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.

Last summer and fall the subject of earmarks and “pork barrel” spending was in the headlines almost every day due to the Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham scandals.  Those scandals and the prospect of regaining control of the House of Representatives prompted the Democratic House leaders to promise earmark reform.  Earmarks are the funds that Congress attaches to legislation, generally appropriations bills, to send targeted money back to their home district.  After Congress spent approximately $32 billion in earmarks last year and the Republican loss of both houses of Congress, President Bush pressed the legislative branch of the government to cut earmark spending in half.  Progress has been made in some respects but there is a long way to go.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed to make the practice of earmark spending more transparent and the leadership has made the paperwork accessible to the public, but only in the Appropriations Committee’s offices.  The goal is to make it accessible online, but the Democratic leadership set no timetable to accomplish the goal.  In other words, they can claim that they laid the groundwork, but make no real moves to actually post the reports online.  The Democrats have done more than the Republicans did to make earmark spending more easily accessible to the public, but they have left an awful lot to be desired.  They could have easily set the timetable to post the reports online and no politician in Washington would have wanted to be seen as opposing the bill.  Unfortunately, the political minds went to work and realized that rhetoric speaks louder than action in Washington.

The new reporting system has allowed watchdog groups to see that although the Democratic leadership has started to release the reports on earmark spending, it has not really slowed them down.  Speaker Pelosi has sent nearly $100 million back to her San Francisco district.  House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has sent close to $86 million back to his district here in Maryland.  The House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey has directed $96 million to his Wisconsin constituents.  The leading Democrat overseeing defense spending is Jack Murtha, who sent $186 million back to his home district in Pennsylvania.

The Speaker has received more than 1 percent of all of the earmarks in the House.  She has said that she is against earmark spending and would do away with it all together if she could.  I guess she has decided that since she cannot end the practice that she might as well exploit it for all that it is worth; hardly a noble effort on Ms. Pelosi’s part.

Before my liberal friends start screaming about the Republicans, I want to point out that if the Republican had lived up to their fiscally conservative talking points, we wouldn’t be having this discussion now.  The leading Republican on the Appropriations Committee, Jerry Lewis, sent $124 million back to California.  Bill Young is the leading Republican on the Defense Appropriations panel; he and Murtha follow the unwritten rule that the majority gets 60% of the pork, while the minority is left with 40%.  Young received $142 million to pass along to his Florida district.

While these numbers seem to be staggering, the Senate has made no moves to make the earmark spending transparent or to rein in their pork fetish.  As a comparison Senator Dianne Feinstein has sent close to $400 million back to the state of California.  Senator Cochran, a Mississippi Republican, added $112 million to the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill.  That is for one appropriations bill. The Agriculture Appropriations Bill had $26 million added by the Mississippi Republican. A total of $393 million was added to the Homeland Security bill for earmarks.  $587 million was added to the Senate’s Commerce Appropriations Bill.

With new rules in the House regarding earmarks, it has made it harder for those not sitting on one of the powerful appropriation panels to attach their pet spending projects.  Unfortunately, even with the new rules we have seen that power and money corrupts the politicians no matter what they espouse on the campaign trail.  The numbers I have listed came from 2 sources.  You can go to Taxpayers for Common Sense for lists of appropriations bills for both houses of Congress and who requested which earmark and how much each state received.  I also recommend reading this article from the San Francisco Chronicle.  Citizens Against Government Waste also provides an excellent review of Congress’ spending habits.  I realize that with an annual Federal budget of over $3 trillion these earmarks are a drop in the bucket, but remember that the government does not produce any product to make money.  Each and every dime of the budget, and every one of the earmarks, comes from your tax dollars.  You wouldn’t spend your own money in such a manner, so why do we allow the elected prima donnas in Washington get away with what amounts to legal embezzlement?

Another week during the highly expedited presidential election season and we have more and more candidates getting caught with their proverbial pants down.  Every campaign season seems be about the same thing these days.  How can the candidates portray themselves as something they are not.  The election season doesn’t necessarily have to be for President of the United States, it could be for the mayor of Baltimore.  Every candidate tries to make themselves relatable to the average citizen, or to a particular segment of the population, but the extent that some go to has become somewhat extreme, if not entertaining.

