In remembrance of the first Thanksgiving, I thought that it would be appropriate to take a look back at what the Pilgrims were thankful for and what they had learned in their first few years in “The New World”. The story often told throughout the liberal academia is that the inept Pilgrims celebrated Thanksgiving by holding a feast in honor of the Native Americans for their help in surviving their new surroundings. A look at the actual writings of Governor William Bradford sheds a slightly different light on the real story of Thanksgiving.

When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, they had entered into a contract that stipulated that they would share everything that was harvested with the community at large. All property was community property. All crops were stored in a central storehouse for the entire community to share. We all know the story of what life was like during that first winter in the “New World”. Many succumbed to disease and the cold temperatures of New England. Bradford realized that the “social experiment” of collectivism had failed. He quickly reorganized the community into a free market society. In his words, “young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without [being paid] that was thought injustice.” Bradford understood that the incentive to work hard to reap the rewards of your labor was lost under a socialist society.

The Pilgrims learned that in order to not only survive but also to succeed in their new home they needed freedom; freedom to work in a vocation of their choosing, that would provide for their families and their futures. The Pilgrims would not sit idly by and watch their neighbors starve to death if their crops did not come in; they would help where they could, but they expected each man to provide for his family. They discovered that the harvest was much greater under the free market system than the harvest seen under the socialist system.

Another aspect of the Thanksgiving story that is conveniently forgotten is the simple fact that the Pilgrims were giving thanks to their Creator for His grace in providing a bountiful harvest and his protection. In our world of political correctness there is a fear of mentioning anything that could resemble a Christian reference. Of course, educators are hamstrung by the notion of separation of church and state. The fear of mentioning God in the classroom has led to the edited version of our country’s origins. The Pilgrims fled England because of religious persecution. They desired a country where they could worship God in a manner that they wanted. This desire is what led to the statement in our Constitution that the government would make no law hindering a religion or establish a state religion. In my copy of our founding documents, I have been unable to find where it prohibits the mention of God’s name in our schools. How does a teacher accurately discuss the Declaration of Independence in class when it mentions the Creator?

Since early September, when the political elite in Washington informed us of the dire need to bailout the financial markets, we have see a building tide of industries, states, and even cities clamoring for their version of a bailout from the federal government. The “experts” in Congress promised us, that the bailout would shore up the financial markets and we would all be better off. Now that the markets have continued to drop, congressional leaders response is that we need to bailout more companies.

Representative Barney Frank was asked when the bailouts would stop and his response was as confusing as the clamor for government bailouts. Frank claimed that the bailouts would stop when they stopped working. Maybe Mr. Frank has been too busy with his reelection campaign to notice that the bailout has not worked. In fact, most economists believe that the bailout accentuated the problem. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped an additional 3000 points since the bailout that was going to save us all was passed.

This week, executives from the “Big Three” automakers were on Capitol Hill to try to convince lawmakers of their need for a bailout of their own. After the hearings, congressional leaders held a press conference to explain their inability to come to any agreement on a bailout. Their explanation was what we have come to expect from Washington politicians. They shifted the blame to the automakers, not for their failing companies, but for failing to present them a plan on which they could agree. They set a date of December 2 for them to present plans for a bailout on which they could come to a consensus.

Does Congress believe that if they just throw money at the problem that the crisis will just disappear? This has become the normal routine in Washington. Whatever the problem, politicians just throw money at the problem, but don’t change any of the contributing factors that led to the problem. Look at government funded education. For years the public school system has been a breeding ground for failure or mediocrity at best. Government’s answer is to throw more money at the schools but never changing how or what they teach. Then they are surprised when the results are the same.

Over the past week, there has been a constant parade of political “experts” through the news networks to propose their recommendations to the Republican Party to renew the party. The suggestions have all had a familiar ring to them. The “intellectual” opinion is that the Republicans need to jettison their conservative values and ideals. They believe that conservatism is the reason behind McCain’s defeat and the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. They completely disregard any of the other competing forces weighing on the minds of the voters in the past 2 elections.

It will come as no surprise, but I do not agree with the self-proclaimed experts. I believe that the major problem within the Republican Party is not that they are too conservative, but rather that they have neglected their responsibility in educating the voters on what they believe. Of course, then they have to actually govern as conservatives.

