After months and months of campaigning, we finally have a moment of peace and quiet, but only a fleeting moment as we wait for the results of the Iowa caucuses.  The poll results have been all over the map.  One poll says that Hillary will win, with Obama and Edwards following closely behind.  Another says that Hillary will come in third behind Edwards and Obama.  The Republican side is just as unpredictable.  Some say Huckabee will win, while others say Romney is the man.  Others say that McCain and Thompson are surging to the front. 

It has been more than 40 years since neither party is running an incumbent President or Vice President.  The political parties have given us a wide array of candidates to choose from, with none of the politicians distinguishing themselves from the rest of the pack.  Just a few short months ago, the pundits told us that the primaries were already decided with Giuliani and Clinton being declared the winners.  Now it is 2008, and we see that Clinton’s lead has evaporated to the point that some polls show her trailing both Edwards and Obama.  Giuliani’s lead is gone to the point where he hasn’t focused on the Iowa caucuses. 

In the run-up to the first test for the candidates, some “experts” questioned whether or not the Iowa caucuses really matter anymore.  The same “experts” posited that if Hillary came in second or third, it would actually be seen as a win because of the uphill battle she has had to fight.  I simply don’t understand what battle she has had to fight.  She held a commanding lead in every poll since before she even declared her candidacy.  Their logic does have a ring of familiarity.  Former President Bill Clinton came in fourth place in Iowa, only to see him come in second in New Hampshire.  He was seen as the “Comeback Kid” and went on to win the nomination.  Hillary’s campaign is being run by the same people that propelled her husband to the Oval Office, I have to wonder how much of this is coincidence or political maneuvering.

As the results come in we will see all of the candidates rationalizing the outcome to their advantage.  If Hillary does come in second, it will still be declared a victory and she will move on to New Hampshire a little more determined.  If she ends up in third place, Obama and Edwards are in for the fight of their lives.  The gloves will come off, and the Clinton War Machine will get in gear to roll over anyone in their path.  She believes it her birthright to be the next President and will do anything that she deems necessary to achieve that goal.  If Edwards comes in third behind Clinton and Obama, I believe we will start to see the last days of his campaign.  Obama is in this for the long haul, no matter where he ends up in the polls.

As 2007 comes to a close, we look back over the preceding 12 months to see some heartbreaking stories, some that lifted our spirits, and then there were some that showed that in politics, one year is pretty much the same as any other year.  January started with plenty of promises from politicians about the impending change in Congress.  It is now ending with very little changed about how things are done in Washington.  Let’s look back over the year at just a few of the events that made history.

Undoubtedly, one of the biggest stories of the year took place on April 16 in the college town of Blacksburg, Va.  Cho Seug-Hui became infamous throughout history for his killing spree on the campus of Virginia Tech that claimed the lives of 33 students and staff.  As with any tragedy, there were scores of “experts” that appeared to assign blame to everyone from the gun that Cho used, to President Bush.  After all, Bush is to blame for everything.  Noticeably missing from their blame game was Cho himself.

Iraq again claimed many of the headlines and the debates on Capitol Hill.  In January, Bush pledged to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq.  Immediately the Democrats and some Republicans started to calling for an all out surrender and defeat of our troops.  They popular refrain was that we had already lost and the troop surge would be a disaster.  The Democrats promised to block the troop surge, but when it when it came time to follow through on their promise, we found that their promises were just more empty rhetoric.  The President stood firm on the troop surge and as the year comes to a close, even the staunchest opponents have started to admit the surge has had a very positive effect on the violence in Iraq.

Former Vice President Al Gore continued his crusade against the United States.  I apologize, I meant to say global warming.  He organized and delivered worldwide concerts to raise awareness about the global warming issue.  The concerts proved to be a ratings disaster for television, and released untold amounts of carbon.  The ultimate goal was to increase awareness about global warming to decrease the amount of carbon that we produce.  The organizers purchased carbon credits to “offset” the carbon that was produced to put on the concert.  Carbon credits are the rich environmentalists way of appeasing their consciences for living how they want, but still preaching that the rest of us should go “green”.  Gore was rewarded for his efforts with the Nobel peace prize.

Rush hour traffic in Minneapolis became a nightmare for the commuters on the I35 bridge in early August when the bridge collapsed and fell into the Mississippi River below.  13 people died in the collapse that brought attention to the thousands of bridges across our country.  The I35 bridge had been recently inspected and had been deemed safe but deficient.  The ongoing investigation is hoping to reveal the cause of the bridge failure.  We could probably save a great deal of time and money and just blame Bush for the collapse.  After all, there were many who believed he was responsible at the time.

In regard to sports, it was a year of black eyes for baseball and for Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick.  Vick was charged with dog fighting and gambling related offenses.  He agreed to a plea bargain in which he will serve 23 months in prison.  Former senator George Mitchell release his much anticipated steroids report on baseball.  Several high profile names appeared on the list including Roger Clemens, Andy Petite, and of course Barry Bonds.  Some of the players that were named, admitted to using steroids, but only before Major League Baseball had instituted a no steroids policy.  Baseball to its credit is trying to clean up it’s act now, but for many it is too little, too late.  They were forced into the policy only after Jose Canseco released his “tell-all” book brought the steroid issue to the forefront.  The NFL dealt with their steroid problems years ago.  I guess if Commissioner Bud Selig needs an easy scapegoat, he could always blame Bush.  It seems to be very popular right now.

