What Is America?

Shortly before the 2008 presidential election, candidate Barack Obama proclaimed before a cheering crowd of supporters, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America.” That statement raises several immediate questions. First, does America need to be “fundamentally transformed”? Next, why does America need to be “fundamentally transformed”? And thirdly, what does Obama want to transform America into? To answer those three questions one must first know the answer to the more basic question, “what is America?”

America has a relatively short history when compared to the longevity of other nations. Many nations have indeed been “fundamentally transformed” over the years. Coups and revolutions occur with frequency across the globe. In fact, the nation of the United States of America was created following a revolution. In the late 18th century America was transformed from a colony of the British Empire into an independent democratic republic – an improbable, noble, and unique experiment in a government “under God”, a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people…” (see Gettysburg address). More than anything, America is an idea. America is an idea founded on the belief that man’s fundamental rights come from God – not from government. The rights bestowed upon man from God are many but the most fundamental of these rights, as clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, are “…Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

When the Founding Fathers finally crafted the Constitution of the United States in 1787, Benjamin Franklin, one of those responsible for the document, was asked what had been created. His reply, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” Many of the Founders insisted that a Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, be incorporated into the document so that there could be no question about the most fundamental rights of men. Over the years, many Americans have fought and died at home and on foreign soil to preserve the republic and make it strong. The idea that “all men are created equal”, put forth in 1776 when Thomas Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence, has since spread across the globe as perhaps the most powerful moral and philosophical belief to ever serve as a foundation for the government of men.

Unfortunately, there are now too many in this country and around the world who no longer believe in this greatest experiment in human history. Rather, they believe that only government – not God - can bestow blessings upon the governed. Today, judges and politicians routinely overrule the Bill of Rights in order to impose a “progressive” agenda upon American citizens. Egalitarians want to redistribute wealth and replace individual responsibility and liberty with governmental largesse. More and more, politicians determine how we should live our lives – how much money we should make, what we should eat, what kind of cars we should drive. Individual liberties have been discarded for the “collective good”. President Obama and our political leaders want to grow the federal government and run our lives. This is the fundamental transformation of America they intend to impose upon us.

Our only hope is to find and elect representatives who will return America to the principles upon which the country was built – a return to the Bill of Rights. Rather than transforming America, we need representatives who will restore America. We need to reclaim our God-given rights and stop those who would steal them from us.

That Will Never Happen In America

What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America’s largest banks would be forced to undergo “stress tests” by the federal government which would determine that they were “insufficiently capitalized” so they must be supervised by the government? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

What if I had told you that within Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in the US Big Three automakers – Ford, GM, and Chrysler? That the government would kick out the CEO’s of these companies and appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry and that executive compensation would be determined not by a Board of Directors but by the government? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 21 “Czars”, without congressional approval, accountable only to him – not to the voters – who would have control over a wide range of US policy decisions? That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

What if I had told you that the federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency - with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 trillion - triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats? That congress would pass Obama’s $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010? That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

What if I had told you that the Obama Justice Department would order FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan? That Obama would order the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there? That several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo would be sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

What if I had told you that the federal government would seek powers to seize key companies whose failures could “jeopardize the financial system”? That a new regulatory agency would be proposed by Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

What if I had told you that Obama would travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologize for America’s past actions? That he would travel to Latin America where he would warmly greet Venezuela’s strongman Hugo Chavez and sit passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

Okay, now what if I were to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new “Fairness Doctrine”? That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads? Would you say, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

What if I were to tell you that the Obama Justice Department wants to limit your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? What if I were to tell you that the federal government wants to reinstate the so-called “assault weapons” ban which would prohibit the sale of any type of firearm that requires the shooter to pull the trigger every time a round is fired? What if I were to tell you that Obama’s Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns, which most citizens choose for self-defense? Would you say, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

What if I were to tell you that the Obama plan is to eliminate states’ rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people? That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US citizen? Would you say, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?

What if I were to tell that the president, the courts, and the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict? That our last presidential election may have been our last truly free election for some time to come? That our next presidential election may look similar to the one recently held in Iran? I know, I know what you say, “That will never happen in America”.

