Amid the typical establishment distraction at the rise of the Tea Party candidates and the apparent uprising of conservatives across this land, I think serious candidates should look at drafting a Contract for Freedom to shift the focus off of whether a candidate dated a witch or whether Bristol Palin can dance.

First item, eliminate the corporate tax. Just eliminate it. Corporations are not like individuals who pay their taxes. They can factor that into the cost of their product or service. So, the corporate tax ends up being an additional tax on consumers, not The Rich. By reducing the corporate tax rate to 0% we'll be inviting corporations to invest in American workers instead of building headquarters elsewhere. What would follow is an increase in employment in America, more workers employed and more individuals paying income tax. I suspect there would be an increase in revenue, not a loss.

The second item addresses whether there would be a shortfall in tax dollars to our government. We need to do what John McCain proposed in his campaign: Freeze discretionary spending. Freeze it. No more spending on this project or that bill. If it is not an essential program or established expense (like the military, Social Security, Medicare) then it gets frozen, no dollars go to it. With those expenditures stopped, bring in an independent audit firm to review the government books and reduce waste. The bureaucrats have been remarkably