In January of 2007, the control of Congress was handed over to the Democratic party leadership under the mantra of “A New Direction”.  After 11 months of control, the 110^th Congress has one of the lowest approval ratings in history.  The Democrats used the negative numbers in their campaigns last year to help retake control of both houses of Congress.  Just before the November elections last year the Republican controlled Congress had a similarly low approval, but after a year of Democrat control, the voting public appears to have the same level of disdain for the way that the Democrats have handled their power.  Both political parties are in some serious trouble when it comes to the public’s confidence in their ability to lead. 

When the Republicans were in control, they displayed no desire to control their own drunken sailor spending habits, effectively deal with the illegal immigration problems, or to police their congressional colleagues relationships with lobbyists.  The Democratic leadership took over and promised to lead the Congress in a new direction.  That direction holds a striking resemblance to the Congress they promised to change.  They have done nothing to rein in the out of control spending.  Under the leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform was brought to the floor and soundly defeated (thank God for that defeat).  The lobbying rules have changed to some extent, but they left enough loopholes to allow themselves to still receive their perks. 

The Democrats were elected to change directions in Congress, but also in the war in Iraq.  After numerous threats to withdraw all funding for the troops, and incessant caterwauling of Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, et al of defeat, the Congress has not succeeded in their stated goal of bringing the troops home immediately.  In fact, the troop levels have risen to accommodate the “surge” and we have seen astounding success.  Even Murtha, who has been decrying our efforts for more than a year, has been heard acknowledging that the surge is working.  The Democratic party is in dangerous territory politically.  If the military effort continues to go well, they are seen as the doomsayers in the face of victory.  If the war goes badly, then they are seen as the gleeful recipients of war casualty numbers.  The Democratic party is beholden to the anti-war establishment, who expects nothing less than a complete withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.  With the failure to cause any change in war strategy, the Democrats need to appease the anti-war supporters.  The question is, what will they be able to accomplish on that front without appearing to be anti-troop?

The Republicans lost their power in large part to their ties to lobbying scandals and their inability to control spending.  After a year in the minority, they have shown very little improvement on the spending issue.  Most Republicans seem just as eager as the Democratic counterparts to spend as if there was no tomorrow.  They rush to attach earmarks to legislation to send more of our money to their pet projects.  Most Republican voters consider themselves to be for a smaller, less intrusive government.  The Republican party of late has done nothing to slow the growth of government, or even shrink the size.  They have given the taxpayers a tax cut, which has helped, but they did nothing to ensure that the tax cuts would be permanent.  The tax cuts are due to expire in a few years and there will be no one to blame but the Republicans who did not act while they had control.

The Democratic candidates for president participated in their final debate before the Iowa caucuses on January 3.  One by one the candidates echoed each other in the need to raise taxes and to having no desire to balance the budget.  The Republican candidates were on hand yesterday to debate the issues.  Their common theme was their desire to cut taxes and to cut federal spending.  Last week I covered the candidate’s positions on illegal immigration.  This week as we discuss the issue of taxes and spending, the deep divide between the two parties becomes even clearer.  From the left side of the political spectrum we are promised higher taxes and no promises on controlling spending.  From the right we hear promises of lower taxes and spending cuts.

The majority of the Democratic candidates spoke of raising taxes on the “wealthiest” of Americans and on “big” corporations.  Only New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson mentioned his desire to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and to eliminate Congress’ earmark addiction.  The Democrats promise to raise taxes on the rich and corporations make for great headlines for those susceptible to class envy, but reality will be a much different story.  The simple truth is that for every dollar that a president or Congress taxes a corporation, the same corporation will raise the price of their product or service.  In simple non-intellectual terms, a tax hike on a corporation is a tax hike on all those who buy that corporation’s products.  The idea of raising taxes on the rich is not a new one.  It is the same tired campaign rhetoric that has been used for at least the past 35 years.  If Bill Gates receives a tax hike, while you still pay the same amount, how has your life improved?  Do you have any extra money in your pocket?  Or do you just feel better that Gates is paying more now?

The Republicans preached against the overspending of the government.  I do find it ironic that many of the candidates have been in Congress who has control of the federal purse strings.  Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney specified several areas of the federal budget that could be cut.  He highlighted 342 economic development programs with oversight by different departments.  His point was that we do not really need 342 economic development programs.  Obviously all 342 programs are not working, but in government failure means more money.  Government programs are like taxes.  Once they are created and on the books, they are never cut from the federal budget.

It has been 6 months since the furor over the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill hit the headlines.  During the ensuing months, Congress has tried to pass various forms of immigration reform, with each version going down to a devastating defeat.  Now we are less than a month away from the Iowa caucuses where the voter of Iowa will begin the process of deciding who will represent the major political parties in next November’s Presidential election.  I believe that it is fitting to look at the immigration record of the candidates from both parties.

