When Republicans Act Like Democrats

Barack Obama has now been elected the forty-fourth President of the United States. He ran a very organized campaign and has made history as the first man of color to be elected to the nation's highest political office. Democrats have increased their margin of representation over Republicans in both houses of congress and hold a majority in the senate which should allow them to pass almost all legislation they desire. This election can be seen as either a repudiation or an opportunity for the Republicans Party. I see it as a little of both.

First, let me say right up front, that I do not like political parties. I don't care if they are Democrats, Republicans, Bull Moose, or Whigs. Both George Washington and John Adams, our nation's first two presidents, believed that political parties would lead to the downfall of our political system of representative democracy since it allowed special interest groups to gain too much power over political candidates. Today we can see their fears have been realized in Washington with billions of dollars worth of political influence financing campaigns. Trial lawyers, trade unions, the medical industry, abortion advocates, financial institutions, and a host of other lobbyists roam the halls of congress doling out money to any politician willing to compromise his principles for a chance to get a piece of the pork. As we recently witnessed in the mortgage industry meltdown, even those who are supposed to be overseeing quasi-government agencies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae can collect hundreds of thousands of dollars from those whom they are supposed to be regulating. This is a classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse.

In the election of 2000, Republicans won both houses of congress and the presidency. This was a great opportunity for those elected to enact the conservative core values which defined the Republican party in the 1980's - limited government, fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, and strong social values. These are the ideas which Ronald Reagan communicated to Americans which allowed him to unite his GOP base along with "Reagan Democrats" to win landslide elections in 1980 and 1984. However, for six years the Republicans in power ignored these conservative values and acted like big-spending Democrats. They ran up a huge deficit and instituted a myriad of expensive government-sponsored social programs such as the Medicare drug program. When our military became bogged down in the Iraq war and the deficits and spending kept growing, American voters got fed up. In 2006, Republicans lost control of both houses of congress. Americans wanted change and any change seemed preferable to the status quo. The GOP lost its way and this year put forth a squishy, middle-of-the-road presidential candidate in John McCain who claimed he was well-suited to reach across the aisle to work with Democrats. In truth, McCain had repeatedly demonstrated this with his record for tag-team legislation, working with Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, John Kerry, and other liberal lawmakers. "Reaching across the political aisle" always entails selling out conservative values - something McCain seemed willing to do more often than not. At the tail-end of his political campaign McCain tried to convince voters that he was a real agent for change in Washington. The voters didn't buy it. Then there was the other candidate who was, by his mere appearance, an obvious change to the stereotypical politician. Thus, we now have president-elect Barack Obama, the first mixed-race American to take the oath of office.

So, what does all this mean for America? The country will now fall under the control of big-government politicians controlling the executive branch and both houses of congress. Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners (including most small business owners), who now carry 60 percent of the income tax burden, and millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of those who pay no federal income tax. Capital gains taxes, already the second-highest in the world, will be raised from 15 percent to 20 or 25 percent. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed and the estate tax will be reinstituted. An extremely costly government-sponsored health care program will be enacted which will cover both citizens and illegal immigrants. The government will very quickly run up a trillion dollar deficit once all of Obama's programs are implemented. The Supreme Court will probably see two or three more activist liberal judges appointed. There will be an attempt to culturally redefine America. Affirmative action will be strictly enforced across the country and there will be a move to provide "reparations" for those of African-American heritage. The courts will shoot down all restrictions on abortion and America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth. A liberal Supreme Court will attempt to change the definition of marriage at the national level. There will be many challenges to the Second Amendment right to own firearms. Conservative talk radio will be restricted by the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and there will be more political correctness and speech codes on college campuses. Twelve to twenty million illegal aliens will be granted amnesty and Democrats will attempt to make them citizens as quickly as possible and register them for their party. Military spending will be cut by 25% and America's armed forces will come under the influence of the United Nations. No global consensus - no military action.

And what does this portend for the Republican Party? Actually, this is a great opportunity for the GOP. Americans are not Europeans despite the wishes of Democrats that we were more like them. Most Americans believe that independence, hard work and entrepreneurialism leads one to success. These are the conservative core values which our Founding Fathers incorporated into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Most Americans want a limited, fiscally-responsible federal government, low taxes, and a strong military which will defend our country. Most have Judeo-Christian values and do not want to redefine marriage. They believe that Americans have the right to defend themselves with a firearm. Will the Republican Party learn a lesson from this election and return to its conservative roots? Only time will tell. If Republicans continue to act like Democrats they will live a long time in the political wilderness. If they rediscover their true identity and unite behind a conservative standard bearer, America may experience a second "Reagan Revolution".

