacy organization because it sponsored a TV ad criticizing the close connection between Obama and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers

Obama Spend-O-Rama - What will Obama's spending proposals cost the nation? The media aren't asking - but HUMAN EVENTS did, arriving at a cost of $1.4 trillion over five years

The "No, We Can't" Obamacrats - "Yes, We Can!" may have been Obama's campaign slogan, but defeatism is what he and his fellow Democrats are really about. Win the war in Iraq? No, we can't! Become energy independent by drilling at home and harnessing nuclear power? No, we can't! And just to make sure we can't the Obamacrats have put endless legislative obstacles in our way - as HUMAN EVENTS has been faithfully chronicling week after week

Here is a special offer so you can be included among the intensely loyal conservatives who wouldn't dream of being without the unrivaled revelations in HUMAN EVENTS.

It's the periodical that the peerless Ann Coulter, our legal affairs correspondent and a key participant in our weekly editorial meetings, proudly considers her editorial "home" - and where you can read each and every one of her trenchant, bitingly satirical columns.

Says Ann: "Not only do I write a weekly column for HUMAN EVENTS, I devour it from cover to cover. Why? Because it's the one newspaper I can count on to bring me the absolute, unvarnished, hard-hitting truth. And so should you."

After all, HUMAN EVENTS is the news source President Reagan considered his "favorite newspaper" ... and which still holds high the Reaganesque principles of free enterprise, limited government, traditional moral values, and an unwavering defense of American freedom.

It's the news source that gives voice to the great conservative thinkers of our era -- Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell, L. Brent Bozell, Terence Jeffrey, Jed Babbin, David Limbaugh, Oliver North, Pat Buchanan, and many more.

Ever since our first issue more than 60 years ago, we've made it our business to report the "inconvenient" facts that mainstream reporters go to extraordinary lengths to keep hidden.

And now you can try HUMAN EVENTS with this special introductory offer -- a full 35-week trial subscription at the reduced rate of just $39.95, just over a dollar an issue. That's a saving of $30 off the regular rate.

Plus, we've made a special arrangement for you to receive a free copy of Black Belt Patriotism, a new book by HUMAN EVENTS contributor Chuck Norris who wants Americans to wake up and reignite the landscape with the principles our Founding Fathers held dear. He has a special message for us all.

Chuck Norris to America: Wake Up!

Six-time world middleweight karate champion and action-film star Chuck Norris loves America.

But he isn't afraid to face reality.

"America," Norris says, "seems to have lost its way. As a people, we seem more divided than ever before. Switch on the television and it's clear we've lost our moral compass. Our economy, once celebrated as a guarantor of freedom and prosperity, now seems corrupted by greed, materialism, and uncertainty. Other countries that used to envy us, now despise us. We seem to have lost not only our sense of ourselves but of our place in the world."

But Norris is far from giving up -- and that's why he wrote Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America.

Now, for a limited time, HUMAN EVENTS is making Black Belt Patriotism available to you absolutely FREE.

Here is Chuck Norris' brightly written guide to how we can stop being what he calls "One Nation, Divided, and Without a Clue," and once again become a nation that acknowledges our Creator, values human life, and honors and cares for the family -- a nation with secure borders, free from nightmarish debt, and with liberty and justice for all.

Norris, in sum, envisions a nation of people who are aware of and true to the noble principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Ten Commandments (he even puts the text of all these in an appendix).

CLICK HERE to get your FREE copy of Chuck Norris's Black Belt Patriotism today:



Thomas S. Winter
Editor in Chief, HUMAN EVENTS

P.S. Here is how to tick off a liberal...just subscribe to Human Events today! (And you'll receive a FREE copy of Black Belt Patriotism -- a $26.95 value.)

P.P.S. Make a liberal even madder by subscribing for 70-weeks and also get bestselling book Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less -- absolutely free.

For instant service, call us toll-free at 888.GO.RIGHT (888.467.4448).

Click here to get started today: https://members.humaneventsonline.com/order.php?offer=1344

Chuck Norris describes the eight most important challenges we face as a country and shows how we can emerge victorious and stronger than ever

It seems wherever you turn these days, the news is bad.

Illegal immigrants are swarming over our borders. Our nation and many American families are crippled by debt. We remain vulnerable to Islamist terrorist attacks. Judges ignore the Constitution and instead legislate from the bench. Faith and traditional values are under incessant assault from the media, leftist lawyers, and the liberal establishment -- who think that God, if He exists, might not know best, but liberal-run government certainly does.

Action star turned political spokesman Chuck Norris remembers a better America -- an America of faith, freedom, and respect for tradition, history, and human life. And in Black Belt Patriotism he shows what we need to do to reawaken the American dream, reignite the American spirit, and give our children and grandchildren the America they deserve: an America of freedom, opportunity, and faith.

In ten practical, down to earth chapters, Norris gets back to basics -- mining the insight of our founding fathers and applying their wisdom to the problems of today: immigration, the culture wars, the war against global terrorism, national (and personal) debt, even the epidemic of obesity that is killing more Americans than terrorists do.

Chuck Norris kicks away obstacles to America's renewal, revealing:

Why we cannot make America a better, more decent, more civil place without turning to God

The war against God: How, sometime between 2000 and 2007, the National Park Service took action to hide the inscription "Praise to God" at the top of the Washington Monument

The Bible: How the government in 1777 was so in favor of Bible reading that Congress voted to import 20,000 copies of the Bible for the people of this new nation!

Why the greatest form of power is still restraint and harnessing one's potential to help others

Why Americans need to study and become newly familiar not only with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but also with the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists and other important documents of our history, including the Articles of Confederation, the Bill of Rights, and the Northwest Ordinance

How the most liberal and "progressive" Americans have destroyed the great principle that all human beings are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Why the Founders would be horrified at the bloated federal bureaucracy we have now and the maze of taxes we have to navigate. It was excessive taxation like this that drove the Founders to rebel in the first place!

Why the Founding Fathers believed that a total open-door policy for immigrants would only lead to complete chaos

How our unprecedented history of prosperity will certainly come to an end soon if we continue to allow spending and public debt to spiral up

Why, if the Founding Fathers were here today, they would probably support the Fair Tax

Public schools: How government needs less of a role in running our children's education and more of a role in supporting parents' educational decisions for their children

How, due to the left's distortions and revisions of history, the Founding Fathers are treated as simply folklore and not a legacy to follow -- and why that must change

The unique applied wisdom that contributed to the great achievements of the Founding Fathers

The Biblical beliefs on which the Declaration of Independence is based

Why Americans are increasingly turning to the courts to settle their disputes, and why no one (except maybe lawyers) should see this as a good thing

How, if our government won't hold our taxpayer-supported academic institutions accountable, we must

The two-hundred-year-old history of American relations with Islamic jihadists that could be helpful to our country today

One thing parents must do if they expect their children to live moral lives

Recovering the value of life: How even the Founders who were deists believed that humans were the highest creation of God

How your meals may be filling, but, if you're like most Americans, your body is likely deprived of the nutrients it needs to be healthy

The healthcare crisis in America: how it can be solved only by American Citizens, not by government intervention and bureaucracy that mandates socialized medicine

How do you define the American Dream? And why the answer is so important

The national debt: Why it threatens our continuing ability to experience freedom politically and even personally

President Jimmy Carter: A major reason that we are at loggerheads with Iran in the Middle East today

How we can reclaim America by being willing to make a difference, and finding a way to help -- whether it's socially, politically, financially, or by volunteering in our community, church, school, or local government

Chuck Norris' own Twelve Commandments for finding personal and familial happiness
With the optimistic, get-your-hands-dirty, can-do spirit that typifies what's best about America, Chuck Norris grapples with the toughest problems facing our country and proves that they're no match for Black Belt Patriotism.

And now, for a limited time, we at HUMAN EVENTS are making Black Belt Patriotism available to you absolutely FREE -- just for trying us risk-free.

Here's your chance to be included among the more than 150,000 intensely loyal conservatives who wouldn't dream of going a week without reading the unrivaled revelations in HUMAN EVENTS... especially as the most savage election campaign in recent memory unfolds.

After all, HUMAN EVENTS is the news source President Reagan himself called his "favorite newspaper"... and which still holds high the Reaganesque principles of free enterprise, limited government, traditional moral values, and the staunch, unwavering defense of American freedom.

It's the news source that gives voice to the great conservative thinkers of our era -- Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell, L. Brent Bozell, Terence Jeffrey, Jed Babbin, David Limbaugh, Oliver North, Pat Buchanan, and many more.

It's the periodical that the peerless Ann Coulter, our legal affairs correspondent and a key participant in our weekly editorial meetings, proudly considers her editorial "home" -- and where you can read each and every one of her trenchant, biting satirical columns.

Says Ann: "Not only do I write a weekly column for HUMAN EVENTS, I devour it from cover to cover. Why? Because it's the one newspaper I can count on to bring me the absolute, unvarnished, hard-hitting truth. And so should you."

Ever since our first issue more than 60 years ago, we've made it our business to report the "inconvenient" facts that mainstream reporters go to extraordinary lengths to keep hidden.

For instance, all of these stories appeared in HUMAN EVENTS, but were virtually ignored by the mainstream liberal media...

The "No, We Can't!" Obamacrats: "Yes, We Can!" may be Obama's campaign slogan, but defeatism is what he and his fellow Democrats are really about. Win the war in Iraq? No, we can't! Become energy-independent by drilling at home and harnessing nuclear power? No, we can't! And just to make sure we can't, they put every possible legislative obstacle in our way -- as HUMAN EVENTS faithfully chronicles week after week

"House Democrats Top 100 Broken Promises": our report highlighting a string of broken pledges from the new Democratic majority, and showing how Democrats have tried to weaken national security, retreat from the War on Terror, impose the largest tax hike in U.S. history, create slush funds for earmarks, avoid addressing the looming Social Security crisis... and more.

Obama Spend-O-Rama: What will the Illinois Democrat's 188 (and counting) spending proposals cost the nation? The media isn't asking -- but HUMAN EVENTS did, arriving at a total of $1.4 trillion over five years.

Canada, Here We Come: Many Americans can only shake their heads at the nutty excesses of multiculturalism in Canada, where "Human Rights Commissions" prosecute conservatives and Christians for "hate crimes" because they speak their minds about Islam or homosexuality. That kind of thing could never happen here, right? Wrong, reveals HUMAN EVENTS -- the use of Canadian-style "commissions" to stifle free speech is already under way in some American cities and localities.

Government-Run Childhood: That, in essence, is what Barack Obama proposes in his "Zero to Five" plan -- a collection of programs aimed at getting the government involved in the raising of your children literally from the moment they are born. Not only would his plan increase the incentives for mothers to put their children in someone else's care -- but parents who insist on caring for their own children will be taxed more to pay for it while getting nothing out of it.

Tax-Funded Jihad? Did you hear about the Muslim elementary school that was founded by two Muslim imams... is housed in the same building as a mosque... was named for the Muslim conqueror of Spain ... and is supported by your tax dollars? Of course you didn't -- but you would have if you'd been getting HUMAN EVENTS!

Hugo Goes to Hollywood: Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez is despertately trying to become the first Communist dictator of our "post-Communist" world -- which naturally has won him the admiration of rich liberals from Hollywood to the Hamptons. HUMAN EVENTS exposed who they are in a devastating exposé.

The REAL Spitzer Scandal: Not that NY's Democratic "Luv Guv" was caught consorting with prostitutes -- but that he ever passed for a high-minded "reformer" in the first place. Long before that story broke, HUMAN EVENTS revealed how Spitzer was a big-government bully who repeatedly abused his powers to prey on rivals and further his political career

Torture -- or Life-Saving Anti-Terror Tool? CIA agents recently thwarted a terrorist plan to blow up throngs of Christian worshippers in the Holy Land. How did they do it? HUMAN EVENTS revealed that the agents waterboarded Abu Zubaydah, the terror leader behind the planned killings, into revealing key details of the plot

Send in the Clowns -- er, Protestors: Anti-war protestors recently invaded Washington, D.C. to mark the five-year anniversary of the Iraq War. The Big Media tried to make it all look dignified and in its own way "patriotic" -- but HUMAN EVENTS' on-the-scene reporter revealed the facts they didn't want you to see

"Sorry, We Gave at the UN": The loony "Global New Deal" being pushed by UN bureaucrats that would require rich countries like the U.S. to literally tithe a percentage of their GNP to poor nations

"Target: Homeschoolers": How liberal politicians and bureaucrats are using government power to harass and intimidate parents who try to escape our failing public schools

Public Education's Self-Serving "New Math": How a tax-funded government study inflated the performance of public school students relative to their private-school and home-schooled peers

"Civil Rights," Sharia-Style: How the leading Muslim-American "civil rights" organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) supports terrorists and terror-sponsoring groups like Hamas -- and intimidates other Muslim-Americans who don't

Gracias, Amigo! How is the Mexican government "helping" us stem the tide of illegals? By publishing an 87-page book, with an accompanying DVD, on how its citizens can illegally enter the U.S., with advice on the safest routes through Arizona, California and Texas

No Conversions Allowed: Except to Islam: Who are the new targets of jihadists right here in America? ANSWER: Ex-Muslims who convert to Christianity -- and are now under a death sentence according to mainstream, not radical, Islamic law

"HillaryCare" is Back: And now Big Business is behind it too. But while America is heeding the siren call of "free" health care, Canadians are experimenting with free-market reforms to fix the nightmarish problems plaguing their system -- which include months-long (sometimes years-long) waiting lists for treatment

"The Top 10 Corporate Welfare Queens": how big businesses grow fat and rich off taxpayers thanks to special treatment by the federal government -- including insider deals, government guarantees, and fixed prices

"Your Tax Dollars at Play": Week after week, HUMAN EVENTS exposes incredible but true examples of wasteful spending by Congress -- like $175,000 for "therapeutic horsemanship" in Pennsylvania... $450,000 for "trout genome mapping" .. $50 million (!) for an indoor exhibit about the rainforest... and $90,000 for olive fruit fly research in France! (much more to come, alas)

But you get much more than great reporting and liberal myth-busting in HUMAN EVENTS. Each week, we give you wall-to-wall coverage of the entire political and cultural scene, with over 16 regularly-appearing features.

For instance, "Capital Briefs" brings you behind the scenes with Washington's deal-makers and power-brokers...

... "Page 3" confronts liberal lawmakers with the kind of tough questions the Big Media won't ask -- and then puts their outrageous answers on record...

... and "Jihad Watch" by the courageous Robert Spencer keeps tabs on jihadists and their "moderate" Muslim defenders both at home and abroad.

And now you can try HUMAN EVENTS with this special introductory offer -- a full 35-week trial subscription at the reduced rate of just $39.95, just over a dollar an issue. That's a saving of $30 off the regular rate: https://members.humaneventsonline.com/order.php?offer=1344

Among the Other Voters
November 04, 2008

CHICAGO, Ill. -- Among the other voters who have shown up to vote at Shoesmith Elementary School this morning, where Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., will vote: Louis Farrakhan and William Ayers.


Welcome to the South Side of Chicago.

- jpt

Obama speechwriter defects to McCain
'I didn't leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me'
Tuesday, November 04, 2008

A long-time Democratic speechwriter who claims to have written for both Barack and Michelle Obama has announced she is leaving the Democratic Party and endorsing John McCain for president.

Wendy Button, a frequent columnist for the Huffington Post, where she is credited with writing speeches for Democratic Sens. John Edwards, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John Kerry and for Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, made the announcement in a blog post called "So Long, Democrats" on The Daily Beast.

Button's reasons for defecting from the Democrats include false campaign slogans, poor economic policy and her admission that McCain was right about the surge in Iraq; but her argument begins with outrage over the way the Obama campaign attacked two women and a common man -- Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber -- the kind of people she thought the Democratic Party championed.

"I can no longer justify what this party has done and can't dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics," Button writes.

She says "the final straw" came when Democrats attacked and mocked Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a. Joe the Plumber) for balking at a tax hike during difficult economic times.