On the Democratic side of the political spectrum we have Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, former Senator John Edwards, Governor Bill Richardson, Representative Dennis Kucinich, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Chris Dodd, and former Senator Mike Gravel.  These candidates have all received horrible assessments from the non-partisan group Americans for Better Immigration.  Clinton, Edwards, and Biden all received a D rating.  Obama, Dodd, and Kucinich received a lower rating of D-.  Governor Richardson fared the worst of the entire field of candidates with an abysmal score of F-.  I have included the links to each candidates score card and the explanations of how the grades are derived.

On the Republican side of the contest we have former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Governor Mitt Romney, former Governor Mike Huckabee, Representative Duncan Hunter, Senator John McCain, Representative Tom Tancredo, former Senator Fred Thompson, Representative Ron Paul, and former Ambassador Alan Keyes.  This list of candidates as a whole received much better grades from Americans for Better Immigration.  Tancredo and Hunter both received outstanding grades with an A+.  Romney was rated as good and Paul was given a B.  Thompson scored a mediocre C.  Giuliani and Huckabee both were rated as bad with McCain earning a D.

Since the campaign season has started to heat up with the polls seemingly changing by the hour who is leading in a particular state, most of the candidates seem to either back away from a previously held position or take both sides of the issue in the same speech.  Clinton contradicted herself in the debate last month by favoring and opposing the idea of giving illegal immigrants legal driver’s licenses.  Romney has made news by firing a landscaping company who worked on his property for employing illegal immigrants.  Giuliani and Romney have traded attacks over the sanctuary status of Rudy’s New York City and Mitt’s state of Massachusetts.  Huckabee has been busy answering questions over his support for giving illegal immigrant children in state tuition in Arkansas.  McCain has backed off from his rabid support of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform. 

Representatives Hunter and Tancredo have been steadfast in their quest to stem the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders.  Senator Obama was equally as steadfast in his support for the driver’s license issue in the debates last month.  Governor Richardson has the worst record on illegal immigration of all of the candidates.  He has a nearly perfect record in the wrong direction.  Senator Edwards has been vigilant in his support of illegal immigration.  Representative Paul has been very consistent on the issue with very few exceptions. 

The expedited campaign season has become quite entertaining, especially when the topic turns to Senator Hillary Clinton.  Senator Clinton has, for at least the past 7 years, been positioning herself as the media favorite for the presidency.  Well, at least CNN’s top pick for the White House in 2008. 

Take a short trip down memory lane to the October 30 debate hosted by Tim Russert.  Russert posited a simple question of Senator Clinton.  His question asked where Clinton stood on the proposal of New York Governor Elliot Spitzer to enable illegal immigrants to legally obtain New York state driver’s licenses.  The Senator had a difficult time explaining her stance.  So much difficulty that her debate opponents seized the opportunity to point out her hypocrisy of taking both sides of the issue in her brief but confusing answer.  Her campaign’s response was to attack Russert for engaging in personal attack questioning.  Over the ensuing days she took positions on both sides and even on top of the driver’s licenses issue.  Too her credit, she eventually took a definitive stance against issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.  Her campaign then put out a warning to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.  Wolf would be wise to refrain from the personal attacks that Tim Russert had launched against the presumptive Democratic nominee.  On November 15, CNN televised the debate hosted by Wolf Blitzer.  When the hot button issue of driver’s licenses came up, and Clinton’s answer was a simple “No”, there was no follow up questioning her new position.

On November 28, the Republicans held their Youtube debate, which was again broadcast by CNN, but hosted by Anderson Cooper.  The format was simple, “independent” voters were to record themselves asking the candidates questions and then submit the video to Youtube for CNN to hand select the questions.  Retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr submitted his question and then was contacted by CNN to attend the debate.  Kerr’s question was aired and then Cooper turned to Kerr to ask if he was satisfied that his question was answered.  Kerr said he was not and then asked follow up questions.  The scandal is that the retired Brigadier General is a member of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  CNN claims not to have known Kerr was affiliated with any campaign.  There was a press release 6 months ago stating Kerr’s affiliation with Clinton.  Kerr has been a guest on CNN in years past as an advocate for gay rights.  How can a news network fail to check on the credentials of an “independent” voter that they requested he attend the debate?  By the way, several other “independent” voters whose questions were hand selected for last night’s debate, have been found to be not so independent.

Senator Clinton has made some wild claims over the past several months.  She has claimed that because she spent 8 years in the White House as first lady, that she is best qualified to be President because she has been there before.  That seems a bit odd to me.  My wife is an artist, so by default I should be an artist as well because I have lived with her for 6 years.  Surely I must be able to recreate the works of the Masters.  Does Mrs. Clinton believe that the wife of cardiologist is qualified to perform open heart surgery?  I am sure she will assert that she was deeply involved in the operations of the country during her husband’s presidency.  She claims to have engineered the failed health care reform plan in her husband’s first term.  When Obama pointed out that she failed and now she wants to go back and try the same thing again, the former President came out and claimed that Hillary was not really all that involved in the failed health care reform plan. 

