In the run up to the 2006 mid term elections, the Democratic leadership announced that they had sweeping plans that would ease the burden of high fuel costs. The average price of a gallon of gas at the time was more than a dollar less than what it is now.   Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her leadership in the House have yet to introduce one piece of legislation to help bring the price at the pump down to a less painful level. They have done a lot of posturing in front of the cameras as they hold hearings with oil company executives. They have accused the CEOs of Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Valero, BPAmerica, and others of purposely manipulating the price of gas to reap the huge profits that they have made over the past few years. Lost in all the pontificating from Congress is the fact that although these companies are huge in the Unites States, the massive nationalized companies of the rest of the world dwarf them.

This week, President Bush called on Congress to open up 2000 acres in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR, the outer continental shelf, and allow the exploration and retrieval of oil shale. The estimates of oil reserves in ANWR and the outer continental shelf are about 28 billion barrels of oil. That is more than double the current 21 billion barrels that we have currently. Oil shale is a type of sedimentary rock that through refining processes can produce oil. There are over 800 billion barrels of oil shale in the United States. By comparison, that is more than 4 times all of the oil in Saudi Arabia. The process of extracting the oil from the oil shale is expensive and until the price of oil rose above roughly $80 a barrel it was not economically feasible for the oil companies to go after it. Now is the time for that oil to be retrieved. If the Democrats on Capitol Hill truly are concerned about the high cost of a gallon of gas, they will seriously consider taking action on the President’s proposals. Sadly, the Democratic Party, the “party of change”, are stuck living with a 1970’s mindset on energy.

The Democrats response was the same response that we have heard for the past several years. “It will take 10 years for us to see any oil from ANWR or the outer continental shelf.” That response is pure political posturing, especially when you realize that 13 years ago President Clinton vetoed legislation that would have allowed drilling in ANWR. It has been a few years since I sat in any type of Math class, but I do believe 13 years is more than 10 years. Besides, aren’t the same people making the argument that we need to do something now on “global warming”? Shouldn’t we then do something now for our future energy needs? They also claim that the “small” amounts of oil that drilling in ANWR and off the coast would produce would have little effect on the price of oil. I find it amazing that these same politicians were calling on the President to convince Saudi Arabia to produce more oil. They then cheered when the Saudis announced to produce 500,000 more barrels a day, when just the first 2 proposals would produce around 1 million barrels a day.

I must admit that the Democrats have proposed a few plans on energy that I believe would have the effect of raising the price of oil instead of lowering it. They have proposed a “Windfall Profits Tax” on the oil companies as a way to punish them for making a profit. The end result would be to raise the price at the pump. The oil companies are in business to make a profit. They will either pass the cost of the tax on to the consumers or move more of their business overseas to escape the tax. Either way, we pay more. They have also suggested that the government take over control of the oil companies. Representative Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat, called for the government to take over the oil refineries on Wednesday. California’s Maxine Waters admitted that she would like to see the government take over the oil industry to better regulate the price of gas. The Democrats are in good company. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and virtually every other Middle Eastern country have a government controlled oil industry. If government control is the answer to every problem in our lives than why do we have a social security mess? How well did the Katrina aftermath go with a government run agency? How many government programs are actually run efficiently? Why should we expect the government to be able to run an industry that they know absolutely nothing about? This is just one more piece of evidence of where the Democratic leadership wants to take our country. To Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama socialism is the goal and capitalism and the free market is the enemy.

Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has decided to try a new tack in dispelling rumors and lies during the presidential campaign season. His campaign has produced a web page to tackle what he believes to be lies and rumors spread via email and blogs. One of the more recent stories was one in which reported that Michelle Obama had used the racial epithet “whitey” in a speech in 2004.

Obama’s campaign claims that conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh perpetuated the rumor. They claim that Rush stated on his radio program that a tape existed of the alleged slur. The dilemma that Obama now finds himself in is a particular tricky one. His website that his campaign developed to shed the light of truth on the lies and rumors is spreading lies and rumors themselves. The transcripts of Rush’s radio program show that he mentioned the rumor as just that, but weeks after the mainstream media had been speculating on the existence of a tape. The reasoning behind tying the rumor solely to Rush is clear. The left and especially their base have a deep-seated hatred for Limbaugh. The Obama campaign knows that the majority of their supporters will blindly accept anything they say that Limbaugh has done. In another time, before the Internet, a campaign could expect to get away with such distortions, but with pod casting and complete transcripts of virtually everything available online, the truth is only a few clicks away.