It is not enough to say that as a political party we believe in smaller government. The average voter does not care what that we are for a smaller government unless we explain what a smaller government means and why we believe it is the right choice. Some of my Christian friends have asked how I could be a conservative and a Christian at the same time. They believe that my conservative position on the role of government is in contradiction to Biblical teaching to take care of the poor. I believe that as a Christian we should take care of the poor and downtrodden, but I do not believe that it is the government’s responsibility. I believe that the community at large is better at dealing with those in their own communities. Local churches give more food and aid to the homeless and the poor in their communities than the government could ever dream of helping. The sheer size of the bureaucracy of government makes it inefficient in helping the poor. Jesus did teach that we should help the poor, but I have never read in my Bible that as long as we pay our taxes than our responsibility to the poor is done.

We cannot simply say that we are pro-life and expect that the voters will simply accept it and be with us. The age-old axiom, “you are preaching to the choir” holds a lot of truth in this case. Claiming to be the Pro-life party will bring pro-life voters to you, but it does nothing to educate those who may not have a strong position either way. We need to explain why we are pro-life. We need to explain that the procedure known as partial-birth abortion is a horrific and completely unnecessary procedure. I do not know of any medical condition that would require a pre-term baby to be vaginally delivered to the point of leaving the baby partially in the birth canal, and then piercing the live baby’s skull to suck the infant’s brain out to kill the baby. If an expecting mother is in such a bad physical state that she will not survive a normal delivery, how is she protected by inducing labor only to partially deliver the baby as normal before killing it? We need to explain why we are against government funding for abortion and the readily available abortion on demand for any reason. We do not believe inconvenience is a feasible reason for ending a human life.

Campaigning on lower taxes is great, but it needs to be taken to the next level. We need to explain why we believe lower taxes for everyone is the best option for our economy and for our government. We need to educate the American public about taxes. We need to change the debate from a class envy debate to a debate over taxes themselves. Obama was elected claiming that 95% of Americans would receive a tax cut, but the problem is that roughly 40% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes. We need to educate the public about who actually pays taxes and how much they do pay. The top 1% of income earners pays roughly 40% of taxes. We need stop sitting back and letting the Democrats spin a tax cut for all tax payers into an unfair tax cut for the rich. We need to educate the public why an across the board 2% rate cute for someone making $1 million is still a 2% rate cut. It is the same 2% cut that someone making $40,000.

After a few days of reflection on the presidential election results I have come to the conclusion that I am excited. As my liberal friends pick themselves up off of the floor, allow me to explain. I am excited at the unique opportunity for conservatives to get back to their core conservative principles. The Obama presidency is exciting in the fact that an African-American has been elected to the most powerful office in the world. While I disagree with Obama on virtually every issue and I wish a conservative African-American had been elected in his place, I am happy to see this historic day. 

After the election, many of my Christian friends, who supported Obama, have called upon fellow Christians who did not support Obama to pray for him and support him. As a Christian I will pray for our President no matter which political party they may represent, but I will not support policies that are contradictory to my own conservative ideals. I will support President Obama when I believe he is right, but when he is wrong I will not support him. I supported President Bush on his tax cuts for all Americans, and the War on Terror, but I did not support him on the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, or the No Child Left Behind Act. 

Conservatives have the opportunity to regroup and to hold our leaders responsible for their votes and actions. November 4, 2008 was a day when the Republican Party was once again punished for their failure to legislate as conservatives. Our elected Republican leaders became proponents of big government, huge spending bills, and earmarks. They believed that bipartisanship meant that all conservative ideals are thrown out the window and we accept what the left gives us. They believed that the method to win elections was to become more like the Democrats, while during the last 3 weeks of the campaign Obama was acting like a conservative promising tax cuts. Why would the voting public choose a Republican acting like a liberal when he can just vote for the liberal?

Conservatives have 2 years before the midterm elections to find true conservative candidates. Candidates that not only talk about controlling spending, smaller government, tax cuts for everyone, promoting a culture of life, and free market principles, but also fight for them in the arena of ideas. Conservatives do not want to be paid with lip service on conservative ideals, we want and expect results. The Gingrich led takeover in 1994 of Congress was successful because they laid out a bold conservative agenda and proceeded to follow through with it. Unfortunately, many of the newly elected congressmen lost their way shortly after the first 100 days. They became typical Washington bureaucrats with an insatiable appetite for spending and big government principles. 