In Baltimore, where I currently reside, the mayor’s race is heating up.  The current mayor, Sheila Dixon, has been in office since taking over after the former mayor Martin O’Malley became Governor.  She, as well as most of the other major candidates for the office, has been members of the city council for at least the past 10 years.  During that time we have seen the murder rate consistently hover around 300 per year.  For a city such as New York or Chicago, those numbers would be welcome, but with a population of just over 600,000, it ranks the city as one of the deadliest in the country.  The rhetoric coming from the mayor’s office and the other candidates is that it is mostly “thug on thug” crime, most of which have drug ties.  Is this supposed to make us feel safer?  I see that they have identified the problem, but why haven’t they done anything to remedy the problem?  All of the candidates proclaim that they are tough on crime; but if after more than 10 years in positions of power within the city you have not accomplished anything on crime, why should anyone take you seriously on crime issues?

This past week, the news came out of Washington that the Republican Senator from Idaho, Larry Craig, was arrested 3 months ago in an airport bathroom in Minneapolis for lewd conduct.  Craig was accused of peering into a stall at another man, a plainclothes police officer, and making signals to the effect of soliciting lewd behavior.  The senator pleaded guilty to public misconduct in hopes of making it all go away.  He maintains that he is innocent and that he is not gay.  My problem is not whether or not Senator Craig is gay, that is between Craig and his family and God.  I take issue with another politician putting on a front to get elected.  If the senator is gay and had been honest about it, would he have been elected?  We do not know for sure, but if he is gay, he obviously hid it for one reason or another.

Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has brought back memories of the 1996 presidential campaign season with the disclosure that Norman Hsu, a Clinton campaign donor and fundraiser, has an outstanding arrest warrant for fraud in California.  Mr. Hsu has reportedly raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for various candidates over the years, sometimes from questionable sources.  As you may recall, the 1996 Clinton/Gore campaign was embroiled in a fundraising scandal when it was revealed that some of the contributions came from questionable Chinese sources.  Senator Clinton has tried to distinguish her campaign as above the fray when it comes to fundraising, but it is getting harder to believe when we see more and more stories of close associates of Clinton’s being investigated and convicted of questionable bookkeeping of campaign financial records.

Then there is John Edwards, former senator from North Carolina, who is also running for President.  Mr. Edwards has been campaigning on the notion that there are 2 Americas; one for the rich and powerful, and one for the rest of us poor slobs.  He embarked on a poverty tour earlier this year to highlight the plight of the poor and downtrodden.  During his tour he collected speaking fees of $55,000 for speaking to college students about poverty.  That news was tempered with reports that he was paying $400 for a haircut.  The Edwards campaign said that the speaking fees and the exorbitant haircuts were an oversight.  Now the news has come out that while speaking out against poverty, Edwards was heavily invested in a company that was foreclosing on Katrina victims.  Mr. Edwards has said that he is divesting the interest he had in the company.  Again, when your actions speak louder than your words, you have a problem.

As the election season heats up, especially with several states vying to be the first to hold their primaries, we can expect to see more and more candidates, from both sides, showing their true colors.  I know it is too much to ask, but wouldn’t it be nice if politicians actually stood for something beyond their own personal and political gains?

On September 15^th, General David Petraeus, the commanding General in Iraq, will deliver his report to the President and Congress on the progress of the troop surge.  Almost immediately after Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to be the next commander in Iraq, the same politicians who voted to confirm him started to ridicule and question his ability to lead.  The troop surge is the increase of 20,000 new troops being sent to Iraq to provide security in Baghdad and Al Anbar.  The surge was initiated in February and just recently the last of the 20,000 new troops arrived in Iraq.  The democrat controlled Congress has debated ever since over the outcome of the plan. 

In June, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the war is lost and the surge is a failure.  Let me remind you that not all of the 20,000 troops had arrived in Iraq, but yet Senator Reid has declared himself a prophet.  He can foresee the future.  Reid could see in June that we were going to lose.  Or was it that he wanted the surge to fail for political reasons?  Before the insults start, and I am inevitably called a variety of names, which by the way none of them are new, allow me to complete my diatribe.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has stated that she has already made up her mind that the surge has failed.  She has said that it doesn’t matter what the commanding General in Iraq says in September, she believes it has failed.  Even after good news was reported in Iraq, Pelosi said that the political situation hadn’t improved, so the military advances meant nothing. 

Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin went to Iraq and actually admitted that the troop surge was in fact working.  He then decided that he needed to instruct the Iraqi Parliament to remove the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq.  He said that the political environment in Iraq had not progressed far enough so Prime Minister Maliki needed to go.  Have you noticed a trend yet?

House Majority Whip James Clyburn has said that if the report from Petraeus is good, it could be a big problem for Democrats.  He was referring to the 47 Blue Dog Democrats that would then feel compelled to keep the troops in Iraq until victory is ultimately achieved.  Many on the left have spun his remarks to say that he was not referring to the Democrats being politically invested in the defeat of our troops.  If the Blue Dogs will be swayed by good news from Iraq and the rest of the Democrats will not be, what exactly are we supposed to think?  If news that our troops are winning does not change the Democratic policy of surrender and defeat, then one can only surmise that they are only interested in our defeat.

The Democrats have tried to change their strategy of late.  As more and more good news from Iraq comes out, the party leadership has tried to shift the focus off of military success to political success of the fledgling Iraqi government.  Senator Hillary Clinton has changed her position to one of a hawk that would leave the troops in Iraq for at least 2 years after her hopeful election as President.  She has gone from staunch supporter of her vote to send the troops, to Bush lied to me to get my vote, to I would bring them home as soon as I am elected, to now I would leave them there to finish the job.  Is it any wonder she has the highest negative ratings of any of the current crop of candidates for President?  It is very hard to support a candidate that decides which position to take on an issue by licking their finger and sticking it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.

I admit that the news from Iraq over the past few years has not always been very good.  I also admit that the Iraqi government has not done enough to help unite the opposing factions.  We should not arbitrarily pull our troops out of Iraq, or leave them in Iraq just because it will benefit one political party or the other.  I will admit defeat when I see it, but we are not there yet; especially when the report from Petraeus has not even been written up.  I must ask a few questions of my friends that oppose the war.  Is there any circumstance that you would admit that we have won?  If the report from Petraeus comes out in a few weeks with all benchmarks met and the security of Baghdad and Al Anbar is under control; will it be a good thing for the United States and Iraq or a bad thing?  Sadly, I believe that the Democratic leadership is anchored to the defeat of our troops and the Iraqi government; and nothing will change their minds.

Evangelical, fundamentalist, and Christian conservative are all terms that have become a lightning rod for debate and scorn from many on the liberal side of the aisle.  The often controversial Rosie O’Donnell has even gone as far to claim that evangelicals were far more dangerous to our country than Al-Qaeda.  The very admission that I am an evangelical Christian causes some to start to hyperventilate as they rail against my faith.  I would like to analyze a few of the most common terms used to describe myself and others who believe as I do, and try to come to an understanding as to what is so frightening to those on the other side of the philosophical spectrum.

Before we start the discussion, I believe it is only fair to express my beliefs so that there is no doubt as to where my thoughts and opinions are coming from.  I believe that the Bible is the written Word of God.  I believe that God did in fact create the earth, and everything else, in 7 days.  I believe that Jesus is the Son of God.  He was born of a virgin in the town of Bethlehem.  He ministered for 3 years and was crucified on the cross.  He was buried in a tomb, and rose from the dead 3 days later.  He came to the earth to sacrifice himself for each and every one of us, even those who choose to reject him, so that we would have a way to get to heaven.  All we are asked to do in return is to acknowledge that we are sinners, meaning not perfect, and pledge to follow Jesus and his teachings.  These are a few of my core beliefs that all of my decisions, morals, and values are based upon.

Merriam-Webster defines the word fundamentalist as a member of the 20^th century Protestant movement that emphasizes the literal interpretation of the Bible as being fundamental to Christian life and teaching.  For anyone who has read the Bible, I am unsure as to why the very mention of the word, fundamentalist, would conjure up such feelings of angst and sometimes fear.  Jesus taught us to love our neighbors, not just those who agree with us.  He also taught us to live our lives as living examples of Christ.  We all fall short of that example, but we continually strive to achieve that goal. 

Webster defines the word evangelical as being in agreement with the teaching of the Christian gospel, especially as it is presented in the four gospels.  An evangelical also emphasizes the salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual.  This definition as well does not portray the vilified portrait of one who seeks to destroy our country.