Hillary Clinton has been on every side of every issue since she started her campaign in 2000.  She is clearly Pro-abortion, but depending on which crowd she is talking to, she can switch to a candidate that is working towards the day when no abortions are performed.  She has been fiercely supportive of the war on terror, but as soon as the wind changes direction, she transforms into a staunch anti-war critic.  She was a huge supporter of NAFTA, which was signed by her husband, but recently she flipped to opposing NAFTA.  One thing has remained clear throughout Clinton’s desperate run for the White House, she will always lick her finger and stick it into the air to see which way the wind is blowing before taking a stand on anything.

Conservative minded people believe that the best way to help the poor and downtrodden in society is to give them a hand up but not a never-ending handout.  They believe that the best resource for providing that hand is the private sector, definitely not the government.  It has been more than 40 years since President Lyndon Johnson declared “war on poverty”.  Since that time the poverty level has dropped but poverty, by American standards, has not been eradicated.  Thanksgiving is upon us and Christmas is following closely behind.  During this holiday season I think we all should remember those less fortunate than we are.

Operation Christmas Child is a program that collects shoeboxes that you and your family fill with toys, hard candy, hygiene products, and various other small gifts for either a boy or girl.  The organization then ships your shoebox to a child in a third world country.  This is a Christian organization that is run by Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham

Convoy of Hope is an organization that offers hope and help throughout the world.  Whether it is in New Orleans following Katrina, or in New York City following 9/11, Convoy of Hope is on the scene to help the victims of disaster.  They are also known in the U.S. for community outreach functions where they go into some of the poorer neighborhoods and give groceries out, health and dental screenings, haircuts, and lots of fun and games for the kids. 

Freedom Alliance is another great organization that awards scholarships to the children of our men and women in uniform that have paid the ultimate price in defense of our country.  They have many events throughout the year to raise money and awareness, but the biggest event is the Freedom Concerts that talk radio host Sean Hannity sponsors. 

The Salvation Army has a program that enables you and your family to sponsor a family in need at Christmas.  They supply you with a wish list from the family and the ages of the children.  You then go shopping for gifts and Christmas dinner for the family.  They also have their famous “Angel Tree”.  Parents who are unable to buy gifts for their children put their child’s name on the tree and you can go pick a name and buy a gift for the child.

United Way is probably the most well known charitable organization in the U.S..  They offer a wide variety of charities to which you can donate.  The Red Cross provides help during disaster, as well as blood for hospitals.

Many churches in your area offer a complete Thanksgiving dinner to families in need.  Our church, Trinity Assembly of God, provides 75 families with a complete Thanksgiving dinner as well as enough food for a week.  They also have a food pantry where families can come and pick up a weeks worth of groceries.  Our church is not unique in this respect.  There are thousands of churches from all faiths that offer help and hope to those in need.  Not only throughout the holidays but also throughout the entire year.

One other idea is to send a few extra Christmas cards out this year.  Send a few Christmas cards to some troops recovering from their injuries at one of the military hospitals.  Here is the address for Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

        A Recovering American soldier
         c/o Walter Reed Army Medical  Center
         6900 Georgia Avenue,NW
         Washington,D.C. 20307-5001

Veterans Day will be observed on Monday, November 12.  Sadly for many in the population, Monday will be just another day that the banks and post office will be closed.  Most offices will be open for business and the main reminder of what day it is will be the local car dealer will be advertising their annual Veterans Day sale.  In our busy lives it becomes easy to forget that men and women have served, fought, and died for the freedoms that we enjoy.

Veterans Day was originally celebrated as Armistice Day.  It commemorated the 11^th day, of the 11^th month that fighting had ended between the Allies and Germany in 1918.  The Armistice Day was unofficially remembered until 1926 when November 11 officially became a national holiday.  In 1954, Congress officially changed the name to Veterans Day to honor veterans from all branches of service. 

Out of the 4.734,991 U.S. troops that fought in World War 1, 116,516 were killed.  In World War 2 we had 16,112,566 troops, of which 405,399 died.  In the Korean War there was a total of 5,720,000 servicemen, 54,246 did not live through the conflict.  During Vietnam, we had 8,744,000 troops and 90,209 died during the war.  The Gulf War saw the U.S. troop numbers at 2,225,000 with a total of 2,094 deaths.  The above numbers also include deaths not related to combat.  Their sacrifice is not lessened by the circumstances involved in their deaths.  The U.S. military lists 4,294 deaths since the War on Terror started in October of 2001.  These numbers show that nearly 1.2 million servicemen and women have died during wartime since World War 1.  This does not take into account the time spent away from loved ones in during times of war and peace.  The self sacrifice of these brave men and women of our Armed Forces is truly worthy of hero status. 

Some will always squabble over the logic behind any of the wars throughout our history, but the men and women who went and fought should never be forgotten.  Every one of the men and women in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else around the world that they may be stationed, have volunteered for this duty.  They have willingly put themselves on the line for the sake of freedom.  They do not serve for glory or money, they serve for freedom and honor.  All those who serve now or have served in the past are part of a rich heritage of heroic sacrifice.  Military life is not easy by any stretch of the imagination, and all of our veterans deserve the recognition and honor that our culture normally bestows upon the self righteous entertainment industry.  Over this weekend and throughout next week, search out the veterans in your family and your everyday life, and thank them. 