Millions of dollars have been spent over the course of this presidential campaign season to persuade the voting public that one candidate is better prepared than the other to lead our nation. The campaign promises have ranged from cutting taxes, to raising taxes only on the rich, and to nearly 1 trillion dollars in new spending. Through it all, the mainstream media has exposed themselves as nothing less than political partisan hacks. From Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews fawning all over the Obama campaign, to the Los Angeles Times reporting that they have a video of Obama toasting the spokesperson for Yassir Arafat in 2003, but not releasing the video. Since the media appears to be intent on carrying Obama into the White House, I thought that I would do their job for them.

On abortion, Senator Barack Obama has an extreme record of voting against the sanctity of life. NARAL, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, has awarded Senator Obama a 100% rating based on his voting record while in the U.S. Senate. Obama is on record as saying that his first priority as President will be to make the Freedom Of Choice Act a law. This bill would go a long way in repealing the abortion laws in virtually every state. Obama also voted twice against a bill before the Illinois state senate that would have required that a baby that was born alive after a botched abortion receive medical attention. The existing law allowed these babies to be left to die in the soiled laundry room. In some cases, these babies lived for several hours, fighting for every breath before finally dying alone in the dark. Obama has tried to deflect the criticism of his extremist abortion record, but his voting record is clearly on the side of killing innocent babies.

On taxes, Obama has campaigned around the country on his promise to raise taxes on anyone making more than $250,000. Then over the weekend he made a comment at a rally that anyone making more than $200,000 would see a tax increase. Now this week, both he and Biden have made references to no one making less than $150,000 would see a tax increase. At this rate, by Election Day the figure will be down to $50,000. He has said that he will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. If the tax rates go back to what they were in 2001, then all taxpayers will see a tax increase. Obama has also said that he will raise the capital gains taxes, even though history has shown that raising capital gains taxes causes the revenues received by the Treasury drop. In this economy, why would anyone want to stifle economic growth? 

As we found out this week, Obama has a long held belief that the government should spread the wealth around. A few weeks ago, Joe the Plumber became a household name by asking a simple question of Obama. He asked if Obama’s tax plan would increase his taxes if his plumbing business made more than $250,000. Obama’s reply was that he believed that if we “spread the wealth around”, we will al be better off. The Obama campaign’s reply was not to refute his socialist ideals, but to attack Joe the Plumber. Obama has said that McCain calls his proposal socialism, but he calls it fairness. I believe Karl Marx thought it was fair as well and we saw how that turned out. If Obama is elected, I fully expect to see him come on TV in February, channel Bill Clinton and bite his lower lip, and tell us that he really tried to cut taxes, but could not find any way to do it.

Obama has tried to tie McCain to Bush throughout the campaign, but he fails to recognize that he is inextricably tied to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Reid and Pelosi are presiding over a Congress with the lowest approval rating in at least a century. At times their numbers have dipped into single digits. Their leadership has led a do-nothing Congress into an economic crisis where their party has stood in the way of reforming the 2 major contributing corporations. Obama and his party leadership are on record stating that if they are given the requisite majority, they will bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”. The doctrine simply states that any broadcast must present both sides of every issue. This is a clear and direct attack against conservative talk radio. The left has tried to venture into talk radio with Air America, but that quickly failed. The left has decided that if they cannot compete in the arena of ideas, then they will simply silence their opposition. If they are successful in implementing the “Fairness Doctrine” once again, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will not disappear from the airwaves, they will simply move into satellite radio where the FCC has no control. That is until the left decides to take over that medium to silence their opposition once again. For all of his rhetoric about change, Obama has voted 96% of the time with his party. 

In early April, Senator Barack Obama spoke before a gathering of the AFL-CIO and made a promise to the labor union to ensure that the Employee Free Choice Act becomes “the law of the land”. This bill will strip the rights of employees to cast a private ballot either for or against forming a union. The bill enable union bosses to increase membership by simply having 51% of employees turning in signed cards stating their desire to form a union. This process will be steeped in fraud. It sets up the scenario of union thugs to intimidate employees into signing the cards. The private ballot is a proven effective method of determining each employee’s desire. 