"The party I believed in wouldn't look down on working people under any circumstance," Button writes. "And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations."

Button further railed on Democratic fiscal policy, stating, "Our approach to problems -- big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies -- is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?

"That's not exactly the philosophy of a Democrat," she concludes.

Button takes exception in her article to the way her former party has mocked McCain's age, used Palin's wardrobe to score political points and portrayed the Republican VP candidate as stupid.

Button writes of Palin, "When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper." She even praises Palin for her determination and humility, despite stating she disagrees with the governor on social issues.

"Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008," Button writes. "It's not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: 'I didn't leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.'"

Button's article has generated hundreds of responses from The Daily Beast's readers.

One poster writes, "How can you possibly fault the Democratic Party for undermining the goals and mocking the aspirations of women and members of the working class? Have you paid attention to anything that has happened in this country for the last 30 years?"

A more supportive response came from another reader: "Thank you Wendy for having the resolve to look at who's who in this election and stand up for the people of America rather than just a party."

WND contacted the Obama campaign for comment and to seek confirmation that Button worked with Obama but received no reply.

Reasons Not to Vote for Barack Obama, In His Own Words

Click here and here.

Analysis © 2008 by G. Edward Griffin
Published 2008 April 25

On April 22, 2008, we received an email from a new subscriber to our news service who was having trouble with the concepts of collectivism and capitalism. This is a common problem for those who are newly introduced to these concepts, so we are reprinting the email and my reply below:

SUBSCRIBER: I just watched an interview with Mr. Griffin about the federal reserve and immediately signed up for the newsletter. As I was browsing, I began to realize that some of the principles held by the organization seemed contradictory to the sentiment expressed in the interview. Specifically about collectivism. Is there any place, any resource, the water supply, anything that belongs to all of us?

REPLY: It depends on the definition of belong. In one sense, nothing ever belongs to anyone. In another, everything belongs to those who have the physical or military strength to claim it. In yet another sense, things (including natural resources) belong to those who develop them and make them accessible to others. Each society has its own view of this. In a society of individualism, there is a right of ownership for those who offer added value to the natural resources. In other words, copper in the ground is useless until it can be mined and refined. If people were not allowed to own the land and the raw resources, there would be no incentive to do the mining or refining, and it would stay in the ground forever.

SUBSCRIBER: What gives the people who own huge amounts of the pie the right to keep it forever and pass it on to their children?

REPLY: What gives people who own small amounts of the pie the right to take it from those with large amounts? Theft is not justified by the envy of those who steal.

SUBSCRIBER: How is that any different than Kings or Dictators?

REPLY: Stealing from the rich is no different from stealing from the poor and no different from stealing by kings and dictators.

SUBSCRIBER: Some people simply don't have the tools to run in the economic rat race.

REPLY: Correct. We should help them if we can but that does not justify coercing others to be generous if they don't want to be. If we grant that principle, then we have no complaint when others coerce us to do things that we do not care to do. Coercion in the name of good causes is the foundation of modern tyranny.

SUBSCRIBER: Capitalism is fine for capitalists.

REPLY: There are two kinds of capitalism: Competitive capitalism and monopoly capitalism. The first is good for everyone. The second is good for only the monopolists. Incidentally, monopoly capitalism is the foundation of collectivism. All monopoly capitalists forge partnerships with government as the way in which they maintain their monopolies. They love socialism, communism, neo-conservatism, and all other variants of collectivism, as you no doubt have observed from present-day elitists, all of whom are collectivists.

SUBSCRIBER: But look what capitalists are doing in the world...buying up mineral rights and water rights and stomping on any nation that dares to nationalize their resources so they can take care of their citizens.

REPLY: These are not competitive capitalists. They are monopoly capitalists who are partners with politicians and who use government to enforce their monopolies. They hate competition. None of them seek free-enterprise competition. They are the ruling collectivists partnered with government to enforce their monopolies.

SUBSCRIBER: Social agreements do not necessarily have to be corrupt.

REPLY: Agreed. But eventually they always do become corrupt when they allow coercion for redistribution of wealth. In other words, collectivism always corrupts.

SUBSCRIBER: How about roads...should every road become a toll road?

REPLY: Not necessarily. This question tells me that you have not read my essay entitled The Chasm in which I addressed this issue in a footnote at the bottom of page 16. You will find The Chasm at the bottom of the Issues section of the Freedom Force site. Here is the link: www.freedom-force.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=issues. Thank you for your interest.

A Survivor shows parallels between Naziism and trends in the U.S.
© 2004 by G. Edward Griffin

One of the most important realities of our time is that there is little difference between Communism, Naziism, Fascism, Fabianism, Socialism, and what is now being sold to the American people as Americanism. All of these systems are a single phenomenon. They are but variants of an ideology called collectivism. (For an analysis of collectivism, see The Chasm elsewhere in the Issues section of this site. This becomes crystal clear when one compares what is now unfolding in the United Sates with events that occurred in Nazi Germany. The parallels are chilling.

Several years ago, The Reality Zone released an audio presentation on this topic called Lesson from Austria, the personal testimony of Kitty Werthman who saw Hitler's rise to power in her country. (Available at http://www.realityzone.com/audarvoliii.html ) Werthman reminds us that Hitler was eagerly welcomed by the Austrian people because the Nazis promised free health care, retirement income, unemployment benefits, guaranteed wages, free nursery care, equal rights for women, gun control to reduce crime, and other enticements that now are a part of the political scene in all countries.

Now, we have a powerful statement from another survivor of the Nazi system who shows the continuing parallels that have developed after 9-11, particularly the introduction of so-called homeland security and the glorification of war. The following testimony appeared as a letter to the editor at www.truthout.org dated January 9, 2004. My commentary is included at the end.

The Bush Hitler Thing

Dear Sir,
My family was one of Hitler's victims. We lost a lot under the Nazi occupation, including an uncle who died in the camps and a cousin killed by a booby trap. I was terrified when my father went ballistic after finding my brother and me playing with a hand grenade. (I was only 12 at the time, and my brother insisted the grenade was safe.) I remember the rubble and the hardships of 'austerity' - and the bomb craters from Allied bombs. As late as the 1980s, I had to take detours while bombs were being removed - they litter the countryside, buried under parking lots, buildings, and in the canals and rivers to this day. Believe me, I learned a lot about Hitler while I was growing up, both in Europe and here in the US - both my parents were in the war and talked about it constantly, unlike most American families. I spent my earliest years with the second-hand fear that trickled down from their PTSD - undiagnosed and untreated in those days.

I'm no expert on WWII - but I learned a lot about what happened in Germany - and Europe - back in those days. I always wondered how the wonderful German people - so honest, decent, hard-working, friendly, and generous - could ever allow such a thing to happen. (There were camps near my family's home - they still talk about them only in hushed conspiratorial whispers.) I asked a lot of questions - we were only a few kilometers from the German border - and no one ever denied me. My relatives had obviously spent a lot of time thinking about the war - they still haven't forgotten - I don't think anyone can forget such a horrible nightmare. Among the questions I asked:

Why didn't you do anything about the people in the camps?
Everyone was terrified. People "disappeared" into those camps. Sometimes the Nazis came and lined everyone up, walking behind them - even school children - with a cocked pistol. You never knew when they would just shoot someone in the back of the head. Everyone was terrified. Everyone was disarmed - guns were registered, so all the Nazis had to do was go from house to house and demand the guns.

Didn't you see what was happening?
We saw. There was nothing we could do. Our military had no modern weapons. The Nazis had technology and resources - they just invaded and took over - we were overwhelmed by their air power. They had spies everywhere - people spying on each other, just to have an 'ace in the hole' in case they were accused - and anyone who had a grudge against you could accuse you of something - just an accusation meant you'd disappear. Nobody dared ask where you had gone - anyone who returned was considered suspicious - what had they said, and who did they implicate? It was a climate of fear - there's nothing anyone can do when the government uses fear and imprisonment to intimidate people. The government was above the law - even in Germany, it became "every man for himself." Advancement was possible by exposing "traitors" - anyone who questioned the government. It didn't matter if the people you accused were guilty or not - just the accusation was enough.

Did anyone know what was going on?
We all knew. We imagined the worst because the Nazis made 'examples' of a few people in every town and village. Public torture and execution. The most unspeakable atrocities were committed in full view of everyone. If this is what happened in public, can you imagine what might be going on in the camps? Nobody wanted to know.

Why didn't the German people stop the Nazis?
Life was better, at first, under the Nazis. The war machine invigorated the economy - men had jobs again, and enough money to take care of their family. New building projects were everywhere. The shops were full again - and people could afford good food, culture, and luxuries. Women could stay home in comfort. Crime was reduced. Health care improved. It was a rosy scenario - Hitler brought order and prosperity. His policies won widespread approval because life was better for most Germans, after the misery of reparations and inflation. The people liked the idea of removing the worst elements of society - the gypsies, the homosexuals, the petty criminals - it was easy to elicit support for prosecuting the corrupt, "evil" people poisoning society. Every family was proud of their hometown heroes - the sharply-dressed soldiers they contributed to his program - they were, after all, defending the Fatherland. Continuing a proud tradition that had been defeated and shamed after WWI, the soldiers gave the feeling of power and success to the proud families that showered them with praise and support. Their early victories were reason to celebrate - in spite of the fact that they faced poorly armed inferior forces - further proof that what they were doing was right, and the best thing for the country. The news was full of stories about their bravery and accomplishments against a vile enemy. They were "liberating" these countries from their corrupt governments.

These are some of the answers I gleaned over the years. As a child, I was fascinated with the Nazis. I thought the German soldiers were really something - that's how strong an impression they made, even after the war. After all, they weren't the ones committing war crimes - they were the pride of their families and communities. It was just the SS and Gestapo that were "bad." Now I know better - but that pride in the military was a strong factor for many years, only adding to the mystique of military power - after all, my father had been a soldier too, but in the American army. It took a while to figure out the truth.

Every time I've gone back to Europe, someone has taken me to the "gardens of stone" - the Allied cemeteries that dot the countryside. With great sadness, my relatives would stand in abject misery, remembering the nightmare, and asking "Why?" Maybe that's why they wouldn't support the US invasion of Iraq. They knew war. They knew occupation. And they knew resistance. I saw the building where British flyers hid on their way back to England - smuggled out by brave families that risked the lives of everyone to help the Allies. As a child, I had played in a basement where the cow lived under the house, as is common there. The same place those flyers hid.

So why, now, when I hear GWB's speeches, do I think of Hitler? Why have I drawn a parallel between the Nazis and the present administration? Just one small reason - the phrase "Never forget." Never let this happen again. It is better to question our government - because it really can happen here - than to ignore the possibility.

So far, I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility that Bush is on the same course as Hitler. And I've seen far too many analogies to dismiss the possibility. The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism. The flag waving. The pretext of "preventive war." The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice. The disappearances of "undesirable" aliens. The threats against protesters. The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The occupation of a hostile country. The promises of prosperity and security. The spying on ordinary citizens. The incitement to spy on one's neighbors - and report them to the government. The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest. The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to "fallen warriors." The diversion of money to the military. The demonization of government appointed "enemies." The establishment of "Homeland Security." The dehumanization of "foreigners." The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy. The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill. The growing prosperity from military ventures. The illusion of "goodness" and primacy. The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams. Closed extralegal internment camps. The militarization of domestic police. Media blackout of non-approved issues. Blacklisting of protesters - including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies.

There isn't much doubt in my mind - anyone who compares the history of Hitler's rise to power and the progression of recent events in the US cannot avoid the parallels. It's incontrovertible. Is Bush another Hitler? Maybe not, but with each incriminating event, the parallel grows - it certainly cannot be dismissed. There's too much evidence already. Just as Hitler used American tactics to plan and execute his reign, it looks as if Karl Rove is reading Hitler's playbook to plan world domination - and that is the stated intent of both. From the Reichstag fire to the landing at Nuremberg to the motto of "Gott Mit Uns" [God is with us] to the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq to the insistence that peace was the ultimate goal, the line is unbroken and unwavering.

I'm afraid now, that what may still come to pass is a reign far more savage and barbaric than that of the Nazis. Already, appeasement has been fruitless - it only encourages the brazen to escalate their arrogance and braggadocio. Americans support Bush - by a generous majority - and mass media sings his praises while indicting his detractors - or silencing their opinions completely. The American people seem to care only about the domestic economic situation - and even in that, they are in complete denial. They don't want to hear about Iraq, and Afghanistan is already forgotten. Even the Democratic opposition supports the occupation of Iraq. Everyone seems to agree that Saddam Hussein deserves to be executed - with or without a trial. "Visitors" are fingerprinted. Guilty until proven innocent. Snipers are on New York City rooftops. When do the Stryker teams start appearing on American streets? They're perfectly suited for "Homeland Security" - and they've had a trial run in Iraq. The Constitution has been suspended - until further notice. Dick Cheney just mentioned it may be for decades - even a generation, as Rice asserts as well. Is this the start of the 1000 year reign of this new collection of thugs? So it would seem. I can only hope that in the coming year there will be some sign - some hint - that we are not becoming that which we abhor. The Theory of the Grotesque fares all too well these days. It may not be Nazi Germany - it might be a lot worse.

SL | Wisconsin

Commentary by G. Edward Griffin

As we approach the 2004 presidential election, there is an increasing crescendo of anti-Bush sentiment that appears to be motivated, not by concern over the loss of our freedom, but by a revulsion against our war in Iraq and a partisan drive to replace a Republican president with a Democrat. It is an age-old ploy: Focus on the evils of the leader and hope that people will not look too carefully at the man who is preparing to replace him. In this case, the Democratic hopeful, Mr. John Kerry, is a card-carrying collectivist exactly like Mr George W. Bush, but the voters are not supposed to think about that. They are expected to be so alarmed over the performance of the Bush Administration in Iraq that they will be blinded to the fact that, for decades, both political parties have followed exactly the same long-range agenda. It is to expand government at home and to merge the U.S into a so-called New World Order based on the model of collectivism. Voters are led to believe that, by choosing between the Democratic and Republican parties, they have a choice. They actually think they are participating in their own political destiny; but that is an illusion. To a collectivist theoretician like Professor Carroll Quigley [President Clinton's former teacher at Georgetown University], it is a necessary illusion to prevent voters from meddling into the important affairs of state. If you have ever wondered why the two American parties appear so different at election time but not so different afterward, listen carefully to Quigley's approving overview of American politics:

The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War). … The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies. [Taken from Tragedy and Hope, by Carroll Quigley, pp. 1247-1248. Available at http://www.realityzone.com/tragedy.html

We must understand this perspective when appraising the parallels between Naziism and the ideology that now is embraced by most government leaders in the Western world. It has nothing to do with individual leaders, their campaign rhetoric, or their personal style. Collectivism is the culprit, and we will not recapture our freedom by merely switching back and forth between candidates selected by political parties all of which are dedicated to collectivism. We must have leaders who will stand against collectivism in all its forms and who will declare for individualism, as summarized in The Creed of Freedom. (See The Creed of Freedom elsewhere on this site.)

G. Edward Griffin
April 25, 2004

Republicans Will Emerge Stronger Than Ever
Thursday, November 6, 2008
by Dick Morris

If ever there was an election that was not worth winning, it was the contest of 2008. While it was hard-fought on both sides, had McCain won, it might have spelled the end of the Republican Party. As it is, the party is well-situated to come back in 2010 and in 2012, if it learns the lessons of this year.

Simply put, all hell is about to break loose in the markets and the economy.

The mortgage crisis will likely be followed by defaults in credit card debt, student loans and car loans. We will probably be set for two years of zero growth, according to economists with whom I talk. And the federal efforts to protect the nation from the worst of the recession will probably lead to huge budget deficits and resulting inflation. We are in for stagflation that could last for years.

Had McCain won, he would be the latter-day Hoover, blamed for the disaster that unfolded on his watch. Now it is Obama's problem. With the Republicans suffering a wipeout in congressional elections (although not as bad as they feared), the ball is now squarely in the Democratic court. Good luck!