America Is the Solution - Not the Problem

President Obama has recently been traveling throughout the world apologizing for America’s supposed arrogance, aggression, unilateralism, and other sins. In Europe Obama proclaimed “In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” This shows an amazing sense of naiveté and a complete ignorance of American and world history. Is Obama totally unaware of 20th Century events in Europe where America came to the rescue of the Europeans time and time again? While he was conducting his European apology tour perhaps Obama could have spent some time visiting the World War I battlefields of France or the beaches of Normandy which were soaked with the blood of “arrogant Americans” during World War II. Perhaps he could have toured the former Pershing missile sites which saved Eastern European countries from the expansionist clutches of the former Soviet Union during the Cold War or the territories which suffered endless Balkan wars eventually resolved only by the intervention of a “dismissive America”. Yet, instead of reminding the militarily-weak European nations of the numerous times America has saved their bacon, Obama is more interested in inflating their egos while bashing former president Bush and tarnishing America’s history. Obama seems to be more interested in reinforcing his own cult of personality than standing up for America’s history of self-sacrifice, courage, and defense of the principles of freedom.

America was born as a noble enterprise which stood for the inalienable rights of all human beings. America threw off the chains of a repressive monarchy and rejected the misguided policies which led to the subjugation of people throughout the world. America welcomed with open arms millions of impoverished and enslaved immigrants from all continents and countries. When European dictators threatened to engulf Europe in the early 20th Century, Americans gave their lives and much of their national treasure to stop them. When evil totalitarian regimes in Germany, Italy, and Russia waged wars against other European countries and enacted genocidal campaigns against one race of people, Americans once again came to the rescue. Not once did America seek to create a world empire or seize conquered lands for herself. Instead, democracies were established in the defeated countries and, once again, American treasure was freely given to insure the future success of these fledgling democracies. For close to 40 years following the Second World War, Americans gave their lives in battles throughout the world to prevent the spread of totalitarian Communism which was responsible for the deaths of millions of people in China, Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, and much of Africa, Eastern Europe, South and Central America. Again, when Muslim fascists waged wars of terrorism against civilians throughout the world, it was America which led the fight to defeat them.

This is America’s proud legacy and one that president Obama should be reinforcing rather than denigrating. When Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega recently conducted a fifty-minute anti-American diatribe, Obama simply sat in the audience calmly taking notes. When Iranian nut-job Ahmadinejad recently gave an anti-Semitic rant against Israel in the United Nations, several representatives from Western nations at least had the moxie to walk out on him in protest. However, when Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America, Obama simply sat and endured the humiliation. When Venezuelan clown Hugo Chavez eagerly greeted Obama with an enthusiastic handshake and a present of a 30-year-old anti-American book written by a South American Marxist, Obama’s response was a huge smile and a comment that he enjoyed reading. When Obama later had the opportunity to address the same audience which had welcomed Ortega’s rant, he said nothing to refute the anti-American sentiments. In a further act of contrition, Obama seems ready to welcome the brutal Communist regime of the Castro brothers in Cuba back into the fold of respected world governments. He stated that we cannot be prisoners of “past disagreements” and “stale debates” as if the struggle between freedom versus enslavement was a thing of the past.

Obama seems intent on winning new “friends” by denigrating his own country, blaming his predecessor for America hatred, and ceding America’s leadership in the world. His need to seemingly put down his own country in order to elevate his personal prestige is narcissistic, at best, and extremely dangerous, at worst. America has undoubtedly made mistakes in the past but she has also taken great strides to admit and correct those mistakes. America’s heritage and history as the greatest force for freedom and democracy in the world should not be denigrated by president Obama. It’s time for him to stand up and affirm to everyone everywhere that America has been and, God willing, always will be the best hope for the world.