Union membership has declined at an astonishing rate over the past 50 years. In 1958, nearly 40% of the American workforce was a member of a union. Last year, the percentage was down to less than 7.5% with a significant number being government employees. The EFCA is a scheme designed to swell the membership rolls of the unions. The Democratic controlled House of Representatives passed the bill last year, but the Senate failed to pass it when the Republican minority blocked the efforts of Obama and the Democratic leadership. Now Obama promises to ensure it’s passage if he becomes President.

Obama claims that this bill will do nothing more than change the process of union forming, but his own past statements continue to haunt him. Obama has said that, the bill “will allow workers to form a union through majority sign-up and card checks”. Why would Obama favor a process that strips the private ballot right from the American worker? I thought that Obama claimed he was the candidate for the little guy? His co-sponsorship of this scheme is a clear indication that he stands with the union bosses and not with the workforce. The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace conducted a survey of union households and the results are clearly at odds with the union bosses and Obama. 80% of all union households surveyed support private ballot elections. When asked specifically about the EFCA, 70% are opposed to the bill.

As we head in to the final weeks of the campaign, the candidate’s plans for taxation are becoming clear. Both candidates claim that their tax plan will help the middle class, but which one is best for the country as a whole? Which tax plan will help all Americans achieve the American dream? Which proposal will allow small and large businesses to grow, while helping the employees to keep more of their own money? Which plan will encourage capital investments so that companies can grow? Which candidate truly understands that taking money from one person to redistribute to another is nothing more than socialism? Senator Barack Obama this week proved that he is all in favor of bringing socialism into the forefront of our American economy.

This week while campaigning in Toledo, OH, Obama was asked about his tax proposal of increasing taxes on any business making more than $250,000. A plumber from Toledo informed the candidate that he was in the process of buying a plumbing business that would bring in more than $250,000 a year. He also informed Mr. Obama that he would have to work 10 to 12 hours a day to make his business successful. Obama’s response was very enlightening. He said that his purpose was not to punish the man, but to ensure everyone else behind him had a chance at success. He went on to say that he believed that when you redistribute the wealth around to everyone, then we are all much better off. Please tell me, why does Obama believe that he has the right to tell anyone how much that they may earn? 

The Obama campaign claims that the $250,000 mark for business would not affect a vast majority of small businesses. Unfortunately the Small Business Administration standards are a bit different than Obama. As an example, the owner of a Tire Fabric Mill can have up to 1000 employees and still be considered a small business. I am not a mathematician, but in order to stay below the $250,000 mark set by Obama and the owners of the mill would have to pay a paltry $250 per employee. Let us not forget that there is equipment and materials to buy out of that $250,000, plus they need to pay for the utilities. I can hear the whining already, how many Tire Fabric Mills are there in the U.S. So to quiet the incessant whining, let’s look at the numbers for a roofing contractor. According to the same standards from the SBA, a roofing contractor can make up to $14 million and still be considered a small business. How can a company make that much and still be considered “small”? Again, $14 million is not all profit that is the amount of their annual receipts. They still have make payroll, pay liability insurance, buy materials, buy tools, pay for any advertising, pay for company vehicles and their maintenance, and lastly pay the local, state, and federal governments. 

We are in the home stretch of the never-ending campaign season. It is a little more than 3 weeks until election day, when the voting public will decide which candidate will lead our nation either further into the financial abyss or out into the bright shining sun of recovery. The campaigns have pitched their proposals and we have the records of the candidates to aid us in the decision making process. One other tool we have to decipher what a particular candidate will perform is the company that they keep.

The past week has brought a firestorm of media criticism upon the McCain campaign for daring to bring up the relationship between Senator Obama and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. Ayers, for those who do not know, co-founded the radical socialist organization, the Weather Underground. The group under Ayers leadership bombed the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol building, the State Department building, banks, and police stations. They also coordinated jailbreaks and riots during the late 60’s and early 70’s. Ayers has since become a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. On September 11, 2001 the New York Times published an interview with Ayers where he expressed dismay that their bombs didn’t do more to affect the Vietnam War. He expressed no regret or remorse for his terrorist acts. 