Many of the other rumors listed on his Fight The Smears website are old rumors that have been dispelled many times over. The rumors that he is a Muslim have been around for at least a year. I know this may be shocking to many of friends on the left, but I have responded to the email forwards from friends with the truth of Obama’s religion. Another obvious rumor is the one that he was sworn into the U.S. Senate with his hand on the Koran. This is another easy one to dispel. A cursory Internet search will show that Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota was actually the first Muslim to be elected to the Congress.  These lies and rumors are easily disproved, but it does make me pause to wonder if the website is a precautionary tactic for other things yet to come forth. 

Senator Obama has many other areas on which the opposition could attack. His political career is one that has been marked by mediocrity. He has really done very little while in the Senate. He was elected in 2004 to the U.S Senate and began to align himself for a run for the presidency. He has sponsored a few pieces of legislation but hardly anything on which to build a political legacy. He has had relationships with several questionable characters. From Reverend Wright, Father Phleager, Tony Rezko, and admitted terrorist Bill Ayers. All of these men, Obama has since distanced himself from them when it became politically expedient for him to do so. I know that none of these men are running for President, but doesn’t it say something about his judgment? He has said that these men that are not the same men he knew for the past 20 years, but wouldn’t you expect him to be a better judge of character? Especially if he is the messianic candidate that his handlers have built him up to be.

Senator Obama has generated excitement and interest in the political process that has not been seen in years. His speeches have been called inspiring. Women have lost consciousness in his presence at the mere sound of his voice. Many of his supporters when pressed for why they are supporting him, tout that he is for hope and change. Unfortunately they are unable to detail what his change will bring or what they are hoping for. Obama is a very charismatic speaker, but his flowery rhetoric cannot hide his ultra liberal voting record, his expensive, read tax increases, plans for his administration, or his associates continuing to embarrass him.

This week the U.S. Senate began debating America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, sponsored Senators John Warner of Virginia and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. The bill is seen as having the best chance of becoming law of all the Global Warming bills up for votes this year. Many liberal groups are lauding the measure, but are urging people to push their senators to strengthen the bill with tighter controls of carbon emissions. The Union Of Concerned Scientists is calling for an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. The current bill calls for a mere 70% reduction. 

Several groups have studied the impact of Warner-Lieberman should it be passed in it’s current form and have concluded it will be disastrous for the U.S. economy. MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Warming predicts that the bill will increase gas prices by nearly 30%, electricity costs will rise by more than 50%, and natural gas will cost 15% more all in less than 10 years. The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University sees a $245 billion loss to the Gross Domestic Product in 2030 due to the restrictions placed on private industry by this bill.

The Warner Lieberman bill calls for a Domestic Offset Program for companies to buy carbon credits on the international emissions trading market to offset their carbon emissions above the legal limit. Carbon credits are a scam created by global warming alarmists to cash in on the hysteria they have created under the premise that mankind, specifically the United States, is causing the climate to drastically warm. It is amazing that we are supposed to believe that if we reduce our carbon emissions that it will have some magical effect on the climate. The theory completely discounts that China, whose carbon emissions far surpass ours, is not subject to any form of global warming policy to reduce their carbon emissions. It also forgets that India, whose rate of carbon emission exceeds ours, is also not part of any plan to reduce carbon emissions. The result of this bill and many others more stringent than this one will be to cripple our economy and have zero effect on the global climate. The battle cry in 10 years will be that the climate is changing, by getting colder, and we need to act now to stop it. They will enact even more asinine policies that will cost us more at the gas pump, in our electric bills, and even at the grocery or department stores.

The general election in November is forecasted to be a landslide victory for the Democrats in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Some predictions show the Democrats with a 70-seat majority in the House and a 12-seat majority in the Senate. The significance of those types of majorities in both chambers is that the Republicans would be powerless to stop any part of the ultra liberal agenda that Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are likely to push upon the American public. The argument will be that the American people voted for change in Washington and that change is clearly very liberal. 