If Obama raises taxes, the situation could get even worse. With a liberal Congress on his hands, he will be constrained to move to the left, if he needs any pushing.

When Clinton was elected in 1992, the Democrats in control of Congress gave him a clear message: Either you govern within the four walls of the Democratic Caucus or you won't get our support. Crossing the aisle to get Republican votes, even including the GOP in negotiations, was a no-no for which the president would pay dearly if he transgressed.

The result was predictable. Moderate initiatives like welfare reform were scrapped, the Congress passed tax hikes and legislation became festooned with liberal amendments.

Faced with the need to round up every last vote in the Senate and House Democratic caucuses, Clinton had no choice but to load up conservative bills like an anti-crime measure with liberal pork (like a provision for midnight basketball courts in urban areas) to get unanimous caucus backing.

Obama will have to move left to appease his caucus. He will become their hostage, and they his jailers.

This dynamic will produce extreme-left-wing governance, which the Republicans can blame for the continuation of the recession and for any worsening. The party will recover, fed by anger at Obama's policies, and will emerge from this defeat stronger than ever.

But the Republicans must learn the lesson of MoveOn.org. Founded in the bleak days of the Clinton impeachment, MoveOn developed a grass-roots Internet base. Building up its e-list of activists and contributors, MoveOn laid the basis for the incredible Internet appeal of the Obama campaign. At last count, Obama has 4.5 million donors, most online.

Conservatives cannot count on the Republican Party to fight their battles for them, and certainly cannot count on them to win. The right needs to develop cyber-roots conservative organizations to rival the power of groups like MoveOn.org.

The stellar efforts of Newsmax.com and its ally, GOPtrust.com, illustrate the power of such efforts. Together, these groups raised $10 million for an independent expenditure on media in swing states featuring the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-American bombast.

And their efforts worked.

Virtually all the polls agreed that Obama would win 52 percent to 53 percent of the vote, but the surveys varied in the amount of undecideds they found.

On Election Day, virtually every undecided voter went to McCain, and Obama's final vote share was no more and no less than the 52 percent to 53 percent the surveys had predicted. This unanimity among undecided voters is attributable to the endgame of groups like GOPtrust.com and Newsmax.com.

These groups have to lead the way in running media to battle against the leftist legislation that will undoubtedly emanate from the Obama administration and the liberal Congress America has just elected. Then they can become the basis for a Republican resurgence, just as MoveOn.org was this year for the Democrats.

Emigration for Freedom
Friday, October 10, 2008
By: Lev Navrozov

To my eternally young wife (and editor), Muza, on her birthday.

The verb "emigrate" originated in English in 1778 and the noun "immigrant" in 1789, but emigration has accompanied mankind throughout history. At the end of the first millennium, there was not yet a single German in Berlin, nor a single Russian in Moscow, nor a single Hungarian in Budapest (in fact, there was no city under this name until 1873). Madrid was not a Spanish settlement; it was a Moorish settlement, and no Turks lived in Ankara.

Christopher Columbus was a Genoese navigator for Spain; his Spanish name was Cristóbal Colón, and when he died in 1506, he still thought that the country he had landed in was India. Immigrants were a major factor of transformation of this "India" into today's America, speaking "American English," which differs slightly from "British English" or the English of other modern English-speaking countries. America also adheres to constitutionalism; that is, personal freedom.

In the 20th century, three major slave states came into being: Russia, Germany, and China, and the chief aim of emigration or flight from these slave states was personal freedom.

Just as in many other countries, private slavery in Russia was called "serfdom." It was abolished in 1861 by Tsar Alexander II.

The serfs were the property (just like dogs or cattle) of their owners for whom they worked, mostly as peasants, were taken care of, and could be sold to other owners.

The Soviet state slaves were described by the Soviet slave-state media as the freest citizens on earth. This included the entire population, which actually belonged to the same slave-owner, glorified by the slave-state media as the greatest founder and leader of the "first free country in world history."

It was assumed by the Soviet slave-state media that the United States and other "bourgeois" countries feared the new free Soviet society and sent their agents in to subvert it. Anyone who was heard to contradict the slave-state media was arrested as such an agent to be sent to a "labor camp" to do "honest work" -- or was shot.

It is not psychiatrically surprising that my wife and I, both born Russians, studied English to transform ourselves, at least in our imagination, into dwellers of English-speaking countries. On the other hand, the dictatorship of Soviet Russia needed English-speaking Russians.

For example, it was said in the West that Soviet Russia did not publish the greatest Russian writer Dostoyevsky because he was not "politically correct." So the Publishing House of Literature in Foreign Languages in Moscow began to publish my translations of Dostoyevsky. My wife became later, in the United States, a senior editor at McGraw-Hill, and if her English was good enough to be a senior editor in New York, it was certainly good enough for Moscow.

Then, in an attempt to flirt with President Nixon's détente, several hundred "Soviet citizens," born and bred in Russia, including my wife, our son, my mother and me, were "allowed to emigrate"! It was an incredible dream . . . yet we were more awake than ever.

However, even such a miracle did not eliminate the question of how I would make a living in that dream. Surely Western publishers had no need for new translations of Dostoyevsky.

True, I intended to smuggle out a manuscript, and it was published after we arrived in the United States by Harper & Row as a 628-page volume entitled "The Education of Lev Navrozov." It received glowing reviews in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other such beacons. But who could foresee it?

There was another possible path for me. Shortly before this miracle of being born again in the other world, one of the biggest Moscow drama theatres had asked me for an American play worth staging, but likely to be permitted to be staged by the Soviet censorship. I proposed my translation of "The Gentle People," which Irwin Shaw had published in 1939. The Soviet censorship accepted the play, since all Americans in it were miserable: The worker owning a good house was miserable, since he wanted to spend his life fishing off his raft. His wife was miserable too -- when asked about her health, she always replied, "I'm dying."

Their daughter wanted to dance on the deck of a fashionable cruiser that passed by. Her father's fishing friend was miserable because she ignored him and paid more attention to the local hoodlum, who had extorted money from her father to spend it on a bit of glamorous life for her.

Finally, her father and his friend invited the hoodlum for a trip on their raft, killed him in a comically inept way, and threw his body off the raft.

Why had I chosen this play? I believed that a new stretch of great American prose appeared with Hemingway after World War I. It was based on the rhythm of the English language. In Irwin Shaw's play, the hoodlum, who bought orchids, but didn't know that orchids do not smell, kept repeating in Hemingway's rhythm: "Three dollars apiece, and they don't smell!"

In the United States, I bought Irwin Shaw's 346-page novel published in 1979 "The Top of the Hill." I spoke with the publisher of Chronicles of Culture. He was from Poland, and he believed that the great American literature between the two world wars was going away. So he began to publish my reviews in his magazine.

Thus I wrote in the January/February, 1980, issue of his magazine that, while Irwin Shaw's "The Gentle People" of 1939 showed traces of great American prose, his "The Top of the Hill" 40 years later showed zero. In such cases it would be better to show movies.

Irwin Shaw presented himself at the Chronicles of Culture and screamed at the editor as though the editor were obliged to publish only reviews of books that the authors of those books heartily approved.

But I continued to assert in my reviews that in its sterility the American prose was now not unlike the Soviet literature, except that the Soviet slave-state censorship had destroyed the great Russian literature, while similar array of pseudo-literature appeared in the United States possibly because it was equally profitable to publish a book of genius and "The Top of the Hill."

Well, every free country consists of cultural contradictions, yet freedom makes it possible to choose. There was a time when even many Americans were sure that there should be no performances of classical music in the United States because the American music was jazz.

But surely in freedom this would not be obligatory for everyone, and classical music could be performed.

Freedom opens up beauty and wisdom for you personally even if no one else appreciates it.

As a writer, I write in my articles what I think -- even if I were the only specimen of mankind willing to think so.

After the last Soviet dictatorship (of Gorbachev) collapsed in 1991 and Boris Yeltsin became the president, it was possible for me to "write politics" for former Soviet media giants such as "Izvestia." My joke was that I had emigrated from Russia to Russia with my press center in New York. Unfortunately, Yeltsin was replaced, with his own blessing, by Vladimir Putin.

From Stalin's Russia, I have brought out my experience of slave states. I have been trying to convey my experience to the West, and in the 1990s, also to Russia. I hope more can be done in this respect.

We -- my wife, my son, and I -- hope we can get from the West a bit of what we need and give the West a bit of what it needs. This is what the emigration for freedom is all about, is it not?

You can e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.

Will There Be Less Bloodshed in 21st Century?
Friday, October 17, 2008
By: Lev Navrozov

Today, it is often assumed that the reason there was so much bloodshed in the 20th century is that there were so many ruthless bigots (such as Hitler, Stalin, or Mao), who became, due to their ruthless bigotry, the de facto owners of their countries. They would, out of their ruthless bigotry, exterminate human beings like so many insects or microbes.

But let us look at the history of the 20th century, not as a volume published because its author has a high academic rank, but based on its bits of undeniable evidence.

After World War I, Germany was declared by the Treaty of Versailles to have caused that war, and the treaty made Germany virtually defenseless, ignoring, as the treaty did, the possibility of Soviet Russia's aggression.

There was one German World War I solder named Adolph Hitler, who began to speak out and write in Munich after World War I against the Treaty of Versailles and thus rose to power in 1933 because his Reichstag anti-Versailles-Treaty party received 44 votes, more than twice that of any other Reichstag party.

Alfred Rosenberg, a son of a Russian shoemaker of German extraction, appeared at the age of 26 in Munich after Lenin and other Russian Marxists had come to power in Russia in 1917 and 1918. On the advice of a Munich magazine editor, for which both Hitler and Rosenberg wrote, they met.

Since many Soviet Marxists were Jews, just as was Marx himself, Alfred Rosenberg argued that what had happened in 1917 and 1918 in Russia had been a conspiracy of Jews as a "race" for the benefit of Jews.

Yes, many of Lenin's, and then Stalin's, top subordinates were Jews! Well, there had been, under the Russian monarchy, a fairly vicious anti-Semitism in Russia (recall the pogroms, massacres of helpless civilian inhabitants of a Jewish town or settlement).

Now some Jews had reacted by becoming anti-monarchist, Marxist, and "revolutionary." The father of Alfred Rosenberg was a shoemaker, and Marxism had been against private enterprise. That was yet another cause for some members of the Russian middle class to hate Jewish Marxists.

Hitler digested Rosenberg's speeches, articles, and books. Why not add anti-Semites to his potential voters? Hitler included Rosenberg's anti-Semitism into "National Socialism."

He assigned to Rosenberg the top position on the radio, which later he transferred to Joseph Goebbels. Alas, Rosenberg had a Russian accent, and so his career became confined to the press.

In contrast to Rosenberg, Hitler's anti-Semitism was not "a cry of the heart," but a move in a political game. The Hitlers' family doctor in Austria was a Jew. Even later, when Germany occupied Austria in 1938 (Anschluss), Hitler ordered an official to help the physician and his family sell their house and emigrate safely from the now anti-Semitic Austria. The Jewish doctor described Hitler's care for him and his family in the U.S. press.

When Hitler sustained a defeat at Moscow in late 1941 from the newly arrived Soviet Far Eastern and Siberian troops, he feared that now his subordinates would betray him to the English-speaking countries to earn mercy for themselves.

So he ordered them to begin the extermination of Jews ("The Final Solution"), but it was not to be known that he had ordered it.

Well, some Western historians refuse to acknowledge this even today, though the trick had been used way back in the 19th century -- the chief of a criminal gang made his subordinates commit crimes. If they betrayed him to the police, the latter would know about their crimes.

Hitler was a foot soldier of World War I -- mentally, no more. Germany could have produced the atom bomb ahead of the United States, and Hitler could have begun World War II after he had acquired it. But he was so inept (yes, he was at the mental military level of a World War I foot soldier) that he attacked Russia and starved his atom bomb project, financially. He lost the war as an ordinary foot soldier in the role of the supreme commander-in-chief.

Even before the war was over, Stalin began to imitate Hitler's anti-Semitic "national socialism." Mass dismissals of Jews began after the war. Phony trials were to demonstrate that the Jewish doctors were killing their patients. All Jews were to be sent to an uninhabited area, and it was said that on the way there, they would be thrown into a lake off the bridge across the lake.

Only Stalin's death in 1953 prevented the Soviet "final solution."

When World War II was still on, there was emerging yet another (huge) state slavery cage country -- Mao's China, resembling Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. The Islamic world remains a huge mosaic of countries, but they may yet be united into a China-like giant.

In the 21st century the free world is more endangered than it was in the 20th. The post-nuclear weapons are being developed in China in the 21st century on an unprecedented scale, while the geostrategic mentality in the free countries is hardly better than it was in the 20th century. (I recall the first two presidential debates I saw.)

It is still insufficiently understood in the free West that the totalitarian owners are motivated not by their evil pathology, but by the fear of losing their absolute power (along with their lives!).

When Hitler began to sustain defeats in World War II, an attempt on his life was made by his subordinates, one of whom brought a bomb in his briefcase to their meeting at a table. The bomb exploded, but Hitler survived; however, he was traumatized to the end of his life when he committed suicide. Either you gain the world or lose your own life.

By the Falun Gong tortures, the pseudo-emperors of China of the 21st century surpassed Hitler, Stalin, and possibly Mao in cruelty, not because they are more evil, but because it is harder for them to preserve their absolute power.

They could not hate Falun Gong practitioners as anti-Semites hated Jews. In the 20th century, that is, before the 2000s, they had encouraged Falun Gong practitioners to show Falun Gong to the West as an aspect of Chinese culture, along with silks and Chinese cuisine. But in the 2000s, that is, in the 21st century, Falun Gong practitioners began to be tortured to death.

Lately, we hear of another possible Great Depression, similar to the one in the 1930s. The Western attention to the outside mortally militarily dangerous world is then likely to decrease even though it is already infinitesimal today.

U.S. Oblivious to Global Affairs
Thursday, October 23, 2008
By: Lev Navrozov

The word "consciousness" appeared in English in 1632 its definition being, "a living being's awareness of the outside world, without which awareness, the survival of the living being is impossible."

An exceptionally profound human consciousness is known as "genius," a word that originated in English in 1513 during the Renaissance, with its roots in 14th century Italy.

In the 17th century, "genius" led to the West becoming safer and more powerful (militarily) than the rest of the world.

This inherited Renaissance advantage was over in the 20th century, when Soviet Russia, which returned in 1917 to the pre-Renaissance universal imperial slavery, defeated in World War II Germany. Germany had introduced universal slavery in 1933.

If not for the Western countries outside Germany, the latter would have become part of Stalin's Russia, as did its eastern territory, including the eastern section of Berlin.

A good example of genius in the West, still inheriting the Renaissance, is John Stuart Mill in England (1806-1873).

The territory of England itself accounted for less than 10 percent of the territory of the British Empire, and England had no need for genius in geostrategy in order to survive.

India became an independent country, and Canada a "dominion," a "self-governing nation of the Commonwealth." But Mill's book ("essay") "On Liberty" was an unsurpassed analysis of civic liberty by a genius in the 19th century.

It is worth recalling that Mill never went even to school, which did not prevent him, at the age of 8, to have read the original works of Herodotus and to have started Latin, Euclid, and algebra. At the age of 10, he read Demosthenes with ease.

Mill spoke to his readers through publications like "On Liberty," republished about a century after his death in five English-speaking countries (England, the United States, Austria, Canada, and New Zealand).

In the United States, those responsible for its survival and hence to be people of genius in the understanding of the outside world are taught at universities, which issue to them academic degrees.

I lectured at some universities in the United States, as well as in some other English-speaking countries, since, as I emigrated from Russia in the 1970s, there were differences in the perception of Soviet Russia among scholars or Sovietologists, as they were called.

I was a live specimen of Soviet Russia, which some university professors of sociology regarded as moving to peace and progress, while others continued to regard it as a threat.