Barack Obama claims that Ayers is just a man that lives in his neighborhood, but the truth is quite different. Obama held his first political fundraiser at Ayers home in 1995. Also in 1995, Obama was named as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a self-proclaimed school reform organization. Ayers formed this organization, in addition Ayers was the co-chairman of one of the operational arms of the CAC. Obama claims that Ayers was not involved in his hiring as the chairman, but the CAC’s own meeting minutes show Ayers was indeed involved in Obama’s hiring. Obama has said that what Ayers did 40 years ago is irrelevant to their relationship today. If Ayers ugly past were truly in the past then it would not be an issue. The fact that Ayers is stridently unrepentant about what he did 40 years ago. The Obama campaign then claimed that Obama did not know about Ayers past when he held the fundraiser in his home in 1995. Does anyone really believe that Ayers would not be spouting his anti-American diatribes when Obama was in his presence? Even if Obama somehow missed the obvious in 1995, why did Obama serve on the board for the Woods Fund until December of 2002? That would make it more than a year since Ayers interview with the New York Times went public.

Obama’s attendance at Jeremiah Wright’s church made headlines earlier this year until Obama was forced into denouncing Wright. It still does not excuse his sitting in the pew for more than 20 years while Wright ranted and raved against the United States. He also had to distance himself from Father Phleager, another man of the cloth fond of racist rants in the name of Obama.

Obama also has very close ties with the controversial community-organizing group ACORN. ACORN has made news this past week for their fraudulent voter registration drives. In one case, the entire starting lineup for the Dallas Cowboys football team registered to vote in the state of Nevada during an ACORN voter registration drive. Obama and ACORN have worked closely for years, dating back to Obama’s days as a community organizer. He ran the Project Vote campaign in 1992, which is the voter registration arm of ACORN. Obama claims that Project Vote is not part of ACORN, but all major media outlets credit Project Vote as being an arm of ACORN. Obama also paid $800,000 to ACORN to register voters during this election season. 

Lastly, Obama has attempted to point the finger of blame for the economic crisis anywhere but back at his economic advisors. Obama has as his advisors Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson of Fannie Mae fame. Raines and Johnson soaked Fannie Mae for millions of dollars while running it into the ground. They exaggerated the value of the mortgages that they held in order to score huge bonuses. To add insult to our injuries, McCain and the Republicans called for reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004 and 2005, but the Democrats blocked that effort. In fact, Barney Franks even went as far to say that there was no evidence to call for reform. He claimed that the reform calls were strictly politically motivated. Now Franks is being touted as a savior of our financial markets because of the colossal $700 billion pork laden bailout.

Last evening, Senator Joe Biden and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin took part in the most widely watched Vice Presidential debate of all time. Nearly 70 million people tuned in to watch the debate. 10 million more than watched the Presidential debate last week between Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain. In the buildup to the Presidential debate, the media and political pundits lowered the standard by which to measure Obama’s performance. When Obama did not stumble in the debates and most pundits considered the debate a tie, the win was given to Obama because he wasn’t expected to perform well. In the same token, the same experts predicted that Palin was not even in the same league with Biden and did not deserve to be in the same room with such a magnificent statesman as Biden. Last evening Governor Palin performance was outstanding. Focus groups clearly favored Palin in post debate analysis, but the punditry decided that Palin’s obvious control in the debate was a clear win for Biden.

Throughout the debate Biden spewed accusations against John McCain, while Palin pointed out the outlandish statements of Biden and Obama. Palin correctly noted that during the Democratic primaries, Senator Biden rebuked Obama for voting to withdraw funding for our troops and for meeting with rogue dictators without preconditions. Biden falsely claimed that Obama had never said that he would meet with rogue dictators without preconditions. He also feebly attempted to say that McCain voted against funding the troops. Both accusations are utterly false. The precondition video is available for anyone to see on YouTube. Obama clearly says that he, as president, would meet with anyone without any preconditions. Next the vote on funding for the troops issue is clear as well. Obama, and his fellow Democrats in the House and Senate, tried several times to gain political points by voting to withdraw funding for the troops and to set an ill-advised timetable for withdraw. McCain wisely voted against a measure that the Democratic leaders tried to set a defeat and surrender timetable in order for funding for our troops in a war zone. 