The Democratic Party has good reason to be optimistic about their impending victories in November. It started in March with the Republican loss of former Speaker Hastert’s seat in Illinois, and continued with another Republican loss in Louisiana in early May. Both of these seats were Republican strongholds for several decades. Nancy Pelosi commented that it is a clear indication that the American people want the change that the Democratic Party is promising. 

Of all election years, this one was primed for the congressional Republicans to take advantage of the historic negative approval ratings of the Democratic Party controlled Congress. According to a Gallup poll, a mere 18% of Americans approve of the job that Congress is doing. That number matches a poll from 1992 when that Democratic Party controlled Congress had similar poor marks. That Congress went on to lose control of both Houses in 1994. The Republicans by all accounts should be heading for huge victories in November, but instead they appear to be determined to run head on into a massive defeat.

The Democrats, to their credit, are energized and focused on their election theme of change and hope. The Republicans seem to be still struggling to find a voice, any voice. What I find amazing about the contest in Louisiana in early May was that the Democratic candidate campaigned on his conservative stance on abortion and other social issues. Yet the Republican Party is running away from their conservative positions. They are determined to run as liberals in Republicans clothes. How do they expect to win any election by running away from their conservative base? They simply will not win if their conservative base is not energized behind them. The Democrats won control of both Houses in 2006 in large part to southern Democrats campaigning as conservatives, but yet the Republican leadership appears to believe that conservatism is dead. 

Last year when the race began to become “important” during the primary season, the Democratic National Committee declared that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would not be seated at the convention in Denver, due to those states defying the party leadership by moving their primary dates. At the time all major democratic contenders publicly agreed with the decision. As the primary season draws to a close, Senator Hillary Clinton has intensified her calls for counting the votes of Florida and Michigan. She clearly needs these votes to close the delegate gap between her and Senator Barack Obama. She won both states in January and hinted that she would work to ensure their votes were not in vain. Obama was on the ballot in Florida but was not on the ballot in Michigan by his own choice. 

The Obama campaign, in a move to try to quell the firestorm that will inevitably explode, has proposed that the delegates be evenly split between the two campaigns. This is obviously the best-case scenario for the Obama camp. He is trying to portray that he really does want the voters of Florida and Michigan to have their voices heard, but if this truly were the case he would have kept his name on the Michigan ballot. Failing to do so, has shown that in January he didn’t care enough to allow his supporters to voice their opinions at the ballot box.

Hillary Clinton has asserted her intentions to take this fight to the courts. Her claim is that Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has disenfranchised the voters of Florida and Michigan by not counting their votes. Dean has vetoed every proposal to count the votes. Eight years ago, Al Gore took his case all the way to the Supreme Court to force the state of Florida to recount the votes from three select counties; by the way he lost every recount at the time and every subsequent recount. Now the leadership of a major political party is refusing to count any of the votes in two entire states. 

President George Bush made the following remarks before the Israeli Knesset. “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before, as Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.” Almost as soon as those words passed the lips of Bush, Senator Barack Obama and a multitude of his supporters decried the remarks as a false political attack against him. In Obama’s words, "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack." What could have raised the ire of the presidential candidate? The President never mentioned Obama, or that anyone currently running for President had alluded to such action. Why would Obama jump to the conclusion that Bush was referring to him?

Could it be that back in July of last year at a Democratic debate, Obama expressed his intentions as President to talk directly with Iran without setting any preconditions? He felt that Bush’s policy of only talking to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad under the condition that they stop enriching uranium for nuclear weapons was foolish and too heavy-handed. Repeatedly Obama has asserted that we should talk to our enemies without setting any preconditions. Obama’s own website claims that “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.” His stance has been called naïve by his opponent Hillary Clinton. After all, her husband’s administration held talks with North Korea and gave them the technology for nuclear power with their promise not to use the the nuclear material for weapons. To the Clinton administration’s surprise, the North Koreans broke their promise and now we are dealing with a North Korean nuclear threat. Does Obama possess some ace in the hole that will ensure Iran would keep any promises that it makes to him?