Indeed, the fall of the Russian dictatorship in 1991 opened a way to freedom under President Yeltsin, while today "President Medvedev" has sent out a memo to all Russia schools stating that Stalin was a great progressive statesman, mistaken after his death in 1953 for God knows whom.

In my lecture to the Sovietologists at Columbia University, I said that at the time (in the 1970s), Soviet Russia was still a slave empire whose emperor, owning the entire population as his slaves, was elected not hereditarily, as tsars had been, but in a conspiracy involving secrecy and violence.

The Sovietologists who argued with me had been shocked by what I had said. I had merely proved to them that I was such an extremist of the (fascist?) right that it was impossible to find my match among Americans.

They were wrong: Some American universities made me an honorary citizen of the cities where the universities were located.

A professor's home assignment to his students was particularly eye-opening for me. The assignment was an essay about Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's advance of freedom in his book "The Phenomenology of Mind."

Well, what advance to freedom could there be if the relevant chapter in Hegel's book was entitled "Master-Slave Relationship," while he meant serfdom in Germany, not slavery? (Hegel was a son of a German "revenue officer."

One of Hegel's phrases cut into my mind. Hegel declared that the "masters" beat their "slaves" insufficiently: The beating should be such as to "fill in the slave's mind the entire universe."

This is what happened. All the students, except one crank, copied other students' essays from previous years -- essays that did not mention Hegel's instructions as to how "the slaves" should be beaten. As for the essay that the crank himself wrote, the enraged professor said, "I have not accepted it. It does not exist."

The other students were pleased: they didn't have to read Hegel -- they simply copied the old students' essays. The goal of university education is to receive a degree, which would help them to get a higher paid job, and the less they have to read to achieve that goal, the better.

George W. Bush received his degrees, with lowest grades, at two universities (Yale and Harvard, for which his parents paid). Enough to be elected the U.S. president for two terms.

He could have achieved the same results internationally (five years of war in Iraq) and domestically (the beginning of a Depression?) if he and all of his helpmates, consultants, advisers, generals, intelligence officers, and other subordinates were illiterates, along with all radio and television "hosts" and "guests," supposed to enlighten the electorate at John Stuart Mill's level.

The country has been more than ignorant about the outside world -- most of its elected officials have been smug, blind -- certain that phrases from Hegel or Plato, torn out of the context and contradicting the rest of the text, constituted a higher wisdom. And they are ignorant about more powerful post-nuclear weapons developed by military scientists and technicians, educated in China and abroad, and invited from all over the world to China if they show signs of genius in geostrategically crucial fields.

Predictably, the dictatorship of China publishes no data about its present and future post-nuclear superweapons. But it publishes the "China Statistical Yearbook," which says how many scientists and technicians China obtains every year.

The Yearbook is -- or at least recently was -- available in the New York Public Library! But I have never heard it being quoted by the U.S. media.

Of course, Hegel's nonsense about the necessity of the "masters" to beat their "slaves" as ruthlessly as possible is more important than the development of post-nuclear weapons in China today by the best scientists and engineers China can educate and attract from all over the world.

What Can We Do About China?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
By: Lev Navrozov Article

I wrote (after the first McCain-Obama debate) about the growth of China's military might and the candidates' ignorance on the matter. China's military growth is even outlined in China's "Statistical Yearbook," available at the New York Public Library.

In response, Michael Skok wrote in an Oct. 3 e-mail: "Your article is frightening. What can we do about this? Even Fox News, which claims to be the most fair and balanced news organization, won't say anything adverse about China."

Chris Russel wrote in a Sept. 29 e-mail that I am "most adept, adroit and intelligent. A real thinker that I must recognize and admire. Also, I thank you for your candor and advice to America."

He posed the same set of questions: What can we do? What do I think of the "candidates for President and Vice President," of "their qualifications for the job"?

Well, in their three debates, the candidates have not even mentioned China as a military threat. The impression was that only Iraq or Iran is a military threat because allegedly Iraq was, and Iran is, going to produce an atom bomb -- about half a century after China tested its first atom bomb.

Says Benjamin Ward in an Oct. 10 e-mail, there is no "great literature written by Americans of my generation. I am a 28-year-old American." "Television programming" is "destructive (to the mind)." "Is there any hope something grows out of this muck?"

Donald Rignal says in a Sept. 29 e-mail about my column: "Great article." But what can we do?

In an Oct. 10 e-mail, John Donoghue says about the same article, that he "thoroughly enjoyed it." But again, what can we do?

My list is becoming monotonous: my readers agree with my articles, no matter how frightening, but what can we do? Before answering, let me add three more names.

Howard Phillips publishes "Issues & Strategic Bulletin," and on Sept. 22 (Constitution Day), 2007, his organization presented me with that year's "Champion of Liberty" award. The results, apart from my pleasure? (Not that there is pleasure from pointing out China's potential for military superiority.)

John M. Franse, a communication engineer, a man of tremendous energy and dedication, sent me a collection of copies of all my articles in the past 10 years. "What else can I do?" he asked me over the telephone.

On Sept. 18, I received an e-mail from Michael Pillsbury. Yahoo! has 1,480,000 entries about him. He is the most competent Western sinologist, and he has been "well-connected" with the Pentagon and other sectors of the U.S. government.

But have you seen Pillsbury on that same Fox News? No! He is unknown to the majority of the electorate who is supposed to elect the most enlightened president and members of the Congress. This is what he wrote in an e-mail dated Sept.18:

I have enjoyed reading several of your excellent recent articles on China including today's. My book "Chinese Views of Future Warfare" contains a long article about a future of nanoweapons by a Chinese major general published in 1996. If you are interested, I will send you a copy and some other materials, including a long article that the Wall St Journal did about my views of China's future.

Michael Pillsbury

That remarkable 421-page book "Chinese Views of Future Warfare" has been on my shelves since it was printed about 10 years ago. As for "some other materials," I would appreciate them for their content and would consider them a gift from you. (Please send to 3419 Irwin Ave., Riverdale, NY, 10463.) For the time being, let me quote the last page of this remarkable book, which I have had since it was published about 10 years ago:

About the Author

Michael Pillsbury is currently an Associate Fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, and a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council of the United States, where he is sponsored by the Office of Net Assessment, Department of Defense. During the Reagan administration Dr. Pillsbury was the Assistant Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning; under President Bush he was Special Assistant for Asian Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, reporting to Andrew W. Marshall, Director of Net Assessment. Previously he served as a defense analyst for the Rand . . .

Now, on to what we should and can do. We should use freedom to defend freedom. In 1978, I organized the nonprofit Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., with a bank account, accepting tax-deductible donations. The Center has an advisory board including a dozen or so world-known members. What the board needs is a fundraiser, since I have had neither time nor skill to be such.

Our enlightenment of the free West should take two directions: In the United States, "all people" elect the president, the vice president, and members of the Congress. The best way to enlighten "all people" is a film, combining a documentary and a movie and showing what would happen if the defense of the free West remains a non sequitur as it has been in the last decade.

The best way to enlighten sophisticates is sophisticated television on this life-or-death subject.

We are looking forward to capable and dedicated participants of this campaign of vital enlightenment, and first of all, fundraisers.

This is my answer to what we should and can do. About 10 years have passed since the publication of "Chinese Views of Future Warfare." Time to do what we can.

U.S. Oblivious to China's Nanotechnology
Friday, November 7, 2008
By: Lev Navrozov

On Oct. 28, 2008, I received this e-mail from a Dr. Christian Chan in "Asia": "While you are foolishly obsessed with the memory of Hitler and the Soviet Union, your USA is being taken over by a Black Nationalist Marxist!

"The USA's most serious threat is internal and your nation has millions of leftist traitors and Americans who are consumed by greed and place money before God & country!"

Well, as an example of my "obsession," let me recall that had Hitler begun his war with Stalin a couple of years later and continued to finance the German atomic project as generously as before, he would have possessed nuclear weapons before the United States and hence would have possibly possessed the world.

Also, President Roosevelt (a Democrat) could have been similarly called by Chan "a Dutch Nationalist Marxist" at the head of "millions of leftist traitors and Americans who are consumed by greed."

But actually, even before Roosevelt took office in 1933, he had endorsed the Hoover administration's refusal to recognize Japanese conquests in Manchuria. Roosevelt's firmness led to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor -- and to the unconditional surrender of Japan after the United States dropped two atom bombs on its cities.

Nor should Roosevelt's role in the liquidation of the Great Depression be forgotten. Roosevelt was inaugurated to his first term in 1933, that is, in the year when Hitler's Reichstag Party received a heavy majority of votes, and he became der Führer. Roosevelt and Hitler died in the same year, 1945 (18 days apart!).

How on earth could Hitler conquer the United States without first having atom bombs? He could not land his ground troops even in Great Britain because the latter had a large navy, created for the defense of the British Empire.

Hitler's Germany did not produce a single new weapon (while Stalin's Russia, considered by the West hopelessly backward, terrified the German troops very early in the war with Katyusha rocket launchers).

Roosevelt supplied England with whatever she needed to fight the war against Germany, which therefore declared war on the United States and thus unwittingly boosted the U.S. Manhattan Project, whose "atom bombs" would have finished off Germany had she not collapsed and had Hitler not committed suicide before the U.S. atomic bombs were ready.

Yes, Roosevelt also supplied Stalin's Russia with what she needed for the war against Hitler's Germany. If Stalin had attacked Germany, Roosevelt would have possibly helped Germany. It was vital to prevent the merging of the two countries into a single totalitarian giant. Hitler had told Mussolini that he did not trust Stalin, feared his surprise attack, and hence decided to attack him first.

Let us now turn from the Germany of 1933 to 1945 to the China of 2001 to 2010. The "five-year plan" was a Soviet phrase. The Soviet industry was planned and built as a single military machine.

Now, since 1999, the number of undergraduate and graduate students in China has been growing at approximately 30 percent per year, and the number of graduates at all levels of higher education in China has approximately quadrupled in the last six years.

In 2010 (the last year of the current "five-year plan"), there will be substantially more Ph.D. engineers and scientists in China than in the United States.

Let us recall that the population of China (1.3 billion) exceeds more than four times that of the United States, and is expected to be 300 million in 2010. Hence the above figures for China can be multiplied by four.

Also, the number of scientists and engineers in the United States largely depends on the customers' demand for goods and services. In China, the number depends on the maximum growth of the war machine projected by the dictators for the current five years.

Besides, scientists and engineers in non-military fields constitute in China a tiny percentage, compared with those engaged in military fields.

In other words, not only will the Chinese war machine vastly surpass the relevant United States fields quantitatively, the United States may be tragically behind in the development of new weapons. But in contrast to the times of Roosevelt, the presidents, vice presidents, and most members of the Congress in the past decade could not care less.

Hitler never said (no more than did Napoleon) that the world should and would belong to him. Hitler called his teaching, "national socialism," where the word "national" stresses its anti-Semitic orientation rather than its global scale.

Marxism-Leninism, socialism, and communism were spread by Soviet Russia as a global teaching. But today a quarter of French voters and a third of Italian voters do not vote communist -- as they did between the end of World War II and the death of Stalin, followed by the debunking of him.

Therefore, Marxism-Leninism is being preached in China only domestically. But surely it sounds more global than national socialism. Neither Marx nor Lenin was Chinese, nor did they quote any Chinese as being the founder of their teaching or their leader.

The word "liberation" in the name "People's Liberation Army" stresses the goal of Marxism-Leninism to "liberate" the world. Indeed, Russia was "liberated" by Lenin; that is, conquered as a whole, though it consisted of many different nations, conquered in different wars at different historical times, by different tsars.

New weapons? In 1986, Eric Drexler published his book about nanotechnology, introduced the word itself, and founded The Foresight Institute for the research.

In China, the book appeared on the Internet in English with Chinese extrapolations of especially difficult places. Let the young Chinese read become interested, and finally be Ph.D. scientists and engineers in the new field of weapons, superior according to Drexler, to nuclear weapons. My readers ask me how I know that the United States is not ahead of China in the development of nanoweapons.

No, I was not in China to watch their development. But I was in the United States. For the first 14 years since the publication of Drexler's book, many regarded it as just an eccentricity.

Then the Congress was to give Drexler's Foresight Institute allocations for research. By that time, Drexler's word "nanotechnology" was generally known because nanotechnology had become useful in the production and use of many peaceful goods and services.

Some of their commercial producers succeeded in assuring the Congress that nanotechnology is worth congressional allocations only for civilian needs. Eric Drexler is no longer with the Foresight Institute, which he and his wife created in 1986.

As for the old-fashioned war in Iraq, started by President George W. Bush, a 100 percent pure American, and a staunch Republican at the head of millions of unselfish right-wing Americans, the war creates the impression that Iraq is not a "Third-World country" of 26 million people, only 32 percent to 37 percent of whom are Sunni, hostile to the invaders, but a giant, fighting the United States and its allies for five years, with the U.S. troops still there, waiting to be withdrawn.

You can e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.

Obama Sr.'s apple did not fall far from the tree
September 4th, 2008

There's an old saying about an apple not falling far from the tree.

This appears to be particularly true when it comes to Barack Hussein Obama whose economic plan sounds much like one his communist father tried to inflict on Kenya some 40 years ago.

He, at the time, pushed massive taxes and welfare relief disguised as "investments."

Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. recommended the Kenyan government "redistribute" income through higher taxes, demonized corporations and called for massive government "investment" in social programs.

In a 1965 paper, Obama's late father condemned the administration of then-President Jomo Kenyatta for rejecting socialism and instead moving toward capitalism.

Obama Sr. resisted the notion of relying on private investors who would earn dividends on their investment to develop the country's emerging economy.

The senior Obama, a Harvard-educated economist, wrote, "What is more important is to find means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."

He went on to say, "This is the government's obligation."

The "means" he had in mind involved confiscatory taxes on a massive scale.

Obama Sr. postulated as to how "… there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 percent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

He added, "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and siphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."

So, in the view of Obama's father taxes couldn't be too high so long as everyone benefitted.

Now his son is pushing massive taxes and "investments" in social programs, all at the sacrifice of free enterprise.

He wants to raise the top marginal income tax rate to 39 percent, while increasing Social Security taxes by removing the payroll cap on those with higher incomes.

What that means is that many businesses would be paying a federal tax rate of 54 percent.

Additionally, Senator Obama wants to increase the capital gains tax rate and reinstate the death tax.

Taking words from his father, he says the government should impose "tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of the nation's wealth."

What these words really mean is punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat to those in need.

As Karl Marx stated: "From those according to their ability to those according to their need."

Indeed, Obama Sr. extolled the virtues of Marx by writing, "One who has read Marx cannot fail to see that corporations are not only what Marx referred to as the advanced stage of capitalism."

He went on to state that Marx even called it finance capitalism by which a few would control the finances of so many, and through this, have not only economic power but political power as well.

Senator Obama makes it clear through his writings and speeches that he is no fan of business or our system of, as he put it in Audacity, "chaotic and unforgiving capitalism."

There is one dramatic difference between Sr. and Jr., however. Sr. was labeled a troublemaker because he was verbal and open in his beliefs and called on the carpet.

Junior has learned that revealing his true beliefs could jeopardize his pursuit of the power needed to put Sr.'s "redistribution" and "investment" plan into effect.

As a side note to all this, the Washington Times recently carried a story about one of Obama's trusted advisors: George "Looney" Clooney.

It seems the two text and e-mail on a regular basis, talking on the phone several times a week.

George apparently advises him on a variety of things from public speaking and appearance to policy.

It's well known that "Looney" Clooney is very pro-Palestinian so one can only imagine of what that advice consists.

Certainly, he would say Obama should be more "open" in his relationship with Israel.

In other words, toss them under the truck.

And, to boot, word has it "Looney" is making a movie about the lawyer that represented Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, on charges of terrorism.

That should go well with all the other patriotic movie work "Looney" has done.

They do, indeed, make quite a pair.

George Clooney for Secretary of State!