War Is Hell

Here's the problem with war today, as I see it. Many in America (and most of the civilized world) no longer understand the consequences of warfare. We have become so sensitive to civilian death and suffering that we (and our ally Israel) attempt to conduct an antiseptic war where no one is harmed except verified enemy combatants. Those who are most critical of America and Israel's prosecution of the war against the Islamo-fascists who wish to destroy our democratic way of life want to hold us to an impossible-to-achieve standard of humanitarian conduct. Today, even one inadvertent civilian death is regarded as an atrocity. Our enemy has no standards of behavior to which he must conform in waging his war against us. Therefore, we are not waging war on a level battlefield. Critics demand that we adhere to the standards of conduct outlined in the Geneva Conventions yet the enemy is not a signator to the Conventions and does not abide by any of those standards of behavior. This double standard is absurd. Would General Patton have attempted to defeat Field Marshall Rommel by using only one tank against Rommel's one hundred? Would General Eisenhower have forewarned the civilians on the coast of France to evacuate prior to the launch of the D-Day invasion so that they would not be inadvertently hurt during the battle?

Those who wish to impose these standards on the conduct of war need to study history so that they might understand how war has been waged in the past. They will find that the Hellenic and Roman armies of Alexander and Caesar did not attempt to minimize civilian casualties during their wars. In fact, they often encouraged their armies to kill all civilians living in enemy territory; destroy their livestock, cats, dogs, and food supplies; and burn their villages to the ground. Captured enemy combatants were either enslaved or, more often, tortured and put to a slow and agonizing death. These were the accepted rules of war for the majority of conflicts up to and including those of the 19th and early 20th century. During World War I, the combatants used poisonous nerve and other toxic gases against one another, resulting in terrible suffering and death. During World War II, Allied and Axis air forces dropped bombs on large metropolitan cities such as London, Berlin, Dresden, and ultimately, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There is no such thing as a "clean war". During the War Between the States, General William Tecumseh Sherman observed, "War is Hell." He was absolutely right. War is hell - atrocities are committed, civilians die, prisoners are tortured, and horrific weapons of mass destruction are deployed. No sane person wants war. Today, however, we are fighting against a fanatic religious movement that does want war. They glorify "Jihad" (holy war), recruit children and the retarded as killers, and promise paradise for those who kill themselves in the process of committing atrocities against civilians - men, women, and children. They purposely hide and launch attacks from civilian-occupied villages, towns and cities. They store their weapons and hide out in schools, mosques, and hospitals which most of the civilized world regard as "out-of-bounds" for warfare.

When captured, our military (and civilian) personnel are tortured and executed in grotesque ways. However, we hold ourselves to standards of conduct regarding prisoners which are impossible to achieve. Even a single case of a captured militant being subjected to torture brings forth demands for judicial prosecution of our military and political leaders. Torture, for critics of the war, includes strip searches and sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, hearing insults about family members, and, most egregious of all, waterboarding (simulated drowning). I have witnessed waterboarding and can testify that no one drowns, no one is physically harmed, and vital information is usually obtained from the subject - information that has saved military and civilian lives. Many of our military personnel are subjected to the technique of waterboarding during their combat training.

Now, war critics want to close down the holding facility at Guantanamo for those enemy who were captured in battle. They want to release the prisoners so that they may take up arms once again to fight against us. More than 60 of the enemy who have been released have done exactly that. How many members of our military and how many civilians have been killed by those released terrorists? Soldiers who were captured and exchanged during the War Between the States were released with the stipulation that they could not return to the battlefield. Both sides agreed to this condition. No such agreement has been or can be agreed upon with the prisoners at Guantanamo because they hold such agreements in contempt and would never abide by them. They have no code of conduct. But they know that we do and use that to their military advantage.

Our military has conducted the most honorable war in the history of warfare. We have gone out of our way to minimize civilian casualties, to safeguard mosques and Muslim holy sites, and to treat captured enemy combatants with respect and kindness. We use modern technology to pinpoint military targets and avoid civilian causalities as best we can. We do not level mosques, schools, or other buildings where we discover caches of enemy weapons. We give enemy prisoners meals that are the equivalent or superior to the food we give our own soldiers. We provide them with copies of their holy book and allow them to worship while in captivity. Yet, thanks to the American press and war critics, much of the world regards our military as a horde of torturers and barbarians.

It's about time the American public demands a politically-free prosecution of this war. It's time we honor those who are doing their best to insure that there is not another 9/11-style attack on America. The future of our country and our way of life depends on our winning this war and eradicating those who wish to destroy us. Please let us all wake up and realize that this is war and war is hell. The alternative to winning this war is worse than hell.

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?