Eight short years ago, President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton were on top of the political world. The Clintons left the White House with their party ready to canonize them into political sainthood. Hillary had just been elected to the U.S. Senate from their new home state of New York. Bill was embarking on a very lucrative speaking career. In Democratic circles, the Clintons not only walked on water, but on air as well. Even as late as last year the Clintons were perceived to be the political saviors of the Democratic Party.    What an amazing turnaround of opinions.

It started in early January with the tide slowly starting to turn towards Senator Barack Obama. Then Obama won the Iowa caucuses and suddenly some Democrats started to see the cracks in the political façade. Hillary bounced back and won New Hampshire, but Obama had a surprising Super Tuesday. He now led in the delegate and popular vote count. He continued to roll until Ohio and Texas came along when Hillary shocked almost all of the political pundits. Many experts had called for Hillary to drop out of the race before the Ohio and Texas contests, but she stayed in and won. She continued to hang around and won Pennsylvania. The anticipation built into a climatic frenzy waiting for North Carolina and Indiana. Tuesday showed that the Obama campaign had regained it’s traction by winning a decisive 14-point victory in North Carolina and cutting Hillary’s victory in Indiana to just 2 points. Again the calls have started for Hillary to just drop out.

Former Presidential candidate George McGovern called for her to give up and acknowledge that Obama was the eventual nominee. McGovern should know when to give up, after all he did lose his election to Richard Nixon by an overwhelming margin. McGovern only won one state and lost by over 500 electoral votes. Senators Kennedy and Kerry both claimed that the race is over and Hillary should step down. What surprises me is that many Democrats are acting as if the Clintons have changed over the past few months. They seem to believe that Hillary has become a political opportunist and is only interested in making it back to the White House, no matter what it takes. They also are shocked that former President Bill Clinton has come out so strongly in attacking Obama. Bill and Hillary are the same today as they were last year, or in 2000, or even 1992. The Clintons have always been relentless during a political campaign, yet now the Democrats seem to have lost the taste for their tactics. Is it that they have lost their taste for it? Or is it simply that the Clintons have worn out their welcome? Many of their Democratic critics claim that the Clintons will do anything to win and care nothing for their party. They believe that the Clintons have turned into liabilities for the party and are ready to dump them completely. Aren’t the Clinton critics within the Democratic Party just as slimy and hypocritical? After all, they had nothing but praise for the Clintons for the past 16 years, but now they act shocked and offended by the dynamic duo.

Is the Reverend Jeremiah Wright purposely sabotaging Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign? After weeks of not hearing a word from Obama’s former pastor, and the media playing a real life version of “Where’s Waldo”, Wright resurfaces to give an interview with Bill Moyers, and deliver speeches at the NAACP convention and the National Press Club. The furor over his controversial statements in his sermons had almost completely died out. What would draw this man back into the limelight? Some have speculated that the good Reverend was hurt by his most famous parishioner’s remarks in Philadelphia on race. Others have suggested that he was upset about being pushed into the shadows by Obama’s campaign. I believe that Reverend Wright believes that there is nothing wrong with his outrageous comments and that he deserves to be in the spotlight, even at the cost of an Obama presidency.

I know the Obama loyalists will attempt to persuade us that there has been no damage done to their sainted one, and that this issue is behind them. The facts, unfortunately for the Obama camp, tell a much different story. Obama’s lead in North Carolina has quickly evaporated over the past week. One poll even shows Hillary Clinton winning North Carolina. Clinton is now leading the polls in Indiana as well. This coming Tuesday will show the true measure of the Wright fiasco. If Obama wins big, then he may finally be able to say that it is in the past, but if he loses or barely squeaks out a victory in a state that he has enjoyed double digit leads, he may as well start packing up his campaign. The Clinton camp will have more than enough ammunition to use to persuade super delegates to switch sides.

