Today the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The mammoth bill consisted of more than 1500 pages and would be more aptly named the Hamstring the American Economy Act. The bill will now head to the Senate for their take on the issue, where I cannot help but wonder if the Senators will actually read the bill before reading it unlike their counterparts in the House. 

President Obama and the Democratic House leadership claimed that this bill was a “jobs” bill. Their claim is based on the premise that the legislation will create green jobs and will help the economy. The dirty little secret is that the cost of the bill to the American taxpayers will be astronomical. Everyone will pay more for their energy consumption. This may not appear to be that big of an issue for the millionaire bureaucrats in Washington or the hypocrite Al Gore, but for those citizens who already struggle to pay their energy bills on a monthly basis, it will be a major problem. Over the next 25 years electricity rates will increase an estimated 90%, gasoline prices will increase an estimated 58%, natural gas rates will increase an estimated 55%, add an additional $28,728 per person in the U.S. to the national debt, and reduce the gross domestic product by $9.4 trillion

As for the jobs that they are claiming that will be created, we only have to look to Spain to foresee the outcomes of the very same policies. In Spain the unemployment rate is at 18% and for every green job created 2.2 jobs are lost. The cost of creating the green jobs is a bargain as well, a mere $774,000 per green job “created”.   Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at King Juan Carlos University who authored a report on Spain’s green jobs initiatives said, “The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices”. Several U.S companies have already stated that it will be cheaper for them to move their entire operations out of the U.S. than to stay and pay the stifling taxes and penalties for doing business in the Obama led United States.

What I find most amazing about this legislation is the unmitigated gall of the President concerning its inevitable outcome. During his campaign, before the he became the media-anointed messiah of all people, the President said that his clean energy proposal would bankrupt the coal industry. This may not seem to be that big of a deal for most of my “green” readers, but the U.S. depends on coal to supply roughly 50% of our energy. Now how will we supply energy without coal? We could use nuclear power; you remember the cheap, reliable energy source that the President favors for Iran. The only problem is that the very same people who are trying to hamper our economy with this legislation are also the same hypocritical bureaucrats that have prevented any new nuclear power plants from being built in the past 30 years.

According to the United States Department of Justice, a “Hate Crime” is “the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious, sexual orientation, or disability. The purveyors of hate use explosives, arson, weapons, vandalism, physical violence, and verbal threats of violence to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to more attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious and fearful.” I have always been one who questions the need for “Hate Crimes” legislation. Before I am called everything from an insensitive bigot to my personal favorite, a reich-wing hate-monger, I am not saying that there is no racism or hate in our country. There are clearly ignorant, hateful people in our world that will commit some very heinous acts in the name of hate. My difficulty with “Hate Crimes” legislation is that it seems redundant. How do you punish the killers of James Bird, who was dragged to his death behind a truck, when two of his killers were executed and the third received life in prison? There are already laws on the books regarding murder, assault, and every other crime that could be considered a “Hate Crime”.

Over the past two and a half years since Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid assumed control of Congress, they have tried in vain to pass a new “Hate Crime” bill that would include sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity to the list of protected people. The Democratic leaders attempted to conceal the “Hate Crimes” legislation in a critical Defense spending bill in 2007. They later removed the measure from the Defense bill. Bush had vetoed the bill during his Presidency citing the constitutionality of the proposal. He believed that the existing laws on the books in the individual states were more than adequate and that any measure by the Federal Government would be overstepping their constitutional boundaries. Of course, the current administration believes that our constitution is “fundamentally flawed”.

Conservative groups have longed questioned the reach of such legislation. The main concern is how the law would be prosecuted. Would a pastor be charged with a “hate crime” for preaching in his church that homosexuality is a sin and that the Bible clearly says as much? What other types of speech would be limited next? Would it then be a crime to criticize the President or his policies? Of course the news media is already terrified of criticizing anything that the media anointed messiah says or does. After all, ABC News is turning over all of their prime time airtime on Wednesday to President Obama to pitch his socialist dream of health care to the American people without any opposing viewpoint. Another concern is that the new law will rescind the “Federal activity” clause of the current law. The existing law requires that the offense take place during a “Federal activity” such as at a school, but the new proposal will strip that requirement from the law, thus opening the door for a broad range of interpretations of what constitutes a “hate crime”.