I realize that there are Christians out there who do more damage than good, by there actions and attitudes about those who do not believe in Christ.  I am speaking about the type of Christians like the Westboro Baptist Church.  You may recall that this church goes to funerals of soldiers to hold signs that say “Thank God for IEDs”, “Soldiers Die, God Laughs”.  Their message is that because of the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles in the United States, God is punishing us with the war in Iraq and terrorism.  These Christians are not the typical evangelicals.  They do not represent, in my opinion, what it means to be a follower of Christ.  I am not a theologian, but my interpretation of Jesus’ teaching shows that he went out to meet with the adulterous woman, an unthinkable act of the time, and helped her to see the error of her ways.  I do not see Jesus holding a picket sign outside her house and yelling insults at her from the street.  I believe that we could look at any group of people and find a few bad apples.  Why is it that all Christians are lumped together with those who blow up abortion clinics “in God’s name”? 

Most of the evangelical Christians that I know are ready and willing to share their faith at a moments notice, but they are not the ones that yell and scream insults at homosexuals to try to convert them.  No one is ever truly persuaded using strong arm tactics.  “A person convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.”  I am unsure of who first coined that phrase, but it holds true to Christianity, politics, or anything else you can think of. 

I spoke to a local pastor, one in which I look up to with great respect as a man and a teacher, about what he felt Christians should be doing in the secular/political world.  He believes that if Christians would truly be followers of Christ, we could make an enormous contribution to our nation.  He sees the role of Christians as one of defender of the helpless.  Just look at the story of British statesman William Wilberforce, made into the movie “Amazing Grace”.  His deeply held faith convicted him that slavery was wrong and that it should be stopped.  One man’s convictions started the debate to end slavery in Great Britain.  I believe that is what being a Christian in our country and throughout the world is about.  By living my life as a living example of Jesus Christ, I will work to end the injustices in our country and around the world. 

Many people are terrified of evangelical Christians being in positions of power.  They point to President Bush and say that he has overstepped his bounds in his thirst for war in Iraq.  We can debate that over and over again, but how is that decision and example of how Christians would work in a position of power?  Where did his faith play a role in that decision?  In my opinion, he believed that there was injustice under the rule of Saddam and that played a key role in his decisions.  Is the President a perfect Christian?  Am I a perfect Christian?  The answer is a resounding no.  There are no perfect Christians.  We all fall short of the glory of God, but we all continue to strive to be better Christians.  As I become a better Christian, I become a better man, husband, father, friend, employee, and yes even a better writer. 

My faith in Christ is my guiding compass.  Just because my guiding compass is my faith, does that make my values, morals, decisions, or opinions any less valid than yours?  Your compass has been determined undoubtedly by many things throughout your life.  It is comprised of your experiences growing up, at work, at school, with your friends, or even the news networks.  I do not discount your ideals because they do not agree with mine, I may debate or argue with you over them, but I do not discount them.  It is not place to judge anyone.  It is my goal to try to show you a tiny bit of Christ by the way I live my life.  I pray that it does not offend you, but it will not change my faith or my desire to show you the way to Christ.

Each and every time you turn on the local, network, or cable news the “experts” are pontificating over their particular area of expertise. They make predictions about everything under the sun from global warming and the current political campaigns, to the economy and the stock market. The amusing aspect of this nightly “expert” analysis is that a few months or years down the road, the experts are all shocked at the outcome. The shocking aspect is that the same news producers continue to trot out the same shocked experts to provide the “expert” analysis on the topic of the day.

Let’s start with the economy and the so-called experts that are all over the news analyzing the current economic health of our country. It does not matter what they predict, in 3 months when the quarterly reports come out, they will inevitably be shocked at the results. They are either much higher or lower than the “experts” predicted and they are left to explain why their predictions were wrong. All the while, they pompously tell us why they are the experts and how even though they were wrong, they were actually right.

We have presidential candidates that are running on the “2 Americas” theory. They believe that there is the America for the rich, which by the way all of the candidates are part of, and the America for the rest of us poor slobs. They cite numbers about the poverty rates in the U.S. and how they will change the lives of the masses. One question I have is that we have had the “War on Poverty” since 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson enacted several programs meant to end poverty in the United States. How is it that we have fought this “war” for 43 years and we still have “2 Americas”? The experts in the campaign tell us that we need more reform to end the poverty. Reform in political speak is more bloated government programs and much higher taxes for all of us, not just those in the “rich” America. By the way, the economic experts would actually be right for once if the proposals were ever implemented.