In Charles Dickens classic A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge is known as the town miser.  The wealthiest man around who cares for no one but himself and the vast wealth he has accumulated.  One of his memorable remarks to the plight of the poor at Christmas was, “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?  When the response to his questions came back that many would rather die than to go to such places; Scrooge’s reply was evermore heartless.  “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”  Many in our society today see anyone of wealth in the same light as old Ebenezer.

Recent years have treated us to a litany of perfect “Scrooge” examples.  From Enron to Worldcom, we have seen the rich and powerful brought down because of their greed and lack of moral compass.  These corporations, and others like them, have become the rallying cry against corporate greed, but they have taken it further to include any corporation that shows a profit.  If you watch the economic news and see that the economy grew at 3.9% last quarter, beating all “expert” projections, the naysayers quickly interject that it is only the tea and crumpet crowd that are doing well.  The poor peons like us are really suffering while the rich get richer.  Is this analysis true?  Or is it that there those among us that see a dark cloud on every horizon?

Anytime I have written on the benefits of capitalism over socialism, I am bombarded with statements laced with jealousy and rage.  Statements such as, the wealthy only became wealthy by exploiting those around them.  The CEO’s all make too much money while the workers are barely scraping by on minimum wage.  My personal favorite is the blind rage sparked by the mere mention of Walmart.  They don’t pay a living wage.  They don’t provide proper benefits.  They are the devil.  Are any of these assertions true? 

Do the rich exploit those around them to get ahead?  There is no denying that some break any law and step on anyone in their way while on their quest for more money.  That scenario is the exception, not the rule.  For years Bill Gates was vilified because of his wealth.  Lately though, the chorus of catcalls has died down.  Could it be that since Gates and his wife pledged to give away billions to promote better health around the world?  Is the wrath over wealth tied to political ideology?  Why isn’t George Soros hated for his wealth?  Bill and Hillary Clinton have made millions since leaving the White House 7 years ago.  Why is there no angst over their “greed”?  Is it only rich conservatives that deserve the hatred?

The politically left leaning among us like to point out that capitalism is causing millions to starve around the world.  Why are there more starving people in communist Cuba than there is here in capitalist America?  Why was the Soviet Union doomed to failure if their economic system was so superior to ours?  The rant on the election trail has been that the rich aren’t paying their fair share in taxes.  The top 50% in terms of income are paying almost 97% of the taxes in this country.  The top 25% pay almost 85% of the taxes.  The top 1% pay more than 35% of the tax revenue every year.  What percentage of the revenues should they paying?  Should we make the top 1% pay 50%?  Why stop at 50%? 

Those who follow this line of thinking believe that the rich have too much money and it should be redistributed to everyone else.  It is only fair that we should all have the same amount.  If my neighbor makes more than I do, then he is greedy and should give me some of his paycheck so that my feelings don’t get hurt.  It is becoming a common theme of my articles, but I feel it is necessary to admonish the little children among us.  Grow up and realize that your neighbor makes more because he did the extra work to make more money.  If you don’t like your current financial situation, you have 2 choices.  You can do what it takes to improve your situation.  You can go back to school, find a better job, start your own business, move to a different area with more opportunity.  Sadly, the spoiled little brats in our society would rather blame everyone else for their plight.  They want the government to go and forcefully steal more money from everyone else and give it to them so they don’t have to do anything more than necessary to survive.

The raging wildfires in California have shown once again that for every tragedy, there is a way to push the blame onto the shoulders of George W. Bush.  The Lieutenant Governor of California, John Garamendi, blamed the President and the War in Iraq for the devastation caused by the fires.  He said that the state was not able to respond effectively because of the National Guard being in Iraq.  The small detail that Garamendi seems to have forgotten is that out of the 17,000 National Guard troops in California, there are only 2000 on duty in Iraq.  The remaining 15,000 are standing by waiting to be called upon.

After the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis collapsed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blamed Bush for spending too much money on the War and not nearly enough for the crumbling infrastructure of the United States.  I believe that senator Reid needs some professional help or at the very least some high school civics classes.  The Congress passes spending bills, the president just signs them into law.  If Senator Reid was so concerned about infrastructure spending, why didn’t he propose more funding for bridges and roads?

After Hurricane Katrina, there was a stampede to the cameras to blame Bush for everything from failing to send in FEMA before the storm hit, to blowing up the levees in the poorest of neighborhoods.  On the FEMA issue, the President is bound by law to wait for the request from the states for help from the Federal government.  On a side note, the administration was in contact with the city and state officials pressing them before the storm hit to start the process, but the officials balked.  I don’t think I need to comment on the outrageous claims made by Louis Farrakhan in the Katrina aftermath.

The events of 9/11 sparked a firestorm of conspiracy theories about who was involved and who was to blame.  President Bush was blamed for everything under the sun concerning 9/11.  Many still claim that Bush knew about the attacks beforehand and in some cases masterminded the attacks so that he could attack Iraq.  I find it amusing that the man that the conspiracy theorists believe is the dumbest man ever born, was able to pull off the biggest cover up in the history of the world.  Even though many of the Democratic Congressman accused Bush of knowing beforehand, they still voted to authorize the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert announced this week that he will not be seeking reelection next November.  Hastert is just one of a dozen or so Republicans in the House that have announced their retirements.  The Democrats have obviously seized on the retirements to try to portray the Republican party as weak and surrendering.  I would like to take the opportunity of Hastert’s retirement to analyze who is leaving and the opportunities that have opened up for the Republican party.