Meet the Female VP Candidate

The Basics:

Significance: First woman vice-presidential candidate for her party.

Age: mid-40's.

Foreign Policy Experience: none.

Years holding a political office: 10+.

The Challenge:

The opposition party claims that her limited political experience makes her unqualified to be placed only "one heart beat" away from the Oval Office. She is seen as a "token" pick, selected for her gender not her political agenda or ability. It is asserted that she has been selected to bring youth, energy and glamour to her running mate's stodgy image and lackluster campaign.

Her Response:

On Her Qualifications: "There's not only what's on your resume that makes you qualified to run for or to hold office. It's how you approach problems and what your values are. I think if one is taking a look at my career they'll see that I level with people; that I approach problems analytically; that I am able to assess the various facts with reference to a problem, and that I can make the hard decisions."

On Her Experience: "My feeling, quite frankly, is that I have enough experience to see the problems, address them and make the tough decisions and level with people with reference to these problems."

On the Problems Facing America: "…what we are talking about are problems that are facing the entire nation. They're not just problems facing women. The issues in this campaign are the war-peace issues; the problems of deficits; the problems of trade deficits."

Her Identity

Who is this woman who was propelled to the national political stage as the first woman to be selected by her party to be a candidate for vice-president? Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska? Nope. Guess again. The correct answer is Geraldine Ferraro, Congresswoman for the 9th District, New York who was named as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984.

Isn't it amazing that the Democrat Party, which was so proud of their woman VP candidate in 1984, with comparable if not less experience, is now so appalled that John McCain would select a female governor as his running mate? Equally amazing is the Democrats' lack of concern that their presidential nominee, Barack Obama, has less experience than either of the two women vice-presidential nominees. Here are some typical reactions to the pick of Governor Sarah Palin as Republican VP candidate:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "John McCain and Sarah Palin will not bring the American people the New Direction they need." Right, Nancy. With the 18% approval rating for your congress, you are the "New Direction" we are looking for.

New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer: "...her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling." As opposed to Obama's "lack of experience" which does not make the thought of his assuming the presidency troubling for Chuck.

Barack Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton: "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency." Never mind that she is governor of the largest state in the country. It's better to have a former "community organizer" with zero foreign policy experience be the president immediately.

Executive Director of MoveOn.org Eli Pariser: "It’s not only fair, but critical in this case, to ask if she’s up for the job of commander in chief. We just can’t afford a gamble like this with our future." Palin's a "gamble". Obama cannot even admit that the surge in Iraq has succeeded. No gamble there. It's a sure thing that he's not "up for the job of commander in chief."

What are Her Values?

Sarah Palin is the 11th governor of Alaska. During her first legislative session, Governor Palin implemented an overhaul of the state's ethics laws and a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline. She was recently named chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resources Committee. She is a lifetime member of the NRA and enjoys hunting and fishing.

Sarah Palin: "I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.

Fiscally and socially, I am a conservative. My respect for the three different branches of government and the balance between them has been my guide.

I would push for a strong military and a sound energy policy. I believe that Alaska can help set an example on energy policy.

We have billions and billions of barrels of oil and trillions of feet of natural gas. We have so much potential from tapping our resources here in Alaska. And we can do this with minimum environmental impact. We have a very pro-development president in President Bush, and yet he failed to push for opening up parts of Alaska to drilling through Congress -- and a Republican-controlled Congress, I might add.

I thought when we hit $100 a barrel for oil it would have been a psychological barrier that would have caused Congress to reconsider, but they didn't. Now we are approaching $200 a barrel. It's nonsense not to tap a safe domestic source of oil. I think Americans need to hold Congress accountable on this one."

Governor Sarah Palin sounds to me like someone who can make a real change - not a promise of change - in Washington, DC.

Questions for Senator Obama

Now that Senator Barack Obama has wrapped up the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, it's time for him to answer some questions about where he stands on the issues that are important to the American people. Here are my questions for the senator:

First, you have made withdrawing US troops from Iraq the top priority of your campaign saying that you want all "combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." Are you still committed to this deadline for removing troops from Iraq regardless of the military situation on the ground? Are you going to ignore our own military commanders including Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has said your position could take "gains we have achieved and struggled to achieve and turn them around overnight"? What are you going to do once our military forces have been withdrawn from Iraq should Iran and Al-Qaeda decide to take action to overthrow the Iraqi government by force? Do you not believe that US troop withdrawal will be seen as a huge victory for these two entities who have stated on more than one occasion that they see Iraq as the pivotal battleground against democracy and Western values? You have said that you would move US military units to other countries in the region so that they could quickly "re-deploy" to Iraq if necessary. Where, exactly, are you going to relocate our military? Are you willing to pay twice in American blood and treasure for military victories that we have already achieved? As Commander-in-Chief, these are difficult decisions that you will have to make. What is there in your background which suggests that you have the experience to make the military decisions necessary to safeguard America's interests in the Middle East and the rest of the world? You have promised that once you are elected you will reduce our military strength, you will cut spending on missile defense, and you will cut funding for future weapons systems. Do you believe this a wise course of action during a time of war and increased terrorist threats to America?