Obama believes that he has adequately separated himself from Reverend Wright, but a simple glance back at his statements and positions on Wright’s comments causes more questions to arise. When the first videos of Wright’s sermons were aired, Obama claimed to have never heard these statements and to have been absent from church on those particular Sundays. A few short days later the story had changed slightly to the party line that the words were taken out of context. Then he claimed that Wright was like an uncle that occasionally made outrageous statements, but that he couldn’t disown him. A few days later his pastor was asked to leave the campaign as an official advisor. Last week, Wright shows up on TV and not a word from Obama. Wright goes on to the NAACP convention and makes some of the same comments made famous by the video sermons, but silence from the Obama campaign. Wright goes on to the National Press Club and makes the same claims that he has made many times before, and Obama is now offended. 

The votes have been counted in Pennsylvania and Barack Obama is feeling the heat from the furnace of desperation. He lost yet another “big” state to Hillary Clinton, but it is worse than just losing a state primary. Exit polling revealed that a scant 12% of voters were in the age range of 18 to 29 years old, which is not a good sign for a campaign that could rely heavily on the energy of the youth vote. Exit polling also revealed some dismal news for the Democratic Party in November. More than half of those casting a ballot for Clinton in Tuesday’s primary contest promised not to vote for Obama if he is the nominee in November. The same holds true for Obama voters if Clinton wins the nomination. 

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean promises that the nominee will be known by mid-June, but everyday that this drags on, more and more dirt is flung back and forth between the 2 campaigns. Hillary ran ads in Pennsylvania condemning Obama’s remarks concerning the “bitter” voters in small towns around Pennsylvania. Obama ran his own commercials against Clinton, but after spending 3 times the amount of money that the Clinton campaign did, he still came away with a resounding defeat. Over the past several weeks, there have been many political pundits that have openly called for Clinton to concede defeat, but the Democratic primary voters came out in force for Hillary. Why should she concede if she is still raising money, $10 million in the 24 hours after her Pennsylvania win, and if it is clear that Obama will not have the needed 2025 delegates to claim the nomination?

Obama is clearly showing the signs of a candidate struggling to finish the race. He has refused to sign on for any further debates in the North Carolina or Indiana. His campaign posits that they do not need any further debates because they are winning, but it is becoming apparent that the candidate is ill at ease answering tough questions. His political immaturity showed in the last debate where he struggled to answer questions from George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson. Could it be that his campaign is based on flowery, but empty rhetoric? He is in his element when he pontificating about hope and change, but when he is pressed with questions, the flowers all wilt and fall off.

Obama has also started to take criticism from the Republican Party and other conservative groups. One ad in North Carolina brings up his relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The commercial was made by the North Carolina state Republican Party against the Democratic candidates for Governor. Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, has denounced the ad and asked them to pull the ad, but the state party officials are standing firm with their support of the ad. There is also a proposed ad to point out that Obama was weak on punishing gang members convicted of murder in Illinois. While on the state senate, Obama voted against “expanding the death penalty for gang murders”.

The countdown to the April 22 Democratic primary in Pennsylvania is nearly over. The showdown in the Keystone state is especially important for both candidates for vastly different reasons. For Hillary Clinton, it is another “big” state that she needs to capture to solidify her claims that Obama cannot win the general election in November. For Barack Obama, it is one of the few remaining states that he desperately needs to win to convince the super delegates that he is the candidate to support.

The Pennsylvania contest has become interesting based on the voter registration numbers. For the first time in more than a generation, the Democratic registration rolls have swelled to a greater number than that of the Republicans in historically conservative Bucks County and other Republican strongholds. The Democratic party points to their candidates and their cross party appeal. The aspect that the Democratic leadership is neglecting to take into account is the prospect of Republicans switching parties to either prolong the Democratic infighting or to throw their support behind a candidate that they believe is easier to beat in November. Talk radio superstar, Rush Limbaugh, calls it “Operation Chaos”. The effect of this strategy was seen in Ohio and Texas, where Hillary collected her first primary wins in several states.

Whether or not you believe that the chaos strategy has had any effect, you must admit that the news stories since Ohio and Texas have brought out information that may not have been told until late summer. From Obama’s ties to Tony Rezco, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and William Ayres. The Ayres connection has become of interest of late, especially since more details of their connection has become known. Ayres was a member of the radical group Weather Underground. He was arrested but never convicted for more than 25 bombings during the 1960’s. He has since made comments stating that he was saddened that the bombings had not accomplished more. Clinton has made her own headlines with her amateurish claims of sniper attacks during her trips as First Lady.