The debate last night highlighted the differences between the two campaigns. On the one hand, we have a campaign that promises to only raise taxes only the rich and spend a trillion dollars more in new government spending. They plan to socialize health care and expect that only the rich will pay for it. If you think our economy is bad now, just wait until the high tax rates slow the economy to a stand still. Once the economy slows and the revenue drops, the new socialist government will be forced to raise taxes on everyone to sate their appetite for government programs and spending. On the other hand, we have a campaign that promises to cut spending, eliminate earmarks, cut taxes for everyone, and maintain a foreign policy that does not reward rogue dictators with U.S. approval by meeting with them. The choice is clear between the most liberal ticket in American history and a ticket with an actual chance at reform. Palin’s best remark last night was when she admitted that she was an Washington outsider, because she simply did not understand voting for the war and then claiming that you were actually against it. Obama and Biden for all of their platitudes about change and hope, their policies and positions represent more of the same old tired and corrupt Washington politics.

There are about 40 days left until Election Day and the excuses have started to surface. Last weekend Stanford University released a poll that suggested at least one third of white Democrats have racist tendencies. The poll findings, according to the researchers, could cost Barack Obama the election. Also this week, Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings was quoted as saying, "If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through." To top it off, a few weeks ago when John McCain was on the morning talk show The View, Whoopi Goldberg asked him if she should be worried about becoming a slave if he is elected President.

These are but a few of the examples of the stage being set for the excuses if Obama loses the election in November. The Obama campaign and its’ surrogates have decided to slyly play the race card in an attempt to guilt potential voters into voting for Obama. They also truly believe that the only reason Obama will not win is because of racism. 

They simply cannot comprehend why a majority of Americans does not buy into Obama’s brand of socialism. Why wouldn’t the voting public be flocking to the polls for higher taxes? Obama has said that he will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. For those with short memories, the tax cuts passed in early 2001 were actually tax cuts for all tax paying Americans. Allowing the tax cuts to expire will be a tax increase on all of us, not just the richest Americans. 

Why wouldn’t the masses be eager for a foreign policy of surrender and appeasement? Obama has said that he would negotiate without any preconditions with our enemies. How do you negotiate with someone who has sworn to destroy you? What common ground do you find? Do we agree to let them only destroy certain states? 

Who wouldn’t want a “leader” who waits to see which way the public tide is turning before making the hard decisions? Over the past few weeks, every major issue in the news has brought Obama out to try to straddle the fence on what needs to be done. When Russia attacked Georgia, he called on both sides for restraint, while McCain decisively condemned the Russian action. Obama later feebly condemned Russia as well. When the bailout of AIG was announced, Obama waited to announce his thoughts and later scolded his running mate Joe Biden for speaking too soon. Americans need a leader to make decisions instead of weakly voting present.

In early June, Senator John McCain invited Senator Barack Obama to attend a series of up to 10 “town hall” style meetings throughout the summer. At the time of the invitation Obama was receptive to the idea of appearing with McCain at the “town hall” meetings, but in early August, the Obama campaign cited a very busy campaign schedule as to why they would not attend the meetings. To date, the candidates have only agreed to the standard 3 presidential debates and 1 vice presidential debate. My question is simple. Of what is the Obama campaign afraid? 

Since Obama’s meteoric rise in popularity, he has long relied on the use of teleprompters to deliver his speeches. He has even taken to using them at campaign rallies, such as in a rodeo ring at the Colorado State Fair this week. Obama is a very gifted speaker when delivering his speeches with the aid of electronic devices, but when he is speaking without their help, he stumbles over his words. Much has been said about McCain and Palin, but both of them are able to think on their feet and deliver speeches and answer questions without outside help.

Perhaps Obama is worried about taking questions from those who have not sworn their allegiance to him. The news media has been very loyal and easy on Obama. They have not asked him any of the tough questions that McCain and Palin have faced. Is Obama worried that he may get asked tough questions from the lowly citizens of the United States? Will they ask about his extremely liberal record in the Illinois state senate and the U.S. Senate? Will they ask him about his 2 economic advisors who were part of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers? Advisors Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson were both CEO’s of Fannie Mae during the time frame of scandal, which directly led to the meltdown we have seen over the last week. In fact, Obama is second on the list of recipients of donations from Fannie Mae. Is Obama afraid to be asked about his nearly $1 trillion increase in government spending? Is he hiding from his plan to increase taxes on all taxpayers by not protecting the Bush tax cuts?