President Barack Obama has decided that all of this reckless spending has to stop. He has told Congress that they must now cut $1 from somewhere else in the budget for every $1 that they spend. The concept is not an original idea; in 2006 the Democrats gained control of Congress with promises to turn the tide of Republican spending. They promised to never introduce a spending measure without a means to pay for it. Of course, in the 2 years following their takeover of Congress they simply ignored their own rules. They added $398 billion in deficit spending without any concern for being seen as hypocritical.

For a bit of perspective, $398 billion is a mere drop in the bucket when compared to the $1 trillion forecasted by the Congressional Budget Office to be added to the deficit spending for every year for the next decade. Of course, the President added a few caveats to his “pay-go” requirement. He conveniently provided an exception for his health care reform spending which has been forecasted to cost the taxpayers at least another $1 trillion in deficit spending. To make matters worse, Obama warns that now is the only time to pass health care reform. He is trying to gin up fear to provide pressure on Congress to pass yet another disastrous spending measure. At this point with nearly $12 trillion in projected deficit spending over the next 10 years, why should we care about spending an additional $1 trillion of money we don’t have?

President Barack Hussein Obama, formerly known as candidate Barack Obama, has proven once again that his own Vice President, Joe “which government secret should I reveal this week” Biden was correct when he said that the President of the United States is not a position in which you can learn foreign policy with on the job training. Biden chided Obama during the Presidential primaries for his extreme lack of foreign policy experience or even the vaguest idea of what foreign policy entailed. You may recall that Obama tried to separate himself from the pack of Presidential aspirants by promising to negotiate with Iran without any preconditions. He then quickly revised his foolish statements by saying that a nuclear Iran was unacceptable to him. Either the President has a very short memory or this is just another example of his desire to be all things to all people.

The Obama administration was hailed during the campaign and after the election as an administration that would regain the respect of the world.  Over the past few weeks, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made a trip to China to reassure the Chinese that the investment in our skyrocketing debt was a safe investment. His speech before Econ students at a Chinese University was met with disbelieving laughter. How could anyone believe the Treasury Secretary when he tells them that the dollar is strong and will continue to be a safe investment, when the administration he works for and the Congress have shown no signs of reigning in spending? Or shown any signs that they have the slightest inclination to allow the free market to work through the problems that governmental interference have caused?   Even Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez sees that the current policies of the Obama administration have clearly positioned Obama to the left of Chavez.

Maybe it is the 9.2% unemployment rate that has caused the President to make some outrageous statements over the past week while traveling abroad. How else can anyone explain why President Obama would claim that the Muslim population in the United States would make our country one of the largest Muslim nations in the world? A Pew Research poll puts the Muslim population in the United States at about 1.8million, which would make the U.S. barely in the top 50 of Muslim nations if we counted just the people who identify themselves as Muslim.

Maybe it is the soaring national debt, or his government takeover of the banking industry, the mortgage industry, and the auto industry, or his plans to nationalize our healthcare system that caused him to say that Iran has a legitimate claim to their nuclear aspirations. I realize many of his cult-like followers will claim that he was talking about their plans for nuclear power, but how can you disregard Ahmedinejad’s claims of having more than 7000 centrifuges for nuclear missiles? Do we ignore the Iranian leader’s claims that they will wipe Israel off the map in a matter of days, if they are provoked? Does anyone believe that Iran will not try to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons if they have them?

Iran knows that the U.S. is nothing more than flowery, but empty rhetoric condemning their actions against Israel. After all, North Korea has totally ignored all of warnings coming from Washington. Iran has also turned a deaf ear to the laughable condemnations from the U.N. and the U.S.. Why should they be concerned about any action from the impotent U.N. or the U.S.? Obama said as much in his speech in Cairo when he delivered yet another apology for the war in Iraq. He claimed that we had learned that taking action without broad international support was a mistake. Don’t we teach our children that they need to do the right thing no matter what their friends are doing or might say? I suppose that may be a lesson that is not taught in the school of appeasement and apology. I am still waiting for the President to apologize to Great Britain for our unlawful war in 1776.