A Perverted Idea of Fairness
by Joe Conason | October 21, 2008

Wherever John McCain appears on the stump in these waning days of the presidential campaign, he is always accompanied by his imaginary friend "Joe the Plumber," but it is the specter of Karl Marx that lurks just offstage. Reverting back to the Republicanism of eons ago, when he was just a child, he inveighs against the "socialist" design of Barack Obama's tax platform. This delusional ranting, like so much of Mr. McCain's behavior this year, tell us nothing about Mr. Obama (or socialism!) but much about him.

Let's begin with the dishonesty of the McCain rant. What Mr. Obama proposes is to restore the tax rates on the wealthy to the same level as during the Clinton administration -- that is, to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire without renewing them for individuals and families reporting more than $250,000 in annual income. There is nothing radical in this idea, let alone socialistic, (especially compared with the bank nationalizations and other violations of capitalist orthodoxy that Mr. McCain has supported recently as emergency measures).

Not only is there nothing radical about repairing the unfairness of those Bush tax cuts, but it is precisely the same position that Mr. McCain argued when they were first enacted. Is his memory so poor that he cannot remember saying that the Bush tax plan was "skewed" to benefit the rich? Having reversed that position for political convenience in the most craven way, he has also invented a different justification for opposing Mr. Bush back then -- namely that he thought the cuts were fiscally irresponsible. But that isn't what he said in 2000 and 2001.

Now let's address the ignorance of his rant. Progressive taxation is a tradition of Western economics that dates back considerably further than Marx and the Communist manifesto, with all due respect to the wingnuts who seem to be writing those McCain speeches. He admits that he has neglected his economic studies, so perhaps he isn't aware that Adam Smith, the revered philosopher of market capitalism, advocated tax fairness as far back as 1776, the fateful year when he published the first edition of The Wealth of Nations.

Although there was no income tax, Smith's principled judgment on the justice of higher taxes on those who could pay more, enunciated on several occasions, could not be clearer. He favored property taxes and luxury taxes because they would fall most heavily on the wealthy. He would have levied a sizeable tax on all seven of the McCain homes plus an additional chop at all of Cindy McCain's credit card binges.

In Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote:

" The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

Few legislators are more familiar than Mr. McCain, in his maverick incarnation, with the enormous fortunes raked in by oilmen, defense contractors, bond holders, and the whole host of modern capitalists under the protection of the American state. The notion that those fortunes, often gotten in a parody of the free market, should be taxed at the same rate as the earnings of a plumber would strike Smith as monumentally unjust and as an attack on the foundations of society.

Finally, let's discuss the other bit of demagoguery in Mr. McCain's most recent speeches -- when he complains about the "redistribution of wealth" and equates an income tax rebate for working people with "welfare." Leaving aside the racial subtext of those remarks, it is hard to say whether they display ignorance, dishonesty, or both. The American tax system, like all other taxation in modern nations, has always redistributed wealth. Sometimes it sends streams of money upward, from low-income taxpayers into the pockets of corporate executives; at other times it sends those streams downward, to assist the very poor.

But to cast socialist aspersions on a tax refund to working families whose incomes are too low to pay income taxes is to paint a big pink stripe onto Mr. McCain's supposed idol, Ronald Reagan. Early in his presidency, Reagan signed legislation greatly increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit, a credit for low-income workers that reduces the impact of payroll taxes in order to boost take-home pay above poverty levels. When the credit is more than the amount of federal income taxes owed by an individual, that person receives a tax "refund."

Reagan praised the earned income tax credit as the best "anti-poverty" and "pro-family" legislation ever enacted by Congress. It is troubling to learn that according to Mr. McCain, the Gipper was a socialist, too,

Jana says:
I am an American living in France (a capitalist country last time I checked) for the past 25 years. But there is a DEEP Socialist mindset running through the whole society (and both parties), just in the same way that Americans - Republicans and Democrats - are leary of taxes. Over in France people are EXPECTED to share the wealth. Besides the roads, schools, and emergency services being under the tax umbrella, we have the trains - until recently the energy companies....and of course, health care (although there is a parallel private system for choice). The smart people here want to leave college and work for the government! It's cradle to grave security, and besides - who WANTS to work like an American anyway? For what reason - to slave for extra hours and not enjoy life? The lowest fulltime fastfood worker gets a whopping FIVE WEEKS PAID VACATION! Add that to the fact that ONE FOURTH of working French are civil servants.
It takes twice the expense to collect taxes in France than it does in the USA.

The French put their heads in the sand about globalization -competing is too 'strenuous' for their 35 hour week. Yes, they're unrealistic, but like the fishermen on the Gulf Coast in the US that couldn't cut it against the new immigrant Vietnamese that were working twice as hard and driving them out of business - that is the way the French view themselves in the hardened market world of globalization.

What really IS TRUE from what I've observed is: over taxation kills initiative. Here is one specific: anytime you gain employment in France, you sign a labor contract. There are many types to 'protect' the worker's rights. But there is an unwanted perverse effect to this. The employer often ends up systematically firing the person after the trial period, before they are required to start paying the hefty taxes an employer pays the government for this permanent new employee. If they do hire someone full time and they must fire them - AWFUL. It's routine: the employee claims unjustable termination, goes in front of a tribunal, and nearly has an automatic payment of $20,000.
For that price, you can see how and why it all goes wrong.

Yes, too much regulation you might say, or the wrong kind, or not enforced. It's all in a balancing act.

So, please believe me, what I see from this side of the pond, the USA is FAR FROM SOCIALISM........

But we need to realize that normally, taxes are for the collective good, and not for just for purchasing military supplies/arms or going in the pockets of greed-driven and incompetent CEO's.

Headache says:
Thank God someone gets it. I got a headache the second I read the Smith Quote. And nobody on this forum challenged it until "Jim the Commentator".

Having read the Wealth of Nations and Das Capital, Joe Conason is WAY off base. Smith argues for something very similar to a Flat Tax as Mr. Witkowski points out. This is nowhere near either of the candidates Tax plans. Mr. Obama's concept is much closer to the economic concepts proposed by Karl Marx.

Secondly, back to Mr. Conason, when and where did McCain oppose the Earned Income Tax Credit? To say McCain is opposing Regan's economic ideas in this area is absurd.

Smith, Regan, and McCain were/are not against all taxes. Taxes do maintain road and bridges, maintain a functioning military, etc. Tax revenue used to prop up the culture of poverty through 1970s style welfare IS a forum of socialism. Socialism best know concept is "From those according to their ability, to those according to their need." Or to put it another way, "Spreading the wealth around."

So Mr. Conason is just pure wrong on all of his points of argument in this article and the Observer may need to vet their future "Joe the editorial writer``"

Trace-Chicacago says:
If you think that only folks making 250K and up are going to be affected - READ a but more and stop the name calling! That income tax will ABSOLUTELY trickle down to those of us making 75K plus. There is no way that Obama will afford all he wants to do without it. Furthermore - businesses are going to spread the increased taxes to whom - that's right those of us who make more than 75K. If YOU want to share your hard earned money with others - that's fine. I'd rahter have a choice as to WHAT programs my money goes toward! I too make charitable contributions above what I ALREADY pay in income taxes!

JR says:
Can somebody point out to me the efficient, well-run governmental organization that would want me to give more power to the government?

Robert Swick says:
I fail to understand how you can "reduce" the tax burden of some one who pays no taxes to begin with.

Obama then claims that the person who has no tax burden will get additional tax credits, leading to large checks coming to that person from the government that will actually INCREASE their net income.

In the mean time "Mr. Rich" has his tax burden increased in order to pay for those credits.

It sure looks like an effort to "equalize income" to me. And isn't that one of the defining aspects of Socialism?

jim says:
But how can you write an entire column about McCain's 'unfairness rant' without acknowledging that Obama said, point blank, "we have to spread the wealth around." For me to pay more taxes for roads, schools and firemen because I am richer than the next guy is one thing, but to pay it just so it can be given to someone else is, in fact, socialism. That's the point of McCain's 'rant."

Anonymous says:
What's perverted?

Typical leftie comment: "Those nasty rich people have it easy since the Bush cut taxes for the "rich" compared to what was going on under Clinton! And the poor are getting soaked!" WRONG!!

1996 Top 10%'s share of Federal Income Tax = 62.51%
1996 Bottom 50%'s share of Federal Income Tax = 4.32%
2005 Top 10%'s share of Federal Income Tax = 70.30%
2005 Bottom 50%'s share of Federal Income Tax = 3.07%
Weird - tax cuts for the "rich" actually increased their overall tax burden and reduced the tax burden for the poor.

Typical leftie response: "Whatever! If you're in the top 10% of earners you raking it in hand over fist and are probably making like a million dollars and it's only fair that you pay alot of tax."

Wrong again!! In 2005 total (i.e. combined husband & wife) GROSS income of $103,912 put you in the top 10%. For those of you that have never completed a tax return, that's income BEFORE deductions.

Typical leftie rebutal: "Yeah but since the Bush tax cuts were enacted revenue to the governement has gone way down" Wrong again. Total tax revenue in 2003 was $1.783 trillion. In 2006 it was $2.407 trillion and that equates to a growth rate well in excess of GDP growth.

But hey don't let the facts get in the way of "spreading the wealth around"

the Ghost of Adam Smith says:
Joe should have included the entire passage to keep the flat tax wingnuts quiet:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Anonymous says:
What you fail to mention is that numerous tax deductions have been closed in the years since the years of the Clinton tax rates. People at incomes above $75,000 are already paying a greater percentage on their income that in the Clinton years.

Leigh says:
As a taxpayer destined to be "hurt" by the Obama tax plan, I'd like to say I really don't have a problem paying higher taxes to support government or government programs for the needy. I do have a problem supporting entitlement programs that distinguish among people based only on income. I submit to you financial resources are not unlimited and it is the government's job to husband and fairly allocate those resources. Under Obama's plan, a gangbanger declaring $20K annual income receives the benefits a family man working two jobs receives. There is no requirement for effort or semblance of good citizenship. No requirement to stay in school. The high school drop-out who shoots herself in the foot by failing to complete her education is treated as equally deserving as the single mother waitressing to provide a decent home and education for her children. In the absence of personal responsibility and accountability, Obama's plan is simple class baiting. Rather than encourage people to work hard, be successful and increase the size of the pie, he suggests that if one's slice is too small it is because someone who worked hard is taking an unfairly large portion. Our country has been remarkably devoid of class resentment throughout its history because it was believed anybody could rise to the top with talent, hard work, effort, intelligence or whatever God-given gift they might have. Obama is living proof. Bill Clinton from nowhere Arkansas, Jimmy Carter from Plains, GA of all places. As a woman who attended law school financed by student loans when it was still a man's profession I didn't spend my time looking for hand-outs but instead determined to prove I was every bit as good or better than my counterparts. I don't agree with much of the Republican social platform but I can't countenance Obama's class baiting and what essentially amounts to a proposal for government supported vote buying.

Anonymous says:
Yeah, last thing we want is tax breaks for those evil corporations. And you wonder why we lose jobs overseas? People, corporations are pieces of paper. Every doller of tax they pay is a doller out of the shareholders pockets. For US companies, that means you. The single greatest boom in this country's history would be cause be a complete repeal of the US corporate tax. Global corporations would migrate here instead of US corporations migrating overseas. Employment would skyrocket. Wages would skyrocket. GDP would skyrocket. AND TAX REVENUE WOULD SKYROCKET, far outweighing the loss in tax revenue from repeal of corporate taxes. More people would be making more money and paying more taxes (happily) and the corporations would be paying more dividends which would bring in even more revenue.

People complain that companies should pay more taxes, and then cry more when 'evil' companies move out of the US (because the US tax rate is now among the highest in the world) and they lose their jobs. Its not rocket science. So why is this so hard for people to understand?

Anonymous says:
I respect your opinion Quillan, and your selflessness. But with all due respect, I like skiing and vacations and my second car. I work very hard (80hrs a week) so that I can do the things I like. I do not think it greedy to want to keep what is mine, and what I worked for honestly. But that is irrelevent. What is relevent is that I do not want the collective group of people running this country deciding what they should do with my money. THey have proven themselves incapable of managing anything. If people do not want to live in poverty, then they should do something about it. Many, many, many people living on welfare do so because they then do not have to work. I am tired of being punished for being an overacheiver so I can send my kids to good schools and do the things I like, to support someone who is content to sit on the couch in government housing and watch TV all day.

Thom says:
Chris, I'm sure your a nice man and probably very intelligent, but you are undeniably ignorant. The rich are paying their fair share of taxes and your fair share of taxes and the taxes of the vast majority of Americans. Instead of vilifying them you should thank them for being more successful then you are so that you can pay not only a far smaller amount but also a far smaller percentage as well. I know it's nice to have people who make more then you pick up the tab for you but I would suggest you'd be better off putting your time into finding a way to achieve more so that maybe you can see it from the other side when you are asked to pay other peoples way. In short, stop freeloading on the successful and start paying your own way.

Anonymous says:
I don't think most people mind paying taxes. The problem is that when 'rich' people pay taxes so 'poor' people can get welfare, it makes them mad. It's really that simply. And I know lots of 'poor' people who worked hard so they could succeed and enjoy their success, not have it redistributed to the people who did not work as hard.

There are not really that many people who earn $250,000 a year. Ever wonder why? It usually takes someone who does something really above and beyond what everyone else is willing to do. These people contribute significantly more to society by doing what it is they do (i.e. doctors, small business men, etc.). There unique abilities save lives, create jobs, etc. ANd I am sorry to tell folks, most of these people do it to rise up in their life. Take the ability to raise yourself up away, and you take away at least some of the incentive to acheive. And if you take away these peoples acheivements, you have lost much more as society than an incremental tax revenue. Just a thought.

Anonymous says:
It's unbelievable how badly your interpretation of the quote from Adam Smith botches the obvious intent. If each individual paid "in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy" then we would have a flat tax and the CEO making one million dollars would pay $100,000 in taxes given a 10% tax rate and the school teacher making sixty thousand dollars would pay $6,000 in taxes. This would be proportionate to their ability to pay and a fair system in which wealthier individuals pay more taxes but in proportion to their wealth.

What you and Obama propose is a disproportionate system where the wealthy are forced to pay more and more to a government that no longer represents them. I believe there was a little war fought over this very subject a little over two hundred years ago.

PaulF says:
The reason Obama is a socialist is that he wants to redistribute wealth. McCain didn't say it, Obama said it - to Joe the Plumber!

He said he wants to share the wealth - let him spread his own wealth. The purpose of taxing anyone in a capitalistic society is for the government to do what we can't as individuals; like field an army to defend ourselves, build infrastructure (roads, bridges, levees, etc...

If you want to take money from some people and give it to someone you think needs it more, that's socialism!!!

Yeah, "spreading the wealth around" -- that's not socialist!

Dave in Virginia says:
I think most of you miss the point relative to whether or not income taxes should be raised or lowered. The fact is that governmental tax revenues increase when more money is left in the hands of the earners. Tax revenue actually increases because of the fact that a tax is levied at almost every exchange of that money for goods and services. The more money in the publics hands the better. If that same money is removed from the publics hands and put into the treasury, it is no longer generating anything financially. It will being spent, but less tax is being generated by the government removing it from circulation. Basic economics, folks. If only the public schools still taught something worth knowing.

Chris says:
Exactly JR!! Before those damned income taxes we had protectionist trade tariffs that completely funded our goverment and military and provided a business man in the USA a competitive edge using fair trade practices which allowed him to create jobs for Americans IN America.

Now American workers currently have to compete against countries that use prisoners and children like in China and other countries and whose end products are poisoning us, our children and our pets.

Trey says:
Here's the problem with the Obama tax plan:

1)If you inherited $5 million and don't work an hour a day, but make $300,000 in investment income, you'll pay a top tax rate of 20%.