On September 11, 2008, the United States was attacked, on our own soil, for the second time in less than 10 years. The terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, hijacked 4 airplanes that morning and successfully crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, causing them to collapse, and the Pentagon. The fourth plane was crashed into a field in Shanksville, PA after the heroic passengers of flight 93 struggled with the cowardly terrorists. This is a day that will long be remembered throughout the United States and the world. This was a day where heroism and honor were truly defined. This was a day when the citizens of the United States awoke to the dangers of terrorism and true evil.

This past week, the political attacks have intensified from both sides of the aisle, and culminated when Senator Barack Obama’s aide Bill Burton accused Senator John McCain of not knowing how to define honor. I believe that on this the seventh anniversary on 9/11, I will help the Obama campaign understand the definition of honor.

I believe that the passengers of flight 93 are excellent examples of men and women of honor. They rushed the cockpit and the hijackers to either wrest control of the aircraft from these cowards or to put the plane down before they reached the terrorists target. They put aside their own fears and concerns to sacrifice themselves for the protection of countless others. 

The personnel of the New York City Police and Fire Departments are another perfect example of honor. They rushed into burning buildings to rescue complete strangers. I realize that this is their job, but they continued to do their job in the face of utter confusion and fear. The continued to try rescue people even after the first building fell. They laid down their lives for the sake of others.

The men and women of our Armed Forces display honor on a daily basis. They freely volunteer to put on the uniform of our country and go fight to defend freedom and democracy around the world. The fight even while our own feeble minded politicians falsely accuse them of atrocious crimes. They continue to fight while the same politicians declare their efforts lost and pointless, and try to cut off their funding. They continue to fight even after sustaining injuries to themselves and watching their comrades die. 

Lastly Senator John McCain clearly defined honor while sitting in a Vietnamese Prisoner of War camp for 5 and half years. He clearly defined honor by refusing an early release from that camp because he felt fellow prisoners that had been there longer should go home first. He clearly defined honor by refusing to give information to his tormentors while enduring years of torture. John McCain defines honor with his lifetime of public service both in and out of the military.

The political conventions have come to a close and one surprising reaction has been noticed. The Democratic Party is in a state of panic over the nomination of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Since John McCain revealed his selection of Palin on Friday, August 29, the liberal blogs, the news media, and Democratic operatives have unleashed a constant barrage of negative attacks on Palin. The Obama/Biden campaign, to their credit, did publicly come out and say that any personal attack on Palin’s family was off limits. Of course that did nothing to slow the relentless assault on Palin and her family.

The major networks reported on unsubstantiated stories of infidelity, ethical violations, and even claimed that she covered up a pregnancy of her daughter by claiming her 4 month old son was hers. They questioned whether or not she was capable of being a mother to 5 children and Vice President. Some even questioned her judgment for having a baby at 44 years old, as well as having a baby with Down Syndrome. The Boston Herald even ran a story claiming her hairstyle was 20 years out of date, and then made a correlation between her hairstyle and her policies. I believe that this election has shown the extreme bias of the major news media outlets. They made their presidential selection early on and have done everything in their power to prop him up and tear everyone else down. I am not just referring to their tearing down of Republicans; they were merciless with their coverage of Hillary Clinton. 

MSNBC, for example, has Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman who both have not hidden their admiration and support for Obama. Matthews went as far to say that when Obama speaks, he gets a tingling sensation up his legs. If Matthews and Olberman were strictly political pundits, in the mode of Sean Hannity or Alan Combs, it would be understandable, but these 2 host news coverage of political events. Their spin is always positive for Obama without ever pointing to any negatives, yet when they speak of any other candidate they cannot stop themselves from pontificating about every flaw.

Women’s groups should laud Governor Palin as the poster child for women’s empowerment, but the National Organization for Women does not support Palin. They have released a statement to denounce Palin as a role model for feminists. I find this very enlightening. The National Organization for Woman has just identified themselves as a group not interested in empowering women, but rather elevating liberal ideals. Palin is a woman who has done everything for which feminists have been clamoring for decades. She has risen to the top of Alaskan politics, she has raised a family and kept her career, she is a strong woman that is not afraid to take on a male dominated political field. The only thing that she has not done that modern day feminists believe in is have an abortion or support the practice of abortions. This one issue has defined what modern day feminism has become. Even Oprah has decided that an empowered woman is not worthy of her television show, citing that she does not want her show to become a political platform. It is amazing that she feels that way since she had both Bush and Gore on her show in 2000, and she has spent the past year and a half actively campaigning for Obama, both on and off the air.