On Election Day, Barack Obama and the Democrats won control of Washington DC. Since the inauguration of Barack Obama, the President and the Democrat controlled Congress have set forth legislation that actually delivers on a campaign promise. They promised to change the country, and they are well on their way to accomplishing that feat. The problem, of course, is that the change will remake the United States into a country that is far from what our founders had intended. The Republicans in Washington DC and the party leadership seem to be more concerned about offering a “lite” version of the disastrous policies of the left. They appear to be more focused on not angering their political opponents or the media, than actually offering true conservative alternatives.

The current political season is ripe with opportunity for a strong, truly conservative leader to point out the lies and fallacy of the Democratic agenda. The massive stimulus bill was just the beginning and the Republicans in the House did unite against that bill, as well as the majority of the Senate Republicans, but merely voting against the earmark laden stimulus bill is only half the battle. What happened to educating the voting public about why you are against the historic demolition of our economy? Then there was the bank bailouts, the Chrysler and GM debacle, numerous appointees that were incapable of paying their taxes, Obama’s magical apology tour of the world, Iran’s and North Korea’s defiance of Obama and the world, the monstrosity that will be universal/socialist healthcare, and now even his pick for the Supreme Court. All of these are sitting ducks for a conservative response from the Republican leadership.

Instead, what we have seen is attitudes of appeasement settle over the leadership. There have been a few bright spots of conservative Congressman standing up and fighting, but from the elites of the party we are told we need to be a “Big Tent” party. Colin Powell, who has voted for more Democrats in Presidential elections than Republicans, lectures the party that we need to be more moderate and inclusive. Isn’t that what he got in the last election with John “Amnesty” McCain? The same group of elitist Republicans is now preaching that we cannot oppose Sonia Sotomayor because we will be seen as anti-Hispanic because of her Puerto Rican heritage. First of all, were the Democrats seen as anti-Hispanic for their opposition to Miguel Estrada? Secondly, the Republicans received very little of the Hispanic vote last year, why would anyone believe that if we support Sotomayor for the Supreme Court that the numbers would change? Sotomayor is an easy target for criticism based solely on her judicial philosophy. She is on record stating that it is the role of the court to make policy. She is on record stating that she believes that a “woman of color” would more often make better judicial decisions that a white man. Her judicial decisions have been overturned 60% by the very court to which she has been nominated. I believe it is telling that her supporters are touting her inspiring life story as a great reason to confirm her, but yet the very same people were vehemently opposed to Justice Thomas whose story is equally compelling. A supreme Court Justice should be considered based on their record of opinions and their judicial philosophy, not whether their life story would make for a great Lifetime movie of the week.

For the past several weeks, the media and the Democratic leadership in Congress have screamed and yelled about the enhanced interrogation techniques employed after the September 11 attacks. These techniques have been attributed to saving lives by their proponents, and have been condemned as torture by their opponents. Probably the most out-spoken opponent of the EIT’s in the past few weeks has been House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. 

Ms. Pelosi initially feigned outrage at the news that techniques, such as “waterboarding”, had been used against the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. She claimed that she did not know that these techniques were even being considered. Then the reports came out about numerous congressional briefings by the CIA, to which Pelosi responded that they never told her about any techniques. As more staffers, congressman, and CIA reports came out, Pelosi proceeded to change her story as quickly as Arlen Specter changers political affiliations.

At one point, she claimed that she did know about the interrogations but did not object at the time because she wanted to follow the “legislative process”. As the heat continued to increase, she decided to try to claim that the CIA lied to her and the rest of Congress. She now claims that the CIA deliberately misled her and Congress by withholding the information about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. She sounds like a child caught in a lie, and instead of owning up to the truth when questioned, she continually piles lies upon lies.