2)If you put yourself into hock to start a business, work 80 hours a week, create jobs for 5 people and after years of work, finally generate $300,000 but have nothing in the bank, Obama will reward you by taxing you at the top rate of 39.6%, PLUS taking the cap off of the Social Security tax, which is paid doubly by the self-employed.

So in other words, the Obama plan is a gift to the idle rich, who will pay only a slight increase to 20% in taxes, while those who actually work for their money will be paying an incremental increase up to 46% of their income, BEFORE state and local taxes.

Rest assured,if Obama's plan is implemented, we'll see a tax revolt not seen since the Boston Tea Party.

Steve P says:
Funny! NO MENTION of the fact that Obama plans to give $500-1000 checks to the middle and lower class, including to people who PAID NO INCOME TAX or did not have that much liability to begin with. That's socialist "wealth redistribution". Then there's also no mention of the fact that Obama wants to raise the Social Security tax cap from $102,000 such that people making over $250,000 (a lot of small businesses) will pay the 12.4% tax on the full $250,000 and everything above that, which is an absolutely HUGE chunk of change. And what is Social Security again? A socialist "wealth redistribution" program!! Simply rolling back the Bush tax cuts is not the socialist part. It *is* a bad idea in an already struggling economy. Want to prolong the recession or even turn it into a depression? Enacting these absolutely idiotic tax hikes would be a great way to do it.

Lastly on the ignorant part, there's only one person that's ignorant here and that would be the author of this article for completely missing just about everything. Oh and those who actually agree with the author too. This article is flat out wrong and misleading, as is just about everything I've seen from the left in this election cycle.

Marvin Sussman says:
If "proportion to revenue" means what I think it means, Adam Smith wanted a FLAT tax. But let's make sure that the system is fair. Let's give each household the same breaks we give every commercial entity.

What would be a "fair" income tax? Let's start with the preamble to the Constitution, which sets forth the basic reason for the existence of our nation: "... to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", etc. Only a few years before that document was written, the men who signed it had also signed the Declaration of Independence. In so doing, these patriots, who were risking everything, wrote: "…we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." They did this because they believed in the common good.

To keep faith with our Founders all American patriots must believe, as they did, in the common good. So, first we estimate the entire nation's requirements, including cost of all military, security, and justice systems; the cost of construction and maintenance of all public infrastructure; the cost of complete health care (pre-natal to adult) for all children (Posterity!); the cost of all the education (K to post-doctoral) that any child can absorb (Posterity!); public health clinics and hospitals for adults who provide, directly or indirectly, for children (Posterity!); care of the handicapped, sick, and aged; reserves for catastrophe; and more. (Please note that much of these expenses are currently being paid somehow, but neither completely nor efficiently.) That would be the estimated national requirement "to promote the general Welfare", etc.

Then, in computing a household's annual federal income tax, we should allow each houseshold to deduct from its net income a reasonable amount of non-discretionary expenses (the cost of doing business): food, clothing, shelter, transportation, communication, entertainment, etc. Of course, people who own a large home will have larger expenses, within reason. Then, every household's discretionary income, regardless of value, should then be taxed at the same FLAT rate, which is a percentage calculated to collect the estimated national requirement.

As an example, let's say that the needed percentage is calculated to be 50%. Keep in mind that, in this scheme, there are no expenses for health or education, cradle to the grave.

Then, a household earning a $50,000 net income, of which $2,000 is discretionary, would be taxed $1000.

A household earning a $200,000 net income, of which $50,000 is discretionary, would be taxed $25, 000.

A household earning a $10,000,000 net income, of which $9,000,000 is discretionary, would be taxed $4,500,000.

For a nation in dire straits (e.g., during time of war, like WW II and now) a 90% tax rate would require corresponding taxes of $1,800, $45,000, and $8,100,000.

That, or something like that, would be a fair FLAT tax system that would "promote the general Welfare", etc. It would also promote national unity without political strife. And we would be keeping faith with our Founding Liberals.

Now, during a war, conservatives could complain that a 90% tax is a disproportionate burden on the rich household in the above example. Certainly, Ronald Reagan didn't like it. But the after-tax discretionary incomes are $200, $5,000, and $900,000 for the three households, which proportionally favors the wealthier ones. And don't forget! There's a war going on!

Conservatives will have other objections to this "fair tax", but they all boil down to this: those who think that the rich have too large a tax burden simply do not like the preamble to the Constitution and the rest of that liberal crap that Jefferson and Madison put together. The Fourth of July holiday is for fireworks.

Conservatives are not loyal to the flag of the United States of America that they wave so easily and will never burn. Chicken-hawks never pledge their lives to defend the republic for which it stands, one nation, (under God, or course!). Their fortune cannot be touched and honor have they none. They are loyal -- in descending order of importance -- to their immediate family, their extended family, and their gated community, from which they pollute everything downstream. They don't believe in the Brotherhood of Man, but they go to church on Sunday morning and put a few dollars in the collection box and feel good, for Christ's sake.

Marshall1204 says:
Where to begin.... I guess Taxes are as good as place as any. To make the case that taxes need to be increased because some groups in the economy have done better than others followed up with the reason our economy is in shambles is because of the Bush Tax cuts makes little sense. If that is your reasoning then there are some economic facts that you need to reconcile. How does a 80 billion dollar a year tax cut coupled with record Tax reciepts from 2002 thru 2007 (all even larger than the best surplus year of 1999)equal 350 to 400 billion dollars in deficits. It is true that the Obama campaign is claiming that they can pay for their agenda by allowing the Bush Cuts to expire in 2010 (BTW this will increase taxes on all americans down to the 30,000 dollar a year level) and increasing taxes on those folks making greater than 250,000 dollars a year. I have no way of judging Barrack Obama's sincerity on this matter; he may very well believe that he can reach his target revenue in this way. The sad fact is there is no way that he will be able reach his revenue targets without lowering his target income threshhold. This can be illustrated very easily. The federal government could confiscate all personal income above 250,000 dollars a year and the government would only be able to fund itself for about 5 months. This shows that to get new monies the tax will have to apply to much lower income levels. I suspect we are looking at new taxes down to the 50,000 a year level.

Taxes are not my number one issue. The federal judiciary has about 1500 open judgeships. With a filibuster proof senate a President Obama could fill those position with anyone they chose. These are lifetime appointments. Federal Judges appointed by the left have shown a huge tendency to legislate from the bench, circumventing the rights of the people and their legislature.

Legislation to force open balloting for unions and forcing labor contract negotiations to be replaced with binding arbitration. To be fair Obama has said that he is against the card check legislation (legislation forcing open balloting for unions); however since Senator Obama has not demonstrated any propensity to go against his own party the rational conclusion would be that Obama would sign it without comment or allow it to sit on his desk for 10 days thus becoming law.

Finally the fairness doctrine. The Democrats in Washington really hate talk radio. Primarily because this is one medium that has been able to motivate the masses to action. You might argue that Talk Radio killed the Clinton Health Care plan and the more recent Immigration Reform Bill. Forcing local radio stations to supplement its highly profitable conservative talk slate with less profitable liberal talh hosts. This law will probably not affect the big players like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity (the real targets); however the large number of local talk host will most certainly pay the penalty of their livelyhoods in the name of fairness.

I do understand that if you have reviewed the Obama agenda and conclude that is what we must do as a nation then it also follows that you would be willing to make whatever the sacrifice to fulfill this, no matter the cost.

Yet if your vote is predicated on anger against the Republicans, certainly they do deserve your anger. I would say they have definitely messed up, and John McCain has certainly not given anyone anything to vote for. If it were just the taxes then I can see why; yet out of all of the issues taxes are my least concern. That would be the one issue that could easily be undone. The other items enacted will be with us for years to come.

Anonymous in AZ says:
The logic of progressive taxes is simple... people who make more money can afford a higher percentage of taxes on the "incremental" income... Let us say just food to live for a year costs $5000 per person... A person making $5000/yr cannot afford to pay any taxes without starving. However a person who makes $50000 can easily pay some taxes without starving... Hence it is fair to ask the person making $50000 to pay a little higher percentage of taxes than the person making $5000. Also applying the principles of capitalism... if there is no "subsidy" (in the form of lower tax rates) provided for lower paying jobs, then everyone will eventually pursue only high paying jobs. Can you imagine a society with no teachers, cops or plumbers but only doctors & lawyers???? Obviously the high salaries of of those higher paying jobs will collapse along with the rest of the society. So there is no inherent unfairness in a progressive tax system... what we can quibble about is the tax brackets and the exact percentages.

Little Hongkee says:
You say moving to HK? Are you kidding?

As a local (and yes, an ethnic Chinese as well!) growing up there, it's always amazing to me that some Westerners have some sort of "reverse Orientalism" in their mind, thinking so highly of the East for whatever reasons. For HK's case, let me put it this way: if you love Social Darwinism without the explicit blood-letting part, we welcome you with open arms; if you love a real bloody version like your rare sirloin, just go north a bit from HK to mainland China and you'll love what you see.

Oh, forgot to mention...no guns allowed in these places. So sorry that there's little you can do if some robber barons pop up from nowhere to take your things away (always aided by a piece of legal document/legislation sanctioned by the big bad govt).

trickyd says:
I can't wait to quit my job as soon as Obama is elected. I plan on living off the government dole like they do in Europe. It's going to be great. The sad thing is that you all probably think I'm joking. I'm not. Who the heck wants to work to be rich when you can get everything you need by being poor!?? Wait and see--best yet will be getting paid for "odd jobs" in cash and not reporting 1 cent. When taxes are high, being poor and operating on a strictly cash basis is the best place to be. It's at least as good as being middle-class and getting all the taxes but earning too much for any benefits. So that's my goal: avoid middle-class at all costs. Since my tastes are relatively simple, I'm a-okay with living off of your tax dollars and not paying 1 cent....along with 40+% of all other Americans...

Lee says:
The idea of a "progressive" tax seems ok. After all, why not charge those that make more money a higher rate? They can afford it. So, we have 40% of the working population not paying taxes, and voting to charge the 10% paying 70% of the taxes a higher rate. So, penalize the people that worked hard, made good choices, educated themselves, got promoted so that those less "fortunate" can get a free ride. Not so good.

What if we stop the nonsense, and work on creating wealth as a nation? If you choose to quit your education in high school or sooner, why should those that spend an extra 4-12 years in school pay for your decision?

Obama-ites remain socialists at their core, and Marxist in their thinking. The American dream is alive and well for anyone below the latest definition of "wealthy," which is conveniently posted at $250K, which almost anyone can hit if their parents leave them a house, or if they save for long enough and sell that asset.

I started saving 25-45% of my gross back when I was working my way through college: I drive a truck with 165k miles, and about own my own house. So, when I sell it, thanks to your marxist views, I should give 39% to the government, and 22% to the state, and I can keep my 40%. You take away all incentive to save, and turn the masses into slaves beholding to a central government that supplies all their needs based on money taken from those of us who sacrificed their entire financial lives.

As you can tell, my view is that Obama is dangerous, and the people electing/voting for him are either as dangerous or are just plain lazy or ignorant. The polling data tends to support this.

So, blast away! I am certain that this line of reasoning is hateful to most Obama supporters. A man on the public dole most of his life.

kris says:
Pedro, consider yourself lucky to make such a large amount of money. Yes, much of it has to do with hard work, but consider yourself lucky that you never faced a major illness that set you back, or lost your job due to downsizing, or had to take a long leave of absence due to a family crisis. People that don't have a great deal of money is not always due to laziness. Many people face difficulties that have set them back for the rest of their lives. Think about other peoples problems before you criticize and be grateful that you are lucky enough not to face these difficult situations.

Brian from NJ says:
As far as I know, Obama's tax plan is more generous than Ronald Regan for those earning over $250,000. If you are smart you will figure out how to get by.

Before 1913, we didn't have taxes but sure as heck used tariffs to earn federal revenue.

Both parties have been responsible for big government and overspending. I was raised as a fiscal conservative-I was taught not to spend money that I don't have. Apparenty the Republicans (who used to espouse fiscal responsibility before they figured out how to exploit a culture war to win elections) forgot how to keep a balanced budget. The defecit increased significantly under Regan(ok he helped beat communism so he gets a pass) but what Bush has done is treasonous. He has wasted our money, wasted our goodwill in the world, not encouraged energy independence, and grossly increased our defecit by giving money away while spending more on things that hurt us. Going into a little debt while making investments for a long term payoff is one thing. Going way in the hole to jeopardize the future of our great nation is plain criminal.

JonWill says:
There are two fundamental reasons for the economic turmoil we now face; the sub-prime mortgage mess, and the quadrupling of the price of oil. Neither one has been caused by the free market or deregulation, but is the direct result of government intervention championed by democrats and their socialistic policies.

Fanny May and Freddie Mac were created, nurtured, protected, and ultimately run into the ground by the democrat party and the policies of the left. They created rules and regulations in order to encourage (and sometimes force) the free market to provide loans to those who did not qualify. This is at the root of the housing boom and bust, and the primary reason for our current financial crisis. These government sponsored enterprises bought up risky sub-prime mortgages from the secondary market, pooled them, and sold them as mortgage-backed securities to investors on the open market. These investors had faith in the security of these investments, believing they were backed by the federal government. When these mortgages went unpaid the market collapsed.

Although free market conservatives don't believe in excess regulation of the private sector, they have little issue with regulating governmental entities. In fact, it was the democrats in congress that blocked any such oversight or regulation of their brain trusts (Fanny and Freddie). They not only looked the other way, but actually stood in the way of the Bush administration's efforts to reform these GSA's; in part to fulfill their utopian socialistic views, and in part due to the monies received from these intuitions in the form of contributions. Chris Dodd and Barak Obama have been the top two beneficiaries of these contributions.

The current oil shortage was also created by excess government regulation, supported by the liberal agenda, and paid for by the environmental lobbyists. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time while we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is not only the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind; it is also artificially reducing the supply of oil on the world market. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of U.S. energy exploration and production. Democrats have blocked the lifting of these restrictions and opposed any attempt to put our own reserves to use. The free market would allow states to contract oil companies to tap these energy reserves at zero cost to the U.S. tax payer. It would not only increase supply and reduce the direct cost of oil and gas, it would drastically reduce the corresponding inflation which has been hampering economic growth, and hurting the American family. Tapping these reserves would also directly provide state and federal revenues in the form both royalties and leases, while providing more American jobs. We would keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit - 41% of which is due to oil imports.

The liberals are attempting to place blame on republican policies of lower taxes and deregulation for our current financial mess. Nothing could be further form the truth! The economy is not soft because the American people are not being taxed enough, or that the government is not spending enough. Lower taxes are the only reason that we haven't yet fallen into a depression. However, Obama and his allies are promising more of the very policies that have caused these problems in the first place. More taxes, more spending and less energy exploration! The free market is where we need to look for redemption; unfortunately Obama and his party are once again looking to the failed policies of big government socialism.

October 22, 2008 4:54 PM
replyflag thislibertyandjustice says:

Sen. Obama is actually buying votes with his redistribution plan. He is creating a dependent class that will re-elect Democrats jut to keep the checks coming. In the end, the house of cards will collapse when the takers outnumber the givers.

gary says:
There is a difference between socialist and progressive taxes. Progressive increase in percentage as the income of the individual increases.

Socialism taxes rich people and gives it to poor people. When Obama says that he is going to reduce income taxes on 95% of the people you know that it is a socialist plan because only 60% of the population currently pays income taxes -- he is including payments to people who don't pay income taxes as an "income tax reduction".

It is not an income tax reduction: it is a payment of money taken from someone else. Now you may agree with the socialist principles, but argue for them honestly. Don't yell that anyone who calls it a socialist plan is doing something wrong.

If you like socialism, stand up for it proudly. If not then don't vote for Obama becasue his tax plan is socialist.

Gary says:
"wicked entrepreneur"

This says it all. It also says why Europe is a parasite on the U.S.A. If it wasn't for our innovation and productivity, Europe would be third world.

Socialists need to be supported by free-marketers in order to exist - they cannot exist on their own.