Secondly, we have heard about your personal relationships with terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn who, as members of the Weathermen in the 1970's, bombed government buildings and attempted assassinations of US Army officers, and continue to say that they have no regrets for their actions and wish they had done more. Additionally, you were a member of the Trinity United Church for more than 20 years and attended many sermons where the Reverend Jeremiah Wright proclaimed the nonsense that America invented the AIDS virus to exterminate black people and that the government introduced crack cocaine into African-American neighborhoods in order to imprison black people. Your "spiritual advisor" (your description) also vehemently stated that we should not say, "God Bless America" but, rather, "God damn America" because ours is an evil nation. Reverend Wright has also praised the race-baiter Louis Farrakhan and the terrorist group Hamas. And, although you have recently resigned your church membership from Trinity United, you have not renounced the black liberation theology advanced by your former pastor. In fact, it was only after Father Michael Pfleger, another who you claim helped shape your moral views, made racist remarks from your church pulpit about the evil of white people and described America as, "the greatest sin against God", that you decided to leave Trinity United. However, you also said, "I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church", adding, "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them". It sounds like you are leaving the church for political reasons only. Why can you not denounce a church which puts forth racist, anti-American sentiments? Do you or your wife who says she is "proud for the first time in my adult life to be an American" share some of these feelings? We still have not heard about all your dealings with Tony Rezko, a Chicago slumlord who donated $10,000 to your campaign from an alleged crooked kickback scheme and is now on trial. What are we to make of all these troubling relationships you have had for many years with terrorists, racists, and indicted crooks? You have promised a "change" in the political atmosphere but you appear to be just another politician who will associate with anyone who can help advance your career. Where's the change?

Next, you have proposed a "Global Poverty Act" which would give more than $845 billion of US taxpayers' money to other nations over and above the billions that we already give. You have said that, "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to the elimination extreme poverty". I am afraid, Senator Obama, that the American people will be the ones experiencing extreme poverty once you have enacted all of your big government programs. In addition to a government-run health care program (estimated cost of $100 billion), you have also proposed a 10-year, $150 billion program to establish a "green energy sector"; a $60 billion "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" to construct and repair highways, bridges, and other infrastructure; a government sponsored college loan program and federal pre-K nursery school program; more tax dollars for illegal aliens, giving them amnesty and allowing them to have drivers licenses, Medicaid and Social Security benefits; and a $340 billion tax credit benefit. And there's more…lots more. To pay for all of this, you have proposed a $2 trillion tax increase on all individuals (not just the "rich") and an increased corporate tax rate which is already one of the highest in the world at 40%, including federal and state taxes. You are also in favor of raising the capital gains tax rate to 20-25 percent. How is all of this going to help an already struggling American economy? Are you not afraid, Senator Obama, that your big tax-and-spend initiatives will drive the economy straight into a recession?

Also, despite your claims of support for the Second Amendment rights for Americans, you have pledged to "ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons". You have stated that the DC law which prevented citizens from defending themselves was "constitutional" and you refused to join with 55 other senators to support the Supreme Court case opposing the DC gun ban. In 1996 you supported "banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns" in Illinois. In 2004 you voted against the DeMar self-defense bill to protect citizens who use handguns in self-defense in their homes and businesses. The bill was overwhelmingly voted into law despite a veto by the governor. You were one of only 20 state senators to vote against the bill. You have been endorsed by several anti-gun groups including the deceptively-named, American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA). It appears, Senator Obama, that you believe American citizens should not be allowed to defend themselves with firearms. How do you explain your anti-Second Amendment comments and actions?