With Pelosi flailing about with her myriad of stories of what she knew and when she knew it, the Democrats were having a bad enough week on national security, but then just before the 40 some pictures of the “torture” of detainees were to be released, President Obama reversed course and decided not to release them. I applaud Obama for not releasing the pictures. The only purpose it would serve would be to incite our enemies. For the record, I am not saying I am opposed to the use of EIT’s, but you can guarantee that Al Qaeda would propagandize the pictures and use them against us. Another surprising twist arose this week when the Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama administration is considering leaving the Bush administration policy of detaining enemy combatants indefinitely intact. Can you hear the screeching from MoveOn.org?

Back in February, after President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus bill, we were told no to worry about massive fraud and waste because they government was going to closely monitor where the money was going. Vice President Joe Biden even went out and threatened the local and state government officials that if they spent the stimulus money unwisely, he would personally go out and name names of the wasteful spenders. We were assured that the government would set up a website so that we could check for ourselves where the money was going. Shockingly, the truth is that the government has no clue as to where the money is going and the elected representatives who signed the check don’t seem to care.

This week the House subcommittee tasked with oversight of the massive amounts of money hemorrhaging from the Treasury Department, held a hearing to get an update on the progress of the website and other tracking methods. The chairman of the Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board, Earl Devaney, told the panel that the website is not ready and probably will not be ready until maybe next year. One would think that this news would raise some eyebrows of the Congressman on the panel, but unfortunately the most of the members decide dthat it was not important to even show up for the hearing. Of the 10 members only 3 showed up in the beginning, with 1 other member showing up late. I suppose that this should not be surprising, especially when you consider that no one in either chamber of Congress actually read the “stimulus” bill before voting on it.

At least we can count on the President to follow through on his promise of going through the federal budget line by line to find areas to cut the spending. This week the President did come out and announce his proposed budget cuts from his $3.55 trillion budget. He plans to make more than 100 cuts in his budget that will save the taxpayers $17 billion. To put it in perspective, if the federal budget were just $355, the President’s cuts would equate to $0.17. How excited would you be if you were buying a new TV and the salesman told you that he could save you 17 cents? Obama’s proposed budget cuts out of his budget amount to less than .5% of his total budget proposal. Do you feel that the government is effectively watching out for your hard earned money?

President Barack Obama is apparently unable to make a decision and stand by it. Last Thursday the President promised that no officials from the Bush administration would be prosecuted for the practice of enhanced interrogations. Just a few short days later; he reopened the door to prosecuting officials who wrote memos detailing the legality of enhanced interrogations. What could have caused the President to so quickly change his mind? Of course, he created a political fall guy if the public outcry against any prosecution is too great. He firmly planted the Attorney General, Eric Holder, in the political line of fire.

The legal questions surrounding enhanced interrogations gained attention last week when the Obama administration declassified CIA memos detailing which methods could be legally defended. The various methods included the now infamous water boarding, but also included such methods as a facial grab, facial slap with an open hand, serving the terrorists a bland, but nutritious diet, and threatening to place a terrorist in a confined space with a caterpillar. 

These methods have been called torture by some, but have been called highly valuable by Clinton appointee George Tenet. Tenet said during a 60 minutes interview that he knew that these methods provided valuable information that allowed law enforcement officials to prevent a 9/11-style attack in Los Angeles. In fact, the Bush administration briefed members of Congress on the techniques used during interrogations in 2002. Of course, the hypocritical congressional leaders created a stampede to get in front of the cameras to feign their outrage about such practices when they became public knowledge.

Now that it is public knowledge, what have we lost in terms of national security? Now that the murderous terrorists know what methods we use and now will not use, how can anyone expect the CIA or military to be able to effectively interrogate the captured terrorists? All that they are authorized to use now for interrogations is the Army Field Manual, which will not allow such harsh tactics as insults or name calling. I guess all that is left is to serve them Prime Rib without a proper salad beforehand.

The Obama administration has taken a stance that seems to indicate that what other countries think about us is more important than preventing another terrorist attack on our country. They are more afraid of “right wing extremists” than they are of a terrorist attack from Al Qaeda. The Department of Homeland Security has added that dangerous group of people, known as conservatives, to their watch list. Apparently they believe that if you are Pro-life, support the second amendment, oppose government expansion and regulation of every aspect of our lives, want our borders secured, oppose higher taxes that stifle economy, any combination of the above, or the worst kind of hate monger, a veteran, then you are a risk to Homeland Security.