Senator Barack Obama is officially now the Democratic nominee for President. After months of campaigning for the nomination, Obama concluded his convention with another eloquent, but completely empty speech. The convention in Denver was hyped by the media, especially MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, as something akin to a coronation of Obama. Matthews and Olbermann months ago hitched their wagons to the Obama campaign and have been openly campaigning for him to be President. The convention was four days of speeches paying tribute to Senator Kennedy, Senator Clinton, and former President Bill Clinton. The substance of what Barack Obama and Joe Biden stand for can be summed up as, “We are not Bush”. The rallying cry from Denver, as has been throughout his campaign, is one word, “Change”.

Speech after speech in Denver cried for the need for change, but spoke of nothing that an Obama/Biden ticket will really change. They made scant references to being oil free in 10 years and ending global warming, but there was very little in the way of substance. I believe that the American public is growing weary of the rock star treatment that the Obama campaign has enjoyed over the past year. Even after Obama picked Senator Joe Biden as his running mate, there was a noticeable drop in the polls for Obama. Obama can no longer claim that his campaign is bringing something new and fresh to Washington. Biden has been in Washington for the past 35 years, which is 9 years before McCain was first elected to the House of Representatives. Biden was clearly chosen to attempt to prop up the campaign’s severe lack of any resume.

The news one day after the convention ended, and after Obama’s acceptance speech, was filled with reports of McCain’s Vice Presidential pick of Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin. Palin is known throughout Alaska politics as a reformer and a tough political opponent, but relatively unknown in the rest of the country. The Obama campaign quickly issued a statement questioning her experience because she was the mayor of a small town in Alaska. It is quite amusing for the Obama to question anyone’s experience. Palin has been a member of a City Council, a mayor, and now a Governor. All of which adds up to more experience than the “chosen one” from Illinois. At the very least, Governor Palin has chief executive experience, which is by far more experience than the 143 days that Senator Obama has spent in the United States Senate.

Senator Barack Obama is officially now the Democratic nominee for President. After months of campaigning for the nomination, Obama concluded his convention with another eloquent, but completely empty speech. The convention in Denver was hyped by the media, especially MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, as something akin to a coronation of Obama. Matthews and Olbermann months ago hitched their wagons to the Obama campaign and have been openly campaigning for him to be President. The convention was four days of speeches paying tribute to Senator Kennedy, Senator Clinton, and former President Bill Clinton. The substance of what Barack Obama and Joe Biden stand for can be summed up as, “We are not Bush”. The rallying cry from Denver, as has been throughout his campaign, is one word, “Change”.

Speech after speech in Denver cried for the need for change, but spoke of nothing that an Obama/Biden ticket will really change. They made scant references to being oil free in 10 years and ending global warming, but there was very little in the way of substance. I believe that the American public is growing weary of the rock star treatment that the Obama campaign has enjoyed over the past year. Even after Obama picked Senator Joe Biden as his running mate, there was a noticeable drop in the polls for Obama. Obama can no longer claim that his campaign is bringing something new and fresh to Washington. Biden has been in Washington for the past 35 years, which is 9 years before McCain was first elected to the House of Representatives. Biden was clearly chosen to attempt to prop up the campaign’s severe lack of any resume.

The news one day after the convention ended, and after Obama’s acceptance speech, was filled with reports of McCain’s Vice Presidential pick of Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin. Palin is known throughout Alaska politics as a reformer and a tough political opponent, but relatively unknown in the rest of the country. The Obama campaign quickly issued a statement questioning her experience because she was the mayor of a small town in Alaska. It is quite amusing for the Obama to question anyone’s experience. Palin has been a member of a City Council, a mayor, and now a Governor. All of which adds up to more experience than the “chosen one” from Illinois. At the very least, Governor Palin has chief executive experience, which is by far more experience than the 143 days that Senator Obama has spent in the United States Senate.