Hastert is the most notable congressman to retire.  He took over as Speaker when Newt Gingrich stepped down in 1999.  He ran the House until January when the Republicans lost the House and Nancy Pelosi took control of the gavel.  Hastert has been a staunch supporter of the president and the war on terror.  His support for the defense of our country will be missed.  Hastert’s tenure as Speaker was notably different than Newt’s, in the lack of controversy and spending cuts.  He does deserve credit for ensuring the tax cuts of early 2001 were passed, but the caveat is the sunset clause of the cuts.

Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio has been considered a moderate Republican by the media.  A moderate Republican is defined by the media as one who often votes with the opposing party.  A moderate Democrat is anyone that has a ‘D’ beside their name.  Pryce has a mixed voting record on abortion, gun control, and taxes.  She was a member of the freshman class of 1994 of Congress. 

Congressman Charles “Chip” Pickering has also announced his intentions not to seek reelection next year.  Pickering has been a member of the House since 1996 and has a very conservative voting record on all issues tracked by the non-partisan website On the Issues.  Pickering will be another member that will be missed.

Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois said that he found no enjoyment being in the minority.  LaHood was also a member of the freshman class of the House of 1994.  While LaHood’s voting record is a promising footnote to his political career, his comments about leaving because of being in the minority will remain his political legacy.  If all that was keeping LaHood in DC was being a member of the majority, then we are all better off with him not there representing us.

In the Senate there have been a few big name retirement announcements.  Senator John Warner of Virginia and Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska have both decided to bring an end to their long political careers.  Hagel has been an outspoken critic of the President and the war in Iraq.  He was a leader this past summer in trying to pass the horrible Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  His voting record is mixed which automatically made him a media star as a moderate.

Senator Warner has a distinguished military record and has spent nearly 30 years as a Senator from Virginia.  He has been a strong voice for the military while he served on the Senate Armed Services Committee.  He has voted for more gun control and has voted to increase federal funding for stem cell research.  Warner will be missed on issues relating to our military but on other issues he has been much less than desirable.

There are a total of 17 Republicans from both houses of Congress that have announced their plans to retire.  Some members will be missed and others cannot leave seen enough, but the real question is, what will the Republican party do to fill their vacant seats?  The Citizens Against Government Waste: website shows that most of the Republicans that are leaving have not been very tight with the government’s wallet when it came to pork.  Will the Republican leadership stand up for the American people and our money by sending true conservatives to run for Congress?  I believe a true conservative is one who is for lower taxes for all Americans, and for cutting back on the spending habits that would make a drunken sailor shake his head.  I believe that the Republican party’s trouble over the past few years has been the lack of fiscal responsibility in Washington.  The Republicans lost their control of Congress due to their hypocrisy on the budget.  They all claim to be for lower taxes and cutting spending but a quick check on the CAGW website shows that the Republicans have been just as greedy as the Democrats when it comes to spending our money.  If the Republican party ever wants to regain control of the Congress they need to take this opportunity to run true conservative candidates.  They have a chance to reshape the Republican party into a conservative party, will the Republican leadership show true leadership?  Or will it be business as usual in Washington?

Every election season is filled with a whole host of promises from the candidates.  Each speech is a constant stream of promises to spend more money on the special interests of the particular group before which the candidate is pontificating.  This election cycle is no different than the previous ones.  Some candidates promise more than their fair share, while others still promise to reduce spending and keep the government’s greasy little fingers off of all of our wallets.  On the Democratic side of the aisle, it appears to be a race to see who can promise the most spending and who can raise the tax burden the highest.  They all claim that they will not raise the taxes of the middle class, but when they promise to let the Bush tax cuts expire, that is a tax increase.

Senator Hillary Clinton, the media ordained nominee, has promised billions of dollars to a veritable smorgasbord of spending increases.  Her promises add up to a staggering $724,000,000,000.00 over a single term of her predicted presidency.  That is a 25% increase of the current $3 trillion budget.  Does anyone actually believe that a liberal Democrat will be able to fulfill these promises without opening up tax increases to the middle class?  Most Democrats believe that the only way to increase tax revenues is to raise the tax burden.  Most Republicans believe that the best way to increase tax revenue is to cut taxes and let the economy grow to increase tax revenues.

These are just a few of Senator Clinton’s proposals.  She has proposed that each baby born in the United States will be given a $5000 bond.  For those interested, according to the latest census there are roughly 4 million babies born in the United States every year.  Just a quick side note, this idea was originally posited by former Senator Bill Bradley in his recent book, The New American Story.  Clinton has also laid out her latest Universal Health Care proposal, which her campaign suggests will cost $110 billion per year.  The former first lady has pledged $50 billion for a strategic energy fund to find ways to increase energy efficiency.  Another proposal is to create universal 401(k) program for all Americans at a cost of $25 billion per year.  These proposals alone amount to $620 billion over the 4 years of her first presidential term.  Let us not forget that no government program ever comes in at less than the forecasted cost.  The programs are always exponentially more than forecasted.