This week holds varying degrees of significance for a wide variety of people. For some, Easter is nothing more than a typical Sunday where they sleep in and dread going back to work on Monday morning. For others Easter represents one of the two Sundays throughout the year that they go to church. For some with school age children, Easter is the time that the children are on spring break and it is time for the annual family trip to the beach. There are others of us, that the entire week preceding Easter possesses a deeply spiritual meaning.

As a Christian, I believe that the Biblical account of the week from Palm Sunday through Easter Sunday is a true account. I believe that Jesus entered Jerusalem on the back of donkey as the people laid own palm branches and their coats in front of Him. Jesus entered triumphantly on Sunday, but by Friday evening He had been crucified. He had been executed in a horrific display of human anguish, not for His own crimes against humanity, but for all of our crimes against God. 

The life and death of Jesus Christ were a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy of the coming Messiah. He came, not to deliver Israel from the clutches of their Roman rulers, but to deliver all mankind from an eternity separated from their Creator in hell. Jesus willingly accepted the torture and barbaric crucifixion so that we may receive eternal life. 

He died knowing that not everyone would believe or follow Him. He died knowing that people throughout history would ridicule and mock his name and his followers. He died knowing that 2000 years later many in the world would still reject him. He died knowing that I would fail in my Christian faith time and time again. He died knowing that I would compromise my morals for mere moments of instant gratification. He died so that I could turn my life around and follow Him. He died so that I may live. He died simply because He loved me and every other human being on the face of the earth enough to take our place. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13

He died on that cross so that I may live. If the story ended there with His body being pulled down from the cross and placed in a tomb, then his death would have been just another story of an innocent man being executed. Thank God that the story did not end on Friday. Thank God Sunday came. For on Sunday, Jesus Christ rose from the dead. His resurrection is significant because it was the proof that Jesus Christ was truly the Son of God. It showed that death held no power over Him and as such holds no power over Christians. This does not mean that we will live forever in a typical human understanding; it means that we will live eternally with our Father in heaven. 

This Easter it is my hope, no my prayer that you truly understand the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross for you and I. I pray that you realize that it does not matter what you have done in the past or that you will fail again in the future. Jesus died for you so that you can repent of your sins and experience the love and grace of God. I pray that you do believe, but I also realize that not everyone will believe. I do not hold any ill will towards anyone who does not believe, it is your decision to make. I pray each and every one of you have a very Happy Easter.

I have taken a bit of criticism over the past few weeks because I have defined President Obama’s proposals as socialist. In the interest of fairness, I have decided to explore socialism and it’s definition to see how closely aligned Obama’s proposals are to socialism.

To begin we must first define socialism. According to Yahoo, socialism is defined in one of two ways. First it is “any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.” It is also defined as “the stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.”

I am tempted to just end this article now because I believe that those 2 definitions sum up what the Obama administration has proposed in just their first few weeks in office, but what would be the fun in that? Let’s take a look at some of the proposals to come out of Washington since January 20 and see if they fit the socialist mold. One last note before my liberal minded friends begin the catcalls about Bush, Bush definitely started the socialist ball rolling with his own meddling in the free markets, but he is gone now and we are dealing with this President and his socialist agenda.

The automotive industry bailout, while passed during Bush’s last days, has shown some true socialist tendencies. Since the bailout, the White House has fired the CEO of General Motors and the new CEO has been given notice of what the administration expects him to do. The White House insists that they do not want to run the auto industry, but yet they have fired the CEO of GM and they are demanding that the auto industry manufacture the least profitable models. A report has come out of GM showing that the most profitable models that they manufacture and sell are Sport Utility Vehicles and trucks, but yet they are being told to come up with a plan to manufacture more hybrids and electric vehicles. Shouldn’t the free market decide which vehicles it wants the auto makes to manufacture?