On the cultural front, there is not a single issue on which you have broken with the positions of left-wing interest groups - from gay marriage, to abortion, to legalized drugs. Although you claim that you oppose gay marriage, in 2004 you said that you opposed the Defense of Marriage Act which was meant to prevent gay marriage from being imposed on the country without the consent of the American people. Shouldn't the people, rather than unelected judges, decide on the definition of marriage? You received a perfect 100% voting rating from NARAL over the past three years and you have stated that you oppose "notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions". You have also said that you support partial birth abortions. If you are elected president will you attempt to overturn the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003? How do you feel about the millions of babies who have been put to death by abortion? Also, you have admitted to using drugs in the past and you say that you favor decriminalizing the use of marijuana. Do you or do you not believe that drug use is harmful to our children? If you believe it is harmful why would you want drugs to be more readily available?

You have expressed your intent to name justices to the Supreme Court in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter - judges who have made decisions based more on their personal, political and moral views than on constitutional and legal principles. You said that you want judges who have "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old". You voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts - one of only 17 nay votes (all Democrats) - justifying your opposition by saying that difficult cases should be decided by "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspective on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy". As a lawyer, do you believe that issues should be decided based upon constitutional and statutory language? Or, should a judge make decisions based upon personal feelings? Do you believe that the will of unelected judges supersedes the votes of the American people?

Finally, you have made "hope" and "change" the centerpiece slogans of your campaign, promising fresh national unity and a higher purpose. The national media and young people, especially, love your idealistic rhetoric. But are you the unifier who you claim to be? Your voting record is among the most partisan in the Senate and you were rated the most liberal senator in 2007 by the National Journal, a non-partisan publication. Your policy agenda is more liberal than Hillary Clinton's or Ted Kennedy's or any Democratic nominee since George McGovern. The change that you advocate seems to be nothing more than a reversion to the failed big-government policies of the Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson administrations. If you are truly a unifier, which liberal policies are you willing to compromise for the sake of unity? What bi-partisan legislation are you prepared to support?

So far you have avoided answering any of these questions. The Democratic Party has nominated for President a freshman Senator with barely three years of national experience who most of America still barely knows. You are the least tested and least experienced nominee for the presidency in modern times. Are you prepared to do more than obfuscate, dodge and ignore the tough questions? America needs more than a smooth-talking, politically-correct, empty-suit President. What American voters want to know, Senator Obama, is who are you? Who, really, are you?

Why, Exactly, Are Gas Prices So High?

Recently our elected representatives in Congress interrogated the heads of the major oil companies (those evil corporations) and wanted to know why these companies are making a profit for their stockholders. Of course, many of us are stockholders either through our IRA's, our 401K's, or the stock market. But, never mind that. "Big Oil" is the evil-doer and the cause for high gas prices. Oh, really?

Did they forget that drilling in ANWR is off limits, and drilling off the coast of Florida and California is also off limits, except for China, Venezuela and Cuba who have signed 100-year leases on the oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Coal-to-oil technology, which has been around since the 1930s, is prohibited, no dams can be built for hydro-electric power, and don't even think about copying France which gets 80% of its energy needs from nuclear power. And no windmills which only clutter the view of Senator Kennedy from his summer cottage in New England. Meanwhile, there has not been a new refinery built in over 30 years and the number of operational refineries has been cut in half since 1982. The refineries that are in existence have to make different blends of gasoline, allowing states like California to dictate what unique gasoline blends must be made for them, further driving up the cost to produce gasoline. To add insult to injury, several states (again, like California) and the federal government have imposed gasoline taxes amounting to more than 15% of the price of gasoline, while only 4% represents oil company profits. Of course, Congress will not consider a reduction of the federal gasoline tax, even for the summer months.

Instead, our genius representatives have passed legislation that would allow us sue OPEC - like that will accomplish something! Let's produce more ethanol which costs $1.23 to make a dollar's worth of energy while driving the cost of food through the roof. Great idea! Oh, and don't forget the recent action to protect the polar bears and their habitat which makes the location of future oil development off limits to drilling. Finally, because the oil companies are making "too much money", our government is looking at seizing any money that the legislators consider "windfall profits". Hillary Clinton said she wants to "take that money" and do something productive with it. (I guess that's how she intends to pay for her government health care program).

Did Congress ever hear of the law of "supply and demand"? World-wide demand for crude oil has increased in recent years due to the rapid industrial growth of China, India, and other developing countries. Meanwhile, supply has been limited by OPEC and foreign national oil companies, which control nearly 80% of world petroleum reserves and benefit financially from limiting the availability of crude oil. Many of these oil-producing countries are less than friendly to the US (Venezuela, Russia, Iran, and other Middle East states). We have enough domestic natural energy resources to allow the US to be energy independent for centuries. According to most energy experts, oil and gas reserves on federal lands hold an estimated 100-plus billion barrels of recoverable oil. These areas hold an estimated 635 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. Anywhere from 800 million to two trillion barrels of oil are available from oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. According to Mackubin Thomas Owens, Professor at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and editor of Orbis, the journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, "If Congress really cared about the economic well-being of American citizens, it would stop fulminating against IOCs (investor-owned oil companies) and reverse current policies that discourage, indeed prohibit, the production of domestic oil and natural gas. Even the announcement that Congress was opening the way for domestic production would lead to downward pressure on oil prices". Until Congress takes these steps we will be held hostage to countries who want to cripple our economy.