Obama has begun to show some strain under the political microscope of a Presidential campaign. Last week he made some comments at a fundraiser that caused quite a stir. He said that voters in small towns in Pennsylvania cling to religion and their guns because they have no other hope. It was just another indication that the man that claims to be the candidate for the average voter, is completely out of touch with the rest of America. Obama attempts to portray an image of humble upbringing, but his education at the esteemed Punahou Academy, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School are rarely seen on the resume of an average Joe. I have no problem with someone who can afford to go to prestigious institutions, but don’t try to mislead the public into thinking you have been where they are.

This week the Congress held committee briefings with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. The briefings were the first since last September, when the General and Ambassador first reported of the successes of the troop surge. This briefing contained more good news from Iraq. The two men reported that the violence in Iraq has subsided substantially over the past several months, but that the successes of our brave men and women are tenuous and reversible. The report was updated with relevant facts from the ground in Iraq, but it was essentially the same report as in September. The overlying meaning in this report as well as the one from September is that we should continue to allow our troops to secure the country while the Iraqi’s forces are trained and take over the security of their own country. 

Here are the links to General Petraeus September report, and to his April report.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still warned in the days leading up to the briefings, that the General had better be truthful. Does Ms. Pelosi believe that the commander of our military in Iraq would lie under oath? Several other Democrats on the committees did nothing more than play to the cameras and make speeches about how they didn’t believe that we could win. Senator Carl Levin, after finally realizing the correct titles of the men he was addressing, launched into his diatribe about how the surge had failed because of recent attacks in Basra and Baghdad. He discounts all of the General’s experience and knowledge to say that we should set a timetable for withdrawal and promptly turn over control to the Iraqi security forces. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid equates the recommendation of Petraeus and Crocker to halt troop withdrawals for a 45 day cooling off period to taking one step forward and two steps back. I am unaware of Mr. Reid’s extensive qualifications on military operations and strategy, but he surely must be hiding a Congressional Medal of Honor in his desk to claim to know more that the two distinguished gentleman who appeared before Congress.

All three candidates for the presidency had the opportunity to question Petraeus and Crocker on Capitol Hill this week. In my opinion, McCain showed his experience and knowledge with his questioning. Clinton appeared to still be searching to find the right angle to spin this into a much-needed political gain for herself. Obama showed his vulnerabilities on foreign policy and military affairs.

This election season is shaping up to be a contest between a political “moderate” and a liberal. I realize that the Democrats are far from deciding their nominee, but there really isn’t any substantive difference on policy between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Senator McCain, the unofficial Republican nominee, is the moderate in the race.

John McCain has built his political career around creating ulcers within the digestive tracts throughout the conservative ranks. He has enjoyed glowing media coverage, which has helped to solidify his “maverick” status in Washington. The important question of this election for Republicans is whether or not conservatives will show up to vote for McCain. Through all of the media hype about conservatives failing to line up behind him, I have come to realize that there is some misconceptions about what conservative believe and what we stand for.

I would like to give a brief overview of what I believe a conservative believes. I am a Christian, husband, father, American, conservative, and lastly a Republican. Those titles help define my beliefs. As a Christian I believe in the sanctity of innocent human life. Therefore, I am pro-life. I believe that life begins at conception and that life should be protected. I believe that little baby is a human life. If you ask any woman who is happily pregnant, she will not refer to the life growing inside of her as a fetus. To her it is her child, a baby. For me, my stand on abortion comes more from my Christian faith, and less so from my conservative viewpoint.

As a conservative, I believe that the government takes way too much money from our wallets in taxes. I don’t fall into the class envy trap that so many politicians are pushing these days. The political rhetoric on taxes has become a rich versus the rest of us rant. The “evil” rich are making too much money and not paying enough in taxes. What percentage of their income should the “evil” rich pay in taxes? Is 30% enough? What about 50%? Why not return to the days of more than 70%? Sadly many in our country would rather complain that the rich are too rich, than to actually sit down and figure out how they themselves might be able to make a better life for themselves. The class envy crowd love to point out that billionaire Warren Buffet has complained that his secretary, who makes $60,000 a year, pays more in income taxes than he does. I can’t help but ask 2 questions. Why doesn’t Mr. Buffet pay his secretary more so that she may be able find the tax loopholes that he exploits? If he truly believes that he should pay more in taxes, then why doesn’t he write a check to the Treasury Department? They will be more than happy to accept his money.