President Obama recently made a terrifying statement, at least to anyone that was paying attention. He stated that they will change the laws to allow the government to “seize control” of troubled companies and sell of their “toxic assets” to other companies to save the financial markets. Exactly how would the omniscient government decide which companies to seize? What right does the government have to swoop in and seize control of a company that a private citizen has built? What constitutes a troubled company?

The last proposal that I want to analyze is his proposal for reforming health care. He has proposed universal health care for all Americans. The argument is that there are too many uninsured Americans and because they are uninsured, they are not receiving proper medical treatment. First of all, it is illegal for a hospital to turn away a patient in need of medical care. If you do not have insurance and you are involved in a car accident, do you really believe that the ambulance will not deliver you to an emergency room for medical treatment? Secondly, why does anyone believe that the same inefficient government who runs the Social Security Administration will do a better job with you health care? Does anyone love going to stand in line at a government institution? When was the last time that you were pleased at the service you received when you called the IRS? The same government that was so upset with the AIG bailouts, even though they specifically approved them in the stimulus bill that they never read, you want to decide whether or not you deserve cancer treatment after the age of 65?

Socialism has been tried around the world and it continually fails to deliver on its promises of equality. Mark J. Perry, of the Foundation for Economic Education has cited what he believes to be the fatal flaw of socialism. He says, “It is a system that ignores incentives.” Margaret Thatcher once quipped that the result of Britain’s socialist agenda was they eventually “run out of other people’s money.” Winston Churchill saw the differences between Capitalism and Socialism this way, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.” At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, Ben Franklin is reported to have responded to the question of what type of government do we have, with “A Republic, if you can keep it.” It has taken more than 200 years of politicians slowly chipping away at our freedoms to get to this point, but I think we can safely say that we are now on the verge of losing the Republic in favor of Socialism.

Over the past few weeks I have focused on the hypocrisy of President Obama and the rest of the political class in Washington DC. After reading the responses I have come to an interesting conclusion. There is just as much hypocrisy among his breathless devotees. Before I begin to detail the duplicity of those experiencing chills running up their legs, allow me to explain that not all of those who support the President’s socialistic agenda are hypocrites. There are some that support Obama and his misguided policies because they truly believe that socialism, for the first time in human history, will actually work. There are others, those of which I am referring to as hypocrites, which were vehemently opposed to various policies under the Bush administration, but are jumping to their feet to applaud the very same policies under an Obama administration.

During the summer of 2007, President Bush and members of both political parties were pushing for “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” that would grant amnesty to more than 12 million illegal aliens. The public outcry against the ill-conceived legislation was swift and fierce. Congress quickly folded under the public pressure and defeated the measure. The opposition to the amnesty bill was made up of conservatives, liberals, and moderates. Last week President Obama spoke of the need for immigration reform that would again grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Yet the silence from the Kool Aid drinking followers of the President was deafening. Why would someone oppose amnesty when proposed by Bush but yet support it when proposed by Obama? 

During the 8 years of the Bush presidency, the screams against deficit spending came again from both conservatives and liberals alike. Conservatives railed against foolish legislation that added to the deficit spending. We opposed the expensive Medicare Prescription Drug plan because of the outrageous cost of the measure. We opposed the reluctance of Bush to veto any spending measure sent to his desk from Congress. Now that President Obama is in office, the some of the same people screaming at Bush’s deficit spending are strangely silent about President Obama’s budget plans that will increase the federal deficit by 4 times to $9.3 trillion. Why is it evil when Bush spends more than the government collects in tax revenue, but it is perfectly fine when Obama quadruples the deficit spending in his first 8 weeks in office?

When the news reports came out about the problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the outrage at Bush was immense. The anger was aimed at Bush because of the treatment of our country’s bravest men and women. President Obama even campaigned on better treatment for our veterans. Unfortunately this was yet another campaign pledge that was nothing more than empty campaign rhetoric. Last week the leaders of the American Legion reported on the President’s proposal to force the private insurance companies of combat injured veterans to pay for the medical costs associated with treating their combat related injuries. Again there was no cry from the swaying masses of the Obama acolytes. Why would they not care about the treatment of veterans by the Obama administration?