Am I a hypocrite?  Before my liberal friends jump to answer, allow me to explain what topic I am referencing with the aforementioned question.  A few weeks ago, I mentioned the MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times that begged the question, “General Petraeus, or General betray us?”.  I then went on to explain my disbelief and anger for an organization that would question the patriotism of a decorated war hero for the sole purpose of political gain.  Now I find myself in the position of defending talk radio personality, Rush Limbaugh, for his comments about phony soldiers who are against the war in Iraq.

Rush made his comments regarding one particular “soldier”, Jesse Macbeth.  Macbeth claimed that he was an Army Ranger that had returned from Iraq and he needed to shed the light onto the crimes of our military in Iraq.  He claimed that he had participated in various unspeakable crimes while serving in Iraq.  He joined anti-war organizations, where he appeared across the country retelling his story wherever and whenever possible.  On September 21 of this year, Jesse Macbeth disclosed in federal court that he was lying.  Macbeth was in the Army, but only for 44 days.  He was discharged before he ever completed basic training.  He was never an Army Ranger.  He was never involved in any combat situation.  He had never participated in any war crimes.  He was never in Iraq. 

According to the transcript from Rush’s show, which I also heard live, Limbaugh referenced that the anti-war groups use the “phony” soldiers as a way to make headlines, but when the truth comes out, there are no retractions or apologies.  Rush made no reference about the brave men and women who risk their lives everyday in Iraq.  He didn’t even talk about the men and women who did serve honorably and have made negative remarks about the war.  He specifically mentioned one alleged soldier who lied about his service and his role in war crimes.

After Rush’s comments, the liberal organization Media Matters posted his comments and started demanding an apology from Limbaugh.  Liberal politicians immediately followed suit.  Senator John Kerry condemned the remarks by Limbaugh calling them disgusting.  I find it odd that Senator Kerry finds Rush’s comments disgusting, but yet he made blind accusations against all military in Iraq.  He accused our troops of kicking down doors in the middle of the night and dragging innocent people out of their houses.  Kerry had no proof of his accusations, but yet he made blanket accusations against our troops. 

Another aspect to keep in mind is that Media Matters receives financial support from MoveOn.org.  MoveOn is the same liberal group that bought the “General betray us” ad.  After the outcry about the full page ad subsided, a MoveOn funded group, Media Matters, decides to take one phrase spoken by Limbaugh and distort it into an attack on all troops.  The “betray us” ad targeted a decorated general who has served honorably for many years.  The “phony soldier” comment targeted an admitted fraud, who lied about being a decorated war hero.  The difference is obvious to me, but I am an admitted partisan.

I believe the entire “phony soldier” saga comes down to the simple fact that the left has not been able to compete with Rush Limbaugh.  Rush has been on the air for nearly 20 years.  The left believed that when Clinton was elected in 1992, that Rush would disappear because he would have nothing to talk about.  When he was still on the air after 8 years of Clinton, they hoped that he would finally be silenced.  They believed that again he would have nothing to talk about.  They have tried to start their own liberal talk radio, but they have not been able to compete with Rush.  They have started to talk about the Fairness Doctrine, in hopes that they might be able to kick Limbaugh off of the airwaves because of his conservative viewpoint.  The Fairness Doctrine has not gained much traction, so I believe that they are hoping to have Rush kicked off the air for insulting our military.  The problem remains that their accusations are based on false information, much like the story of Jesse Macbeth.

So, am I a hypocrite?  How can I defend Rush, but condemn MoveOn.org?  I believe the difference is clear.  On one hand, you have correct accusations against a lying coward, and on the other you have disgusting accusations against a decorated war hero.  You decide, am I a hypocrite?

In the movie “A Nightmare On Elm Street”, Freddy Krueger refuses to die, even though he had been shot, stabbed, and burned.  The immigration reform of earlier this year is the real life equivalent of the aforementioned movie.  The public rose up against the political machine in early summer to defeat the Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation twice in a matter of weeks.  The political elites in Washington have become confused at what the people who voted them into power really desire.  The politicians believe that we really want and need this illegal immigration amnesty legislation passed.  There are a group of Republican and Democratic Senators that are insistent on reviving the defeated reform.

Senators Durbin, Hagel, Lugar, Leahy, Obama, Clinton, Lieberman, Feinstein, Kerry Feingold, Bayh, Menendez, Murray, Cantwell, Boxer, Dodd, and Salazar have sponsored a piece of legislation titled the “Dream Act”.  They plan to attach this legislation to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year of 2008 as an amendment.  Their plan is to force this through the Senate causing opponents of the amnesty plan to be leery of voting against it for fear of opposing money for our troops.

The Dream Act was originally a product of the mind of Republican Senator Orrin Hatch in 2004.  The Act basically allows illegal immigrants to attain legal status if they were brought to the United States prior to age 16 and if they have been here for greater than 5 years.  It is hyped as a way for illegal immigrants that graduate form our public schools to be able to attend college as in-state resident and receive in-state tuition rates.  One of the biggest problems with this latest amnesty bill is there verification process of when an illegal immigrant actually came to the United States.  This legislation is just another way to legalize millions of illegal immigrants without any punishment for breaking our immigration laws.