I also believe that the government has grown beyond a reasonable size. It has become the mentality of the general population that the government should take care of us from cradle to grave. This may not be a very popular idea right now, but the government should not be in the business of forgiving mortgages. The housing crisis, while painful, is completely necessary to correct a market that was completely out of control. If the politicians follow through on freezing foreclosures and forgiving mortgages, the housing market will take much longer to get back on its feet. It may make for great headlines, but is terrible economic policy. Once they start meddling with mortgages of those who are in danger of foreclosure, how long before they come and forgive my debt? Why should I be punished for proper financial planning?

I believe that the government has no role in meting out healthcare, or any of the other myriads of programs and services that the politicians propose. Senator Clinton is the godmother of universal healthcare but yet her campaign deemed it necessary to not pay the healthcare premiums for her campaign staff. Is this part of the Clinton healthcare plan? I thought “free” healthcare was a human right. I simply cannot understand how any thinking individual could want the federal government to take over our healthcare. They spend billions each year on our children’s education, but yet in most major cities less than half of those children graduate from high school. The same government who ran the Katrina response is going to run our healthcare system. How am I supposed to believe that they will be more efficient and provide higher quality care than the private sector?

I believe in a strong military that is ready to take on any and all threats, but also to see those conflicts through to the end. If we pack up and leave before there is a lasting peace in Iraq, it will just be a few short years before we find ourselves back over there again. Does anyone remember the debate leading up to the initial invasion for Desert Storm? Many opponents claimed that if the elder Bush had finished the job in the early 90’s, that we wouldn’t be in this mess. Isn’t amazing how those same people are now demanding that we leave Iraq before the peace has been achieved?

I have been called a Nazi, Hitler, fascist, moron, child polluter, member of the Reich wing, neocon, and numerous other names for espousing my beliefs. As if I will suddenly change my view on an issue because I was called a name. I believe that conservatives and liberals share some of the same objectives when it comes to caring for the poor and needy. Both groups agree that they need help, but where we differ is the means of providing that help. Conservatives believe that the private sector is the best way to meet their needs. Liberals generally believe that the government is the sole source to help. 

In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle, “Surprise, surprise, surprise”; Senator Hillary Clinton is caught in a lie. The surprise is not that she was lying about the details of her trip to Bosnia as First Lady in 1996, but the fact that the news media actually exposed it. Although they did sit on the story for nearly 4 months before “discovering” that they had video of her trip that directly contradicted the presidential hopeful’s claims. Clinton claimed that she was prepared for the unexpected decisions that a president must make because of her experience as First Lady. Over the course of the past few months, she has used her trip to Bosnia to attempt to prove that point.

Her version of the events of the Bosnia visit was that the plane that she and her daughter Chelsea were flying on had to “corkscrew in to land” because of sniper fire. Once on the ground they had to run with their heads down to escape the sniper fire. The news footage shows a starkly differently story. It shows Clinton being greeted by an 8 year old girl on the tarmac, strolling over to a vehicle and then finally entering the vehicle to be driven away. The military is also discrediting Clinton’s claims, taking issue that they would ever endanger a First Lady, and especially the child of a President, by flying them into a dangerous situation.

Hillary has admitted that she “misspoke” about the incident and that she remembers being warned of sniper attacks in the area. How does one go from a sniper warning to running for cover with their daughter? Was she confusing the trip with another one where she did have to run and duck? If so, which trip is she speaking of? I believe that she expected that the news media would not bring the truth to light. After all, she has been telling the story for months with no one calling her bluff. During her husband’s tenure in the oval office, the media regaled us with “journalistic” pieces on the merits of lying. The Clinton campaign is realizing that the media love affair with everything Clinton is over. 