The answer to the above questions is obvious to anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty, hypocrisy. If you have the courage of your convictions, it will not matter who is proposing a policy. If the policy is at odds with your core beliefs then you will oppose it regardless of which political party is proposing it. I have been accused of being blinded by my partisanship, but if you read anything I wrote over the last year it would become obvious that my conservatism has remained steady. If a Republican, such as Bush, proposed something with which I disagreed, I voiced my opposition. On the same token, when Obama has said or done something with which I have agreed, I voiced my support. The only question that I have for those incapable of being honest with themselves is what flavor is the Obama Kool Aid?

In September of 2008, the Federal government orchestrated an $85 billion bailout of the insurance company American International Group, better known as AIG. The move was part of an effort to shore up the faltering financial sector. At the time, conservatives blasted the bailout as an expensive, foolish, and meddling experiment to “fix” the economy. Now that 6 months have passed since the initial round of bailouts, we can plainly see the folly of such an experiment. To make matters worse, AIG has just paid out millions in bonuses to many of their executives. This obviously touched off a flurry of hearings and press conferences in Washington D.C. to enable the politicians to feign their moral outrage over the payment of bonuses.

The news out of DC this week has been a constant drumbeat of anger, and calls for the names of the executives to be made public. The House has even voted to tax the bonuses at an outrageous rate of 90%. As a side note, does anyone honestly believe that Congress will stop at the selective bonuses of these executives? When does Congress ever abolish a tax? They more often than not simply expand the tax to include more taxpayers. When Congressman Barney Frank pompously pontificated about his desire to make the names of those receiving bonuses public, AIG CEO Ed Liddy responded by cautioning Frank about the danger of publicizing the names. He then read a couple of recorded death threats aimed at the executives of AIG, to which the “omniscient” Frank replied that he would take it under advisement. Sadly, for Frank and many other politicians, the visions of headlines cloud the very real possibility of bodily injury to the executives.

The hypocrisy of the politicians reigns supreme in Washington. Last month, the “stimulus” bill was pushed through Congress without any chance for real debate. It was rushed through so hurriedly, that the majority of Congress did not even have the chance to read it. Maybe if they had read the bill, they would have noticed a small addition to the bill that stated that any contractual bonuses that were promised before February 11 of this year, would be allowed to be paid out. Who added this tiny amendment to the bill? Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut was the author of the amendment. Please allow another side not here as well. The 2 top recipients of campaign donations from AIG last year were Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama. Dodd admitted that he had added the amendment to the bill, but that an administration official had applied pressure to ensure that it did get added to the final version of the bill. So Congress passes a bill that specifically allows these bonuses to be paid, and then when it becomes public knowledge that the bonuses are being paid, the same congressman arrogantly declare their moral outrage.

The White House was questioned about how could they allow these bonuses to be paid out. Their response was that the Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, had only learned of the bonuses last week and was working to prevent them from being paid. The truth is that Geithner had known for at least 2 weeks, and AIG had been working with Federal officials for at least the past 3 months on these very same bonuses. Either the Federal government does not pass along information to the Treasury Secretary, or they knew about it and waited for it become public knowledge to milk every last ounce of political capital out of the outrage that they created.

As I begin to write this week’s article, I can already hear the cacophonous cries from my left leaning friends that we just need to give the new President a chance, a chance for his policies to work, a chance for him to show the world how he will lead. After all, he has only been in office about 45 days. How could we possibly know what direction he will take our country?

If we look at what he has accomplished over the past 45 days it provides part of the picture. He has pushed through an earmark laden $800 billion “stimulus” package, all the while claiming that there were no earmarks in the bill. He has nominated several tax cheats to high-level cabinet positions, including the current Treasury Secretary. His administration has attacked members of the media who have questioned his policies. They have thrown money at virtually every area of government with the promise that this will fix the economy, while claiming that they will control spending.