Once again, this is not a Democrat or Republican issue.  This is an American issue.  Members from both political parties have once again betrayed the public trust.  They have decided that even though we made our objections known in June, we really didn’t know what we were fighting against.  They believe that they know what we really want on illegal immigration.  So much so, that they have decided to slip this legislation into a defense funding bill.  They have so much confidence in their position that they don’t want to bring this bill to the floor on it’s own merit.  They expect us to sit blindly on the sidelines and not notice their latest attempts to appease a potential voting block of people.

One surprising aspect of this nightmare is that 2 Presidential candidates have signed on to co-sponsor the amendment.  Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are betting that the voters will either not notice their names on the bill, or won’t care that they blatantly disregard the will of the public.  Why would these 2 Democratic frontrunners decide to back an amnesty bill that the vast majority of their supporters do not support? 

Even though the politicians seem intent on passing this into law, we cannot forget that we have defeated this before.  The Senate tried twice back in June to push this through and we the people stood up and made our voices heard.  The reform bill went down to defeat and we can kill it again.  The bureaucrats are trying to slowly implement the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill.  If we stand as one again, this too will go down in defeat. 

It has been a very interesting and enlightening week of events.  The week started with Osama Bin Laden lecturing the United States on the Iraq War, global warming, and the failures of our democratic society.  Then on Monday, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and delivered a mixed status report on the progress of the troop surge in Iraq.  At the same time that the decorated 4 star general was sitting before the pompous politicians, the waning readership of the New York Times was treated to a full page ad by MoveOn.org that said “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”.

These events are linked in more ways than the obvious Iraq War connection.  I believe that the week’s events were a glaring indication of who the leadership in the Democratic Party have aligned themselves.  The comments and attitudes of the “distinguished” senators, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, and the New York Times clearly show that they have allied themselves with some very unlikely company.

After reading the transcript of Bin Laden’s speech, I recognized a very familiar tone.  The tone, opinion, and topics we all heard before over the past several months.  Osama stated several times that this was a war that we could not win.  He said that we are caught in the middle of a civil war.  Before I continue, it was interesting that Osama claimed we were caught in a civil war, but then claimed that his terrorist organization was winning this war with the United States.  Bin Laden echoed the Democrats when he blamed the neocons and singled out Rumsfeld and Cheney.  He also rambled on about global warming and the administration’s refusal to sign onto the Kyoto accord.  He even blames “Big Corporations” for controlling the country and driving us to war for profit. 

Those are just a few of the “highlights” of Osama’s assessment of the Iraq War and our country.  Did anyone else besides my partisan self, notice that Osama and the Democratic leadership have the same talking points?  The leaders in the House and Senate have been very outspoken against the war and have said that they support the troops but not the war.  How does anyone, besides the “intellectuals”, believe that they are supporting the troops when they are saying exactly the same things as our troop’s enemy?  I guess the question to be asked is, Is Osama echoing the Democratic leadership, or is the leadership echoing Osama?  In either case it is not a position of support of our troops.  I have criticized the Democratic party for their rhetoric against the war, saying that our enemies and our men in women in uniform see the same speeches.  It emboldens our enemies and hurts the morale of our soldiers in harm’s way.

Before the General ever opened his mouth to start with his report, he was subjected to insult after insult by the anti-war members of the committee.  Senator Lantos was the first to question the war hero’s integrity.  Senator Clinton also questioned Petraeus honor and integrity while she took her 833^rd position on the war.    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed that the General’s plan was unacceptable because he disagreed that the surge had seen military success.  The Democrats have claimed that the report was untrue because the White House staff had written the report.  The problem is that these same Democrats wrote the legislation that required the White House to report on the outcome of the surge.  The Democrats also complained that Petraeus himself was not going to come before the committee to testify.  When Petraeus and the White House agreed to send the General and the Ambassador to testify, they whined that he wasn’t going to be honest and it would be a waste of time.  When did we arrive at a time when one of our country’s most decorated soldiers is insulted and accused of being a political hack?  Isn’t a bit hypocritical of any politician accusing anyone else of dishonesty?

The New York Times has had declining subscriptions over the past few years.  When reports of the “paper of record” discounting advertising rates for an organization that open accuses our top military commander of treason, is it any wonder why their sales have slipped?  The New York Post reported that MoveOn.org paid $65,000 for the full page ad.  They also reported that the normal rate for a full page ad was over $180,000.  Why did MoveOn receive a discount?  Was it politically motivated?  Since Rudy Giuliani has announced his plans to take out a full page ad in the New York Times to rebut the MoveOn ad, we only have to wait to see if the Times will charge the same discounted rate to Giuliani’s campaign.

I firmly believe that everyone has the right to say whatever they want about the General, the war, or the President.  I have just as much right to question their patriotism and their desire for the United States to be victorious in the stabilization of Iraq.  I believe that the Democrats have taken the positions that they have on the war and the surge solely for political purposes.  They realize that if they do not take a hard line on the surge and the war, their financial backing from fringe groups like MoveOn will dry up faster than Hillary Clinton changing her political positions.