Maryland’s Governor Martin O’Malley had no sooner received the phone call from former Governor Robert Ehrlich in November of 2006, when he began his quest to raise the tax burden on the residents of the Old Line State. His rationale for the increases was the “looming” structural deficits. He claimed that even though the state had $1.4 billion in surpluses, we would soon be running a deficit. His initial number was $400 million, his estimate finally landed at $1.7 billion. As he was inaugurated into the state house in Annapolis, the work began to come up with the nearly $1.5 billion in higher taxes.

The Democratic controlled House and Senate held special sessions to pass a nearly 10% increase of the tax burden on to the backs of Maryland citizens. They raised the cigarette tax, the vehicle titling tax, the corporate income tax, and the state sales tax. To add insult to the pain of all of the new taxes, Lt. Governor Anthony Brown alluded to the need for even more tax increases late last fall. He claimed that with the thousands of new residents that will be moving to Maryland as part of the Base Realignment And Closure plan, the state will need to spend billions on job training for the new residents. I can’t really fault O’Malley and Brown, or even the legislature for their perverse desire to constantly raise taxes. After all, they are tried and true liberal democrats, and that is what they know how to do. The concept of cutting expenditures never crosses their minds. To a liberal politician, money is power. 

One other note of contention with our Governor, is that while raising the taxes of every single resident of Maryland, he deemed it necessary to raise the salaries of his staff. The raises amount to increases of salary by as much 37.5% while the legislature is considering halting raises for state employees. Some in the Senate tried to require the General Assembly’s approval for any additional pay raises for the Governor’s staff, but that measure was defeated. Even after all of the increases in taxes, the state will still have a budget deficit of $300 million next year. It is becoming all too clear that the phrase “tax and spend liberal” rings true here in Maryland.

Could Hillary Clinton’s week get any worse? She started the week realizing that her perceived momentum swing of winning primaries had swung back in the direction of Barack Obama. Obama picked up a win over the weekend in the Wyoming caucuses. He later added Mississippi to his long list of states won. Of course Senator Clinton is banking on a big win in Pennsylvania on April 23 to lend credence to her notion that Obama can’t win the big states. At this point in the race for the nomination, it is highly unlikely that either candidate will win the required pledged delegates to claim the nomination. Obama will clearly have the lead in the delegate count and the popular vote by the convention convenes in Denver, but the Clintons are not about to let that simple fact stop them from their quest to regain presidential power.

The tight race has begun to turn vicious. This week, former Vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro made the assertion that Obama would not even be a viable candidate in this race if he were a white man. The obvious response from the Obama campaign was to cry racism. Hillary Clinton denounced the remarks made by one of her high profile supporters, and Ferraro eventually left the campaign. She is still all over the news networks claiming that the Obama campaign is making too much of her comments. She has pointed out that when she was nominated to be Vice President in 1984, the same claims were made about her and her gender; which she acknowledged was true. The Obama supporters point out that she made similar claims against the Reverend Jesse Jackson during the 1984 campaign. 

Another headline that the Clinton camp wishes would go away is the story of Democratic Governor Elliot Spitzer. Spitzer resigned in disgrace this week, after the news broke about his connection with a high priced prostitution ring. Spitzer was caught on tape setting up payment, transportation, and the appointment for an “encounter” with a “lady of the evening”. Spitzer is a supporter of Clinton’s and a super delegate. This is not the first headache that he has caused for Hillary. Earlier in the campaign, his proposal to grant legal driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants caused Clinton to stumble several times to give a definitive answer on where she stood on the idea. After taking every side of the issue, sometime within the same statement, she eventually stated her opposition for the idea. Spitzer’s proposal was shelved for future consideration.

Another bit of news emerged recently that does not bode well for either candidate. A Pew Research poll was released showing that a growing majority of Americans believe that we are wining the war in Iraq. They also showed that less Americans know how many troops have died during the war than knew just a few short months ago. They showed that since August, which is about the time that the news of the success of the surge started emerging, the news media has been covering less and less of the war. Both candidates had staked their claim to bringing home the troops immediately upon entering office. Now that the war is going well, and public opinion has shifted, what side of the issue will they take? It is harder for them to deny their positions when we have ready access to everything they have ever said.