Anonymous says:

Listen up: Obama said 95% of WORKING Americans will get a tax cut. He has said that over and over again.

The Earned Income Credit (which can lead to a tax refund even if you are so poor you don't owe any taxes) comes from the Reagan Admin and has been in place since he was in office.

You are a complete idiot. What part of anyone's tax plan have you actually studied? The reason Reagan allowed for the EIC is so the democrat congress would pass the tax cuts he wanted to make the economy grow. Remember Jimmy Carter, well I do, and he killed our economy. We had 14% inflation, interest rates going through the roof. We we in the toilet according to Carter. Reagan's tax cuts for the "rich" made our economy hum for years and years. And by the way I made about 16K a yea when those tax cuts first started and I saw them too to the tune of 10% lower taxes each year for three years running. Funny how the greedy years are always attributed to Reagan and Bush and yet there were way more take overs, etc during Clinton than any anytime in our history.

How is it your choice how someone spends their money? Tell me again who made you queen? As for the tax cuts for the rich my wife and I are strictly middle class and I saw the "Bush tax cuts' the first year since I actually prepare my own taxes each year. And by the way they aren't his tax cuts they are everyone's that work. And they were passed by congress not just Bush. Gosh people are idiots as to the working of our government.

And just so you have this straight it was the democrats in congress that said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ok and would not allow them to be reformed. Bush, your mortal enemy wanted them fixed his first year in office, go check the congressional record and the democrats would not allow it because they claimed he wanted to hurt the poor of this country. Gosh I really can't stand ignorant people making posts about something they know nothing about. I don't give a crap how you used the EIC it is none of my business anyomre than how I spend my money is your business..

Just one more question...how many jobs did you creat with that EIC payout? How many people do you employ? I will wager not a single person. And I will also wager that the "rich" are the ones that used the extra capital to create businesses and therefore jobs because they wanted more money. You see that is why people go into business to make money not to create jobs. Jobs are a by product. And the more money you leave a business owner with the more he can spend and the more people get jobs....see how it works?

GOP's Very Survival at Stake
Monday, October 27, 2008
By: Christopher Ruddy

The stakes of this election are incredibly high, not just for our candidate, John McCain, but for the very existence of the Republican Party.

Am I exaggerating the potential consequences of this election?

Decide for yourself. Consider that Barack Obama has called for the amnesty of all 12 million of the nation's illegal aliens.

If he sweeps to power with a Democratic Congress, especially with a filibuster-proof Senate, he will be able to put into effect an ambitious liberal agenda -- perhaps more bold than FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society.

Obama has made his intentions clear, including his intention for amnesty and citizenship for undocumented aliens.

This year, he told the pro-immigrant group La Raza: "Yes, they broke the law. And we should not excuse that. We should require them to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for citizenship -- behind those who came here legally. But we cannot -- and should not -- deport 12 million people."

He added: "That's why we need to offer those who are willing to make amends a pathway to citizenship. That way, we can reconcile our values as both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws."

Democrats are anxious to give citizenship as quickly as they can to these illegals. They know these new voters will cast their ballots overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates.

The political balance between Democrats and Republicans has been quite delicate. We saw that in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

In that last election, President Bush was popular, riding the coattails of a great economy and facing an unlikable liberal Democrat from Massachusetts. Still, Bush almost lost. Only 60,000 votes in Ohio separated John Kerry from the White House. The reason, I believe, was the country's changing demographics.

For Republicans, changing demographics are worrisome. Minorities and immigrants like the idea of a big and benevolent government handing out benefits -- the something-for-nothing boondoggles that the Democrats have reveled in since Franklin Roosevelt invented the concept.

If you give amnesty, which really means citizenship, to just 2 million or 3 million of the 12 million illegals here, the electoral map moves dramatically in favor of the Democratic Party. But there will be no reason why Obama and the Democrats won't push for amnesty and citizenship for all 12 million.

How do I know? Well, he said so. So listen up, Republicans: You are in trouble if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress.

Today, Texas is an anchor for the GOP nationally. But an Obama amnesty program will put that state solidly into the Democratic column. Florida and other smaller red states like Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico will become quite blue. Blue states, like California and New York, will get bluer.

The Obama amnesty program also will have grave consequences for Republican representation in the House and the Senate. With so many new immigrants swelling the voter rolls, Democrats could move into a position of not just having a majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Senate, but supermajorities in each.

Both houses of Congress could end up veto proof, if perchance, a Republican were to wiggle into the White House.

With such power and the ability to make even more new citizens and thus new Democratic voters, I wonder how the Republicans will gain a foothold again on the national stage.

Adding to this worry is that Democrats and Obama have openly talked about bringing about the Fairness Doctrine -- a new law that will stifle talk radio, the mainstay of opposition media in the country.

No doubt the Democrats know that talk radio stopped Hillary Clinton's agenda for nationalized healthcare during the '90s.

It is hard to believe the Obama campaign will not want to shut down, once and for all, the Democrats' chief critics.

What the Election Should Teach the Republicans
Thursday, November 6, 2008
By: Christopher Ruddy

The 2008 election is not yet a distant memory, and there are important lessons to be learned.

A good accounting of what happened will help Republicans make a comeback.

Here's my take:

Republicans need a candidate who's unafraid of being a Republican. For a 72-year-old, John McCain gave an impressive campaign performance, but he lost. Why? Because he failed to articulate exactly how his opponent was such a danger to our economy, national security, and American values.

The vice president counts. Sarah Palin gave McCain a huge boost and helped propel him to front-runner status by mid-September. She soon became a media target. After a stream of negative articles that went unchallenged, her favorability ratings declined among swing voters. Still, Palin did a remarkable job of bringing charisma to the ticket and raising money.

The media bias was simply unbelievable. With the exception of Fox News, Newsmax, talk radio and a handful of outlets, the major media worked overtime to elect Barack Obama. Despite all the talk of a profusion of media with cable and the Internet, the media continues to be the same old media.

Money can buy an election. Obama raised a record-breaking $650 million to win the White House. Compare that to what McCain received -- $85 million -- from federal financing. If Obama did not have such a huge money advantage, it is doubtful that he would have snatched the nomination from Hillary Clinton, let alone the White House from McCain.

Truth still works. Money is important, but the election proved that Republicans don't have to go dollar for dollar against Democrats to win. Despite numerous disadvantages, McCain's showing was respectable. Had his campaign been more hard hitting and raised a tad more money, he could have won.

The Swift Boat-like groups (527s) were missing in action this year. The talk is that the Bush White House told big Texas money not to back McCain. Also, many of the backers of the 527s have long memories of the 2004 election and remember that McCain was one of their biggest critics.

The Republicans need a "MoveOn.org." One group that may fit the bill is The National Republican Trust PAC, also known as GOPtrust.com. Headed by former journalist Scott Wheeler, the group raised over $10 million from over 40,000 donors in just weeks. The group took heat for its Rev. Wright TV ad, but it appears to have had an effect, as undecided voters broke overwhelmingly for McCain.

Republicans need to be "open sourced." The McCain campaign tightly controlled its own campaign, and the RNC and other Republican affiliates. The GOP needs to look at the success of Ron Paul's grass-roots campaign that raised more than $30 million -- an astonishing feat. Paul let his supporters do their thing. For a candidate on the fringe, he made an impression.

Republicans must develop a strategy to win over new Hispanic voters -- and soon. Shifting demographics could spell disaster for the Republican Party. If Obama and a Democratic Congress get their way and give citizenship to some of those 12 million illegals, Republicans could be locked out of the White House, not to mention Congress, for decades, as most will vote Democratic.

Understanding what happened in 2008 will be key in rebuilding the GOP in 2009 and after.

The early months of the Obama administration will be critical months for Republicans. My guess is that Obama will aggressively move to stifle talk radio with a new "Fairness Doctrine."

The Democrats see talk radio as their main opposition in the country. Reduce its influence and they will have an easier time putting through their legislative agenda.

If Republicans lose these two battles -- talk radio and citizenship for illegals -- their ability to make a comeback will be diminished.

Post-Racial Preference America
Ken Blackwell
Friday, November 07, 2008

Two things are evident from the 2008 election. The first is the American people voted for change, embodied in President-elect Barack Obama. The second is this is still a center-right country, shown by the success of traditional values ballot initiatives. This center-right orientation will compel our new president-elect to make difficult choices next year, especially regarding racial preferences.

On November 4, 2008, Mr. Obama won a decisive victory to become the 44th president of the United States. The American people spoke with a clear voice, electing an African-American president by majority vote.

President-elect Obama’s leadership was affirmed by the American people. But while he decisively won the election, he must not overreach or misinterpret his mandate.

There was no mandate to change our social culture. The most visible social issue in this election is marriage. State constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage passed in all three states where it was on the ballot. While such measures passing in Florida and Arizona is no surprise, the fact that it also passed in California, a liberal state, is proof that the vast majority of Americans regard marriage as a union between a man and woman.

Another cultural measure is racial preferences. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down racial quotas as unconstitutional. In 2003, the Court also struck down a race-preference program that resembled a quota by giving extra points to the college applicants because of race. And in 2007, the Court also struck down a public-school districting program that made race a major factor in determining which school a student attends.

The American people have also rejected racial quotas at the ballot box. This year Nebraska easily passed a measure rendering preferences illegal. Such provisions are also the law in Michigan, Washington and even California. The fate of yet another state constitutional amendment in Colorado is unclear at the time of this writing.

Everyone should celebrate that quota schemes of any variety are clearly not needed in America. The fact that an African-American has been elected commander-in-chief of this country and will be leader of the free world shows that race is not an insurmountable obstacle to success in today’s America.

Minorities, in fact all Americans, should celebrate President-elect Obama’s “post-racial” vision for America. In this vision, there is no logical place for racial quotas or racial preference programs.

Racial preferences harm minorities. Quotas—the purest form of racial preference—often disadvantage the very people they are intended to help. They are originally intended as floors. If a school has a 20% African-American quota, then the school must have at least 20%. But studies show that the floor eventually becomes a ceiling. When the mandate is 20%, then institutions do not go above that number. Such institutions end up targeting that number, taking the best-qualified applicants from that minority pool, rejecting the rest. A 20% quota may secure 20%, but it bars the possibility of 30%, 40% or 50%, even if there are enough superbly-qualified applicants from that group to merit 50% of the available positions.

So not only are such preferential measures unconstitutional, they are also harmful. It bears out the wisdom of our constitutional scheme that this country must throw open the doors of opportunity to all, and not prefer one over another.

This will be a challenge for President-elect Obama when he nominates Supreme Court justices. He has promised to nominate liberal judges such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has voted to uphold every racial-preference program reaching the Supreme Court. But the fact that he won the presidency and will now hold the power to appoint Supreme Court justices demonstrates that racial preferences are unnecessary.

Many challenges await President-elect Obama. One of those challenges will be how to represent the change Americans want when it comes to ending racial preferences.

Racial Psychodrama
Mona Charen
Friday, November 07, 2008

Twelve years ago, the most popular man in American political life was an African-American -- Colin Powell. A four-star general who had served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and as national security adviser, the Brooklyn-born Powell had presidential timber written all over him. A number of leading Republicans -- Bill Bennett and Jack Kemp leap to mind -- talked him up at the time. New Hampshire polls of Republicans in 1995 showed Powell leading the pack. Powell declined to run and Robert Dole got the Republican nod that year, ultimately losing to Bill Clinton. Exit polls suggested that Powell would have defeated Clinton by 50 to 38. (I did not climb on board the Powell bandwagon because he was insufficiently conservative for my taste -- a judgment that has been amply vindicated.)

It's important to remember this history lest the ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency be interpreted as evidence that "only now," 45 years after Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, is the nation ready for a black president. Yes, it's wonderful that we're ready now. But it's equally or more wonderful that we've been ready for a long time. We've had two black secretaries of state (not that the Republicans who appointed them get any credit for that), black CEOs of major corporations, black TV stars like Oprah Winfrey advising millions on how to live with integrity (as she sees it), black radio hosts (on all sides), black movie stars, black doctors and lawyers and teachers and astronauts. Yes, segregation and racism were facts of life within living memory, but this country set its face against that history hard and fast and almost completely. It has been for so for my entire life.

I'm proud of my country for living down its racist past. And pace Michelle Obama, there has been a lot to be proud of -- even in that category -- for a very long time. What is less admirable is the sycophancy one sees among some. Shelby Steele has identified the tendency among some whites to seek "racial innocence" at the hands of blacks, and we certainly saw it in play throughout the drama of Obama's campaign. "Bargainers," Steele explains, "make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence." Some whites are so pathetically grateful for this bargain that they quite lose their heads. Instead of being truly beyond race, and treating African-American candidates exactly like everyone else, they demonstrate their continuing racial consciousness by shameless toadying.

Something like that afflicted the press during this election year. Nothing would be permitted to impede Obama's victorious procession toward the White House. He was a green first-term senator? We won't mention that (even when we decry Sarah Palin's lack of experience). He skirted 130 decisions, voting present, during his time in the Illinois Senate? No problem.

He broke his promise to accept public financing of his campaign? Just evidence of his fundraising "prowess" (AP) or ability to "set records" (New York Times).

Early in his career, he was listed as a member of the socialist New Party? New Zealand papers picked up on it. Didn't make it into our major media. He supported the most extreme abortion agenda of any candidate in modern American history and then lied about it? Not relevant. He enjoyed close ties with ACORN, a group that is facing criminal charges of vote fraud in a dozen states? Yawn.

As for his thoroughly repellent associations with Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and others, it was considered very bad form to mention them. Even John McCain refrained from raising the Wright issue for fear of having his "racial innocence" compromised.

As a result of this racial psychodrama played out in our national politics (among other reasons), we are now about to have the most left-wing president in history. We can only hope, for his sake and for the country's, that his left-wing positions were adopted out of expedience, not conviction, and that President Obama will decide that success requires him to tack to the center.

The Change You'll Get
Cliff May
Thursday, November 06, 2008

Who says you can't have it all? The Democrats, the Left, now have the White House, control of both houses of Congress, a majority of governors' mansions, a majority of state legislatures, the entertainment media, the elite news media, the unions, the educational establishment, the lion's share of the philanthropic community and increasing power over the courts.

Will President-elect Barack H. Obama use this awesome power to strengthen America's defenses in a time of global conflict and repair America's economy in a period of financial distress? Or will his goal be to solidify the Left's grip for the long-term, for example by shutting down conservative talk radio and perhaps other pockets of media resistance, by growing the percentage of Americans dependent on government programs, and by using immigration policy and gerrymandering to create a permanent Democratic majority? Your guess is as good as mine.

Give Obama his due: It is an exceptional politician who can win the support of Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, and Kenneth Duberstein, former chief of staff to President Reagan; of William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist and Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley, founder of modern conservatism; of Rashid Khalidi, an Israel-hater, and Edgar Bronfman, former head of the World Jewish Congress. Here's a not-very-bold prediction: A year from now, someone is going to be sorely disappointed.

Thomas Jefferson famously said that "every generation needs a new revolution." Could this be ours? I know: On Tuesday, we had an election, not an insurrection. But look up revolution in the dictionary and you'll find it means "change" - sudden, radical or fundamental change. Is that not what Obama has been promising?

The thing about revolutions is that very few succeed. The American Revolution was an exception in large measure because America's founding revolutionaries were not utopians: They believed people had a right to govern themselves -- even if they governed badly. They saw freedom as a means, but didn't claim they could envision the ends. They understood that no system of government, however clever, can guarantee happiness - only the right to pursue that elusive state of being.

The more ambitious French Revolution that soon followed deteriorated into what became known as The Terror - mass executions that Robespierre defended as "prompt, severe, inflexible justice." Pace Zhou Enlai, it is not "too early to say" that the French Revolution was a failure. .

In the 20th century, revolutions in Russian and China failed on a grander scale - millions of innocent people murdered, imprisoned and tortured, again in the name of justice.

And soon it will be 30 years since Iran's Revolution. We have no idea how much suffering theocratic fascism will inflict on the world.