So, tell me why, exactly, are gas prices so high?

Sometimes War Is the Answer

Have you seen the bumper sticker that reads, "War Is Not the Answer?". I saw one the other day and thought to myself, "That's a nice sentiment but it is a simplistic, ill-informed slogan". In truth, war sometimes is the answer. There are many anti-war protest groups, many of them formed on American university campuses, which continue to believe that war never changes anything and should never be considered, regardless of the consequences of not waging war. There are few people who are pro-war but, when used as a last resort, war can often be the answer. To believe that if we laid down our arms, all of our enemies would reciprocate, is naïve and explains why most anti-war groups come from the Left of the political spectrum. Most of those who hold these beliefs are idealists who continue to advance the theory that man is intrinsically good by nature despite historical evidence to the contrary. Would pacifism have defeated the evil of Nazi Germany or imperialist Japan? Would the communist "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union have collapsed without the threat of missiles deployed on the European continent and the buildup of the American nuclear arsenal? Would Hitler, Tojo or Stalin have abandoned their militaristic actions if the rest of the world had simply laid down their arms? Of course not. Our enemies, you see, understand that war can change things. This is the reason that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have declared war on America and the Western world. They realize that war is the answer for them to achieve their goals of conquest. They will not capitulate to pacifism and bumper stickers.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has stated that he would meet unconditionally with representatives of all the world's regimes, including Cuba's Castro, Iran's Ahmadinejad, and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il. He believes that all problems can be resolved through dialogue and negotiations. Once again, this is a naïve point of view. Former US president Jimmy Carter recently traveled to the Middle East to meet with the leaders of the terrorist group Hamas in order to engage in "negotiations". The only thing he accomplished, as Hamas readily proclaimed, was to give credibility to an organization which has the stated goal to eliminate the state of Israel. Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain during the 1930's, believed that he could negotiate with Hitler and keep his country out of war with Germany. Joseph Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler believing that he could spare Russia from the militaristic ambitions of Nazi Germany. Both men came to realize, almost to the point of the ruin of their respective countries, that negotiation was not the answer it appeared to be. Those who hold ambitions of conquest, whether they be Julius Caesar, Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, or Osama bin Laden, have no interest in a negotiated settlement. In most cases, negotiations solve nothing until a military victory has been achieved.

Another characteristic of the anti-war Left is that they tend to believe that the aggressor is the victim. Many believe that America's foreign policies brought on the attacks of 9/11 and that the problems in the Middle East are the fault of America or her ally, Israel. Islamic extremists also want the world to believe this lie. The decline of the Islamic civilization in the Middle East has been advancing for many years and the region's only economic development was due to the birth of the oil industry thanks to the investment by American and other Western companies. Without this economic intervention, the region would be nothing but a poor, undeveloped, uneducated Third-World ghetto. Al-Qaeda has taken advantage of this state of affairs to wage a war of terrorism against the democratic non-Islamic governments of the world. Unfortunately, the "War is not the Answer" crowd has bought into the myth of American repression of the Middle East. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, and most of the Democrat party leadership have all declared that America should withdraw from Iraq and then the Iraqis will solve all their problems created by our invasion on their own. Never mind that history has shown that precipitous retreat from a battle usually results in catastrophic consequences. Those who want to compare the war in Iraq to the war in Vietnam refuse to recognize the horrendous results from the American military withdrawal in the previous war which resulted in the slaughter of millions in South Vietnam and its neighbor Cambodia.

America cannot simply unconditionally withdraw from Iraq, return all of the troops home, and hope to peacefully negotiate a settlement with Iran, Syria, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. America's military has suffered more than 4,000 deaths during the war in Iraq and, as terrible as that may be, a greater tragedy would be for us to lose the war. We must do whatever it takes to win. Bumper stickers and slogans will never lead to peace. Sometimes war is the answer. War is the answer when it results in defeating an enemy which murders innocents with suicide bombings, beheadings, and other acts of terrorism. War is the answer when people can freely elect their representatives, live in peace, and strive to achieve their dreams of happiness.