If we examine what he has proposed the picture becomes a bit clearer. He has proposed the largest increase in spending in the form of a federal budget at the cost of $4 trillion. He is proposing a government take over of the health care system. He is proposing drastic cuts in funding for our military and the research programs that help keep them alive. He has proposed to end the development of any type of missile defense system to prod Russia into working to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions; after all, Vladimir Putin is exuding honor and trust. 

Finally an inspection of the results of his accomplishments and proposals will bring the entire picture into focus. The President has said that he does not pay any attention to the “gyrations” of the stock market. His belief is that it is akin to a daily tracking poll. If that is the case, a drop of more than 33% since the election should show weakening confidence in his administration’s ability to lead us out of this recession. I know he has only been in office since January, but investors are not going to invest in the stock market if they are not confident that the government will stay out of the way of the private sector. Every company that the government has “bailed” out is doing worse now than before the government opened their coffers to “help”. Citibank, GM, and AIG, to name but a few, have all seen a continual slide since the government stepped in to help. Obama and his team believe that we need to continue down the same failed road.

In the past 45 days, Obama has shown his true liberal colors in the form of spending like a drunken sailor on a 24-hour shore liberty. Along the way he has even managed to disrespect our closest ally. When a foreign leader visits the White House for the first time after a new President is inaugurated, the 2 leaders exchange gifts that portray a mutual respect. When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited the White House, he brought with him a first edition biography of Winston Churchill and a penholder made from the timbers of the HMS Resolute, the same timbers from which the desk in the Oval Office was made. Obama’s gift to Brown was a set of 25 DVD’s of Classic movies. This is on top of returning a bust of Winston Churchill that was presented to President Bush by the British government after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

It has been a fast and furious 6 weeks since the transition of power took place and the pace at which the new administration has spent taxpayer money and destroyed wealth has taken many by surprise. Now that the true socialist colors have been shown, many of his one-time supporters are starting to protest.   The question is, will there be any economy to turn around by the time the full effect of the failure of his policies is known?

Earlier this week, President Obama addressed both chambers of Congress to discuss the economy and his plans for the coming years of his administration. During his speech and throughout his campaign, the President promised to end the era of earmarks and deficit spending. He went as far to promise to go line by line through any spending measure and publicize all earmark spending and which congressman had requested it. Just one month into his administration, we have seen massive pork barrel spending and non-stop “the sky is falling” rhetoric.

The ink from President Obama’s pen had not had time to dry on the $800 billion “stimulus” bill, before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed through another $400 billion spending bill. The newest spending bill from Congress contains more than 8000 earmarks. This is on top of the countless earmarks in the “stimulus” bill. The new administration and Congress have signed on to spend more than $1.2 trillion in the first 30 days since the Inauguration. To put that into perspective, that is more than half of the federal budget for 2004, or almost half of what the federal government received in tax revenue for all of 2008. We are more than $1.2 trillion more in debt and we are not even into March yet. Of course, Obama’s breathless supporters in the media would tell us to wait until his budget comes out to see where he has made the cuts to pay for the massive deficit spending, but his budget calls for a more than $1 trillion increase in spending over this years’ budget.

The President has released his budget proposal and it totals over $4 trillion, with about $1.75 trillion in projected deficit spending. This is the largest increase in federal spending in our history. In 2008 the federal budget was a paltry, by comparison, $2.978 trillion with total revenue received at $2.523 trillion. That budget had about $450 billion in deficit spending, but to jump to $1.75 trillion in deficit spending and then claim that you are going to control spending is laughable.

The $4,000,000,000,000.00 budget includes tax increases for those making more than $250,000. My friends in the class envy camp applaud this notion of taxing the rich, but they fail to see that a majority of small businesses will now see tax increases. Allow me to ask one simple question. How will your life improve if some nameless “rich” person is taxed more? The Bill Gates and George Soros’ of the world will not pay any more in taxes; they will simply shift their money around to avoid the taxes. The small business owners are the ones that will bear the brunt of the tax increase. After this plan fails to raise the revenue that the “experts” in Washington project, they will be forced to either raise taxes on the rest of us, after all it is the patriotic thing to do, or hopefully they will see the error of their ways and cut taxes across the board. This budget is equivalent to $11,833 for every American.