But back to more prosaic matters: John McCain did not win the Republican primary -- he did not defeat Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson et al. Rather, each of those campaigns imploded or eroded - and McCain was the last man left standing.

I thought it possible that something similar might happen in the general election. Had the race become a referendum on Obama -- his lack of experience, his links with so many unsavory and radical characters - a majority of Americans might well have decided to at least wait a few years before giving him the keys to Air Force One.

In another era, the mainstream media might have seen it as their duty to probe deeply and reveal to the public as much about Obama as they could. But the days of a fiercely independent, disinterested, tough-but-fair press are over. Too many American journalists have become partisans, propagandists and lackeys. This, also, is a kind of revolution.

In another era - say four years ago -- independent political groups would have focused the public's attention on such issues. One reason that did not happen this time: restrictions on political speech -- gussied up as "campaign finance reform" and championed by none other than McCain.

Those who helped the Swift Boat veterans tell their tales about serving under John Kerry's command were warned by their lawyers that it would cost them more than just money if they were responsible for ads questioning Obama's fitness for office. They'd be served subpoenas and find themselves confronting hostile congressional committees. They might suffer other forms of harassment as well.

Of course, McCain himself could have forced this debate into the public square. But he was either unwilling or unable to do what needed to be done. Though a military man by breeding and training, as a candidate he shot rubber bullets and pulled his punches.

There were other factors, too, enough to fill books, and that will happen. So long as national security was the issue foremost on voters' minds, McCain was a contender. But when the economy went into a tailspin, McCain threw away his advantage. He raced back to Washington in an effort to show he was a work horse, not a show horse. Huddling with the confused and querulous politicians who had caused the crisis did not enhance his image as an elder statesman.

Obama was well-advised to stay on the campaign trail and stay on message, continuing to offer "hope" and to promise "change." Soon now, we'll find out what that really means.

Testing the New President
Linda Chavez
Friday, November 07, 2008

Vice-president-elect Joe Biden issued a prescient warning in the last days of the presidential campaign: If Barack Obama were elected president, he would be tested by a major international crisis soon after taking office. Biden was wrong about one thing: The test has come even before President-elect Obama is sworn in.

Within hours of Obama's impressive victory, another new leader, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, warned that Russia would deploy short-range missiles capable of hitting NATO territory if the new American president goes ahead to build a missile defense system to protect Europe. It's unclear where a President Obama will come down on this issue. He's been on both sides during the campaign.

The idea of an anti-missile defense system, of course, is not new. The United States has been working on an anti-missile system to protect our territory since the Reagan administration. The Strategic Defense Initiative -- often derisively dismissed as "Star Wars" by its critics -- fundamentally changed the way the U.S. approached the idea of nuclear war.

Through much of the Cold War, the United States based its defense almost entirely on a good offense: mutually assured destruction (MAD). We would have so many weapons that the Soviets would realize that an attack on us would be suicidal. If they launched a surprise nuclear attack on us, enough of our missiles would survive to retaliate against them, and annihilation would be the fate of both sides.

But Reagan changed the equation. Essentially abandoning the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which allowed the Soviets and the U.S. to set up anti-missile systems to protect only their two capitals, Reagan announced he would explore building a defense shield to protect the entire country.

Some 20 years later, U.S. technology in this area has advanced to the point that we are capable of deploying a limited system to protect our allies. Last year, the U.S. announced that negotiations were under way with some of our friends in Europe to deploy anti-missile systems on their territory. For some of those allies, the primary threat they fear is a nuclear-armed Iran. Although, Poland, with whom we've now signed an agreement, also fears a newly belligerent Russia. But the Bush administration has been at pains to reassure an insecure Russia that any American-deployed system would be purely defensive -- a so-called "hit-to-kill" strategy in which a missile's technology would not even include explosives but would rely on intercepting a nuclear missile before it hit its target.

Russia has now made it clear to the incoming president: Move ahead with deploying 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic and we will deploy short-ranged missiles near Poland. So what will our new president do? The last time Russia flexed its considerable muscle by invading Georgia, candidate Obama at first acted as if both sides were equally to blame. He later righted himself, condemning Russia as the aggressor.

But those were just words -- after all, the only thing a candidate has at his disposal. On Jan. 20, President Obama will have to take action. As Abe Greenwald, my fellow blogger at Commentary magazine's Contentions wryly noted, "In Russia, we now witness ice-cold realism at its most intractable. This is an enemy that advances when we blink."

President-elect Obama is busy with preparations for the transition to his new office. But the Russians won't wait -- and neither will our enemies. Obama must signal that there will be no major shifts in American foreign or defense policy, irrespective of all the campaign rhetoric about change. He could do so by quickly announcing his picks for secretaries of state and defense. I doubt Colin Powell wants another term at state, but perhaps he would view defense as a new challenge. At the very least, such a choice would inform Russia that despite partisan wrangling in election years, the United States remains committed to protecting our allies and ourselves, and a President Obama has no plans to change that.

An Unnecessary Defeat?
Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday, November 07, 2008

Why did John McCain lose?

Let's start with those "headwinds" into which he was flying.

The president of the United States, the leader of his party, was at Nixon-Carter levels of approval, 25 percent, going into Election Day.

Sixty-two percent of the nation thought the economy was the No. 1 issue, and 93 percent thought the economy was bad. Two-thirds of the nation thought the war McCain championed was a mistake, and 80 percent to 90 percent thought the country was on the wrong course.

As a political athlete, measured by charisma and communications skills, McCain is not even in the same league with Barack Obama. He was outspent by vast sums, and his political organization was far inferior.

It is a wonder McCain was even competitive, dealt such a hand.

Yet, by Sept. 10, McCain, thanks to Sarah Palin, whose selection had proven a sensation, had come from eight points behind to take the lead, and Joe Biden was wailing that maybe Hillary would have been a better choice for Obama.

Then came the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the bailout of AIG, McCain's assertion that the economy was fundamentally sound, and his panicked return to Washington to assist Bush and Hank Paulson push through a wildly unpopular bank bailout -- using 700 billion in tax dollars to buy up rubbish paper the idiot bankers had put on their books.

The Establishment's Man had come to save the Establishment.

Suddenly, it was McCain who was down 10 points, as the feline and feral press went on a wilding attack on Sister Sarah. He never recovered, though the McCain-Palin final push left egg on the faces of pollsters who were predicting a double-digit triumph for Obama.

Perhaps no Republican, in these circumstances, could have won, especially with that month-long bloodletting on Wall Street that wiped out $4 trillion to $5 trillion in stock and bond value, ravaging IRAs and 401Ks, portfolios and pensions alike.

Yet, McCain might still have won had he not, like his three fellow establishment Republicans Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, been inhibited by the Mainstream Media and his own Beltway beliefs.

Consider. In California, where a liberal judiciary had ordered the state to recognize homosexual marriages, voters, by 52 to 48, slapped the judges across the face and ordered the ban reimposed and placed in the California constitution. Arizona and Florida also voted to outlaw gay marriage, by landslides.

The New York Times deplored the "ugly outcome" of these three referenda and said voters were "enshrining bigotry," thus calling the majority of Californians, Arizonans and Floridians bigots and their Bible-rooted Christian beliefs nothing but bigotry.

Good to know what they think of us. Yet, McCain, who might have been out front on these moral and cultural issues, paid only lip service -- and lost Florida, and California by a landslide.

In Missouri, where McCain eked out a victory, a proposal to make English the official state language carried six to one. In Nebraska, a proposal to ban affirmative action carried 58 to 42, but lost in a 50-50 tie in Colorado.

Parental notification won 48 percent support in California, a far higher share of the vote than McCain got, while a measure to outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother got 45 percent in South Dakota. Had McCain made an issue of Obama's support for a Freedom of Choice Act that would eliminate all state restrictions on abortion, he could have forced Obama to defend what yet remains a radical and extreme view in America.

While Barack was locking up black America, McCain failed to hold onto Bush's share of the white working class, though Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate and long associations with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and '60s bomber William Ayers.

Perhaps fearful his "good guy" reputation with his old buddies in his media "base" would be imperiled, McCain ruled Wright off limits and seemed hesitant even to go after the Ayers connections. Lee Atwater would not have been so ambivalent. Leo Durocher put it succinctly: "Nice guys finish last."

Ultimately, however, the Beltway Republicans are losing Middle America because they are ideologically incapable of addressing two great concerns: economic insecurity and the perception that we are losing the America that we grew up in.

Economic insecurity is traceable to NAFTA-GATT globalization, under which it makes economic sense for U.S. companies to close factories here, build plants in China and export back to the United States. Manufacturing now accounts for less than 10 percent of all U.S. jobs.

Social insecurity is traceable to mass immigration, legal and illegal, which has brought in scores of millions who are altering the character of communities and competing with U.S. workers by offering their services for far less pay.

These are the twin causes of death of the Reagan coalition, and as long as the Republican Party is hooked on K Street cash, it will not address either, and thus pass, blissfully addicted, from this earth.

Why McCain Lost
Michael Reagan
Thursday, November 06, 2008

Barack Obama is president-elect of the United States because the Republican Party and John McCain handed him the presidential election on a silver platter.

The Republican Party and the Bush White House walked away from Republican ideals and they walked away from Republican values.

George Bush allowed the Republican Congress to overspend in the first six years of his administration without once using the veto pen, blindsided the conservative Republican members of Congress on many occasions, and walked away from the base of his party on immigration reform and other issues such as Medicare and No Child Left Behind.

He refused to sit down and break bread with the conservative members of his own party on Capitol Hill, yet believed that he could break bread with the liberal Democrats in Washington the way he did with the Democrats in Austin, Texas. And when he discovered it didn't work in Washington, it failed to stop him from trying and trying and trying over again what was obviously impossible.

Finally, the coup de grace was Dick Cheney's endorsement of John McCain in the waning days of the campaign, which gave Barack Obama the final nail to put in the coffin of McCain's campaign, which was striving mightily to distance him from the Bush administration.

Then there was McCain's campaign itself. It was the worst campaign since Bob Dole's on the Republican side, and the best campaign since Ronald Reagan's on the Democrat side.

The McCain campaign was a campaign out of the 20th century, while the Democrats were running a campaign in the 21st century.

We need to understand that this was not a referendum on Reaganomics and Ronald Reagan. This was a referendum on George Bush, and Bush-ism, and Bush's lack of leadership.

John McCain wouldn't stand up against the Democrats in Washington D.C. on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac scandals, against expanding government, a $700 billion bailout, and going against the traditional values of conservative Republicans.

The economic collapse was the Democrats' fault. Yet John McCain never bothered going after them on that. He let the burglars walk away with the loot because those were his friends, and with George Bush failed to point the finger of blame at the people who caused the financial collapse that has plunged the nation into a certain recession. Bush had the bully pulpit but failed to use it, and the Democrats walked away scot-free.

Shockingly, John McCain failed to use the most potent weapon in his arsenal -- the culpability of Barack Obama and his friends in the wholesale looting of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current debacle. McCain had the goods, but wouldn't exploit them.

The McCain campaign made inadequate use of Gov. Sarah Palin, who had enormous crowd appeal. A lot of people voted for John McCain because of Sarah Palin. There were bigger a crowds because of Sarah Palin. Yet some of the functionaries in the McCain campaign are trying to point the finger at her for McCain's defeat.

John McCain lost because of his lack of a clear message. He needed more than the fact that he is a maverick. His answer to the economic crisis was a $300 billion bailout for delinquent mortgagees. He was offering welfarism, while Barack Obama was offering socialism.

People laugh at me when I tell them the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans take a week longer to embrace communism.

This was not a referendum on Ronald Reagan. As a matter of fact, my dad might well have voted for Barak Obama just based on what he was seeing his party doing.

Finally, I hope that when Barack Obama was making elaborate and extravagant promises about what he was going to do, he was flat-out lying.

I hope Barack Obama will not be what he has promised to be. I hope he doesn't have a civilian security force. I hope he doesn't raise my taxes. I hope he doesn't spread the wealth. I hope he doesn't raise taxes on corporate America. I hope he looks at nuclear power. I hope he allows us to drill. I hope that there will be no revival of the fairness doctrine.

Conservatives, Don't Be Hypnotized
David Limbaugh
Friday, November 07, 2008

Let me first say that we conservatives should be gracious in defeat because it's the right thing to do. That does not mean, however, that we should for one minute abandon the vigorous pursuit of our ideas. The left never does, and we cannot afford to.

We mustn't be sucked in to demands for bipartisanship from those who wouldn't practice it if their lives depended on it, lest we continue down the perilous path of unilaterally surrendering our ideas in the misguided hope that getting along is our highest aspiration.

Remember in 2001, after liberals had already bludgeoned President Bush for 36 days and accused him of stealing an election they'd tried to steal, when they demanded he show bipartisanship? That is, those who lost insisted that those who won reach out to them. They said Bush didn't have a mandate and should voluntarily dilute his conservative policy proposals in the interest of getting along.

In that case, bipartisanship meant that conservatives should become more liberal on their own instead of the two factions fighting for their respective programs and letting the votes fall where they may.

Now the liberals have won, and again, they are calling for bipartisanship. But they're not demanding from themselves, as the victors, the same standard they demanded of President Bush in 2000 or 2004. They aren't counseling themselves to moderate their own positions to make them more palatable to congressional conservatives; they're saying that congressional Republicans should move toward Obama in a spirit of "bipartisanship." Heads I win; tails you lose.

Just to be clear, I -- as a conservative -- am not saying that Barack Obama should govern to the center for the sake of bipartisanship. He won. I assume he will try to pursue his agenda. I don't happen to believe that policy harmony among elected officials is the be-all and end-all. Rather, each side should pursue its agenda, fairly and energetically.

In the first place, we know that liberals are always going to pursue their agenda with ferocious tenacity. Republican efforts to reach across the aisle result in pulling back bloody stubs. Ask President Bush and, the left's formerly favorite Republican, John McCain.

Leftists in the Democratic Party and the media will vilify you as a right-wing extremist almost no matter how accommodating you are. At least one side in this eternal struggle knows it is in a war. And that side, while demanding bipartisanship from the other, is plotting to silence it, beginning with talk radio. We pooh-pooh that promise at our peril.

All this talk about bipartisanship is promoted either by well-meaning types who are ignorant of the system our Framers devised or by liberals who calculate they can shame us into rolling over for their planned radicalism.

Would you Pollyannaish peddlers of unity and bipartisanship please explain how collegial congressional cocktail parties are more important than advancing the best interests of the nation? Could you tell me under what moral principle you would advocate, say, conservative cooperation with liberal legislation during Obama's "honeymoon" period that would further dismantle America's capitalistic system or undermine our national security?

Right before the election, I wrote that Obama worries me because of his leftist ideas and the Saul Alinsky (Chicago-style, thuggish) tactics his campaign and its surrogates were using to secure the election. Now adding to my concern is all this talk about a new day in America and the need for bipartisanship, which is just an effort at soft intimidation and a strategy to shame the opposition from exercising its vigilance and acting as the opposition party. But even that would be far less troubling if there were fewer gullible people on our side.

Perhaps it's Obama's messianic aura and rhetorical generalities of harmonic convergence that blind "intellectuals" to his radicalism and deceive them into believing he'll govern as a centrist. Maybe it's his fluency and mellifluous voice that separate pro-life advocates such as Doug Kmiec from their critical faculties to the point they could argue that this poster child for Planned Parenthood was the more pro-life of the two presidential candidates. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal editors must have taken a quick slug of the Kool-Aid before opining that Obama now faces "a much greater foe: Democrats on Capitol Hill," who will try to pull this presumed pragmatist to the left.

Dream on, boys. They'll be headed west together as fast as their partisan legs can carry them. And we better be ready for them, believing our own instincts and powers of observation rather than relying on the lying eyes of our elites and the false assurances of our political opponents who will tell us that left means center and wrong means right.

What is it about Obama's leftist past and record as the most liberal senator that so many intelligent people do not understand?