The experts also love to try to be prophetic with the weather. I am not talking about your local weatherman; there are plenty of jokes about weatherman and their forecasts. I am speaking of the experts predicting the hurricane seasons. How many experts did we hear tell us that 2005 would be as bad as it was? How about 2006? 2006 was predicted to be just as bad as the year before, but we ended up with just a few named storms with no storm making landfall in the United States. Now we have heard that the initial predictions for 2007 were too high and the experts have lowered their numbers. You can be sure that come next hurricane season the same experts will be on TV warning us of the doom to come.

I am not a global warming advocate nor am I a scientist; I freely admit that I am just a regular guy with an opinion. The global warming scientists have been warning us for the past 25 years about how the end is near and the point of no return is rapidly approaching. What I don’t understand is that we can’t predict what the weather will be like tomorrow or next month or even how many hurricanes we will see, but yet the experts tell us that we will see the ice caps melt within our lifetime. Like I said above, I am no expert and am very cynical on global warming, but when you have experts blaming global warming for the bridge collapse in Minnesota last week, or for even the mine collapse in Utah this week, how can anyone take them seriously?

In the political world the experts repeatedly use polls to tell us what is going to happen in even the smallest of elections. How many times over the past few decades have they been shocked at the outcome? I can hear the furious typing already, Bush stole the election! Voter fraud! Disenfranchisement! Hanging chads! Please get over it already. For all of your screaming, Bush is still in the White House and will be until January of 2009.

I believe that these experts are glory hounds that thrive on the face time on TV. They live to hear their sound byte on the news or see their pompous smiling face on TV. The producers of these “news” shows put them on for a variety of reasons, except of course for their accuracy. The next time you see an “expert” holding court, remember what they say and predict, because you will see how buffoonish they are when their predictions all fall flat.

A recent study has revealed that teenagers in Great Britain are the worst mannered teens in all of Europe. The study found that the British youth are more likely to have been in fights, use drugs, engage in underage sex(I could not find the study’s definition of “underage”), and rarely sit down to a meal with their parents. Most of the findings of this study are not surprising and probably could have been done in the United States with some of the same results. What I found shocking was the response and the suggested cures to the behavioral problems found in many teenagers.

The British government officials plan to spend 1.4 billion pounds to keep schools open 10 hours a day for art and drama clubs and “out of hours” homework. They hope to promote mothers going back to work full time and to aid “latchkey” children in the after school hours. I am all for art and drama clubs and providing help for the unattended children, but why do they think that the kids will automatically just show up at these clubs? My biggest problem with their ideas is that bureaucrats always believe the best answer to any problem is a government program.

Another issue I have is their desire to draw more mothers back to full time work. Now I realize that some families need both parents to work in order to survive, but I don’t see how a mother being away from her children more hours of the day is a solution to a behavior problem. If the politicians want to find a government program to help, I believe a better program would be finding ways so that one parent could stay at home with the children.

When did we get away from parents actually taking the responsibility for raising their children? This is a problem here in the U.S. and apparently Great Britain as well. Our societies have developed a mentality that the government has all the answers and therefore the responsibility for every aspect of raising our children. We have shirked off our responsibility as parents to teach our children about sex. We have come to believe that the government schools are better equipped to teach our offspring about sex, whether or not we may agree with what they are teaching. We allow the schools to teach our children their values and then question why the kids are so ill mannered.

Of course this mentality of the “Nanny-state” is not exclusive to child rearing, it has taken over almost every aspect of our lives. After all why shouldn’t we have government funded/run health care, or welfare, or retirement? With the bureaucrats record of accomplishments, they are the best equipped to cause the program in question to cost ten times as much and never achieve the promised result. The same politicians with whom we have entrusted our children’s welfare, seem unable to solve the chronic drugs and crime problems in many of our cities.

We need to take responsibility for the education and raising of our children, as well as every other aspect of our lives. There are way too many adults that need to grow up and realize that if they are going to achieve any type of personal, financial, or business success, they need to do it themselves. I can think of no successful person throughout history that has ever had to stop and thank the government for making them a success. Government programs always start out with the best of intentions, but always end up costing way more than predicted and never truly solving the problem they were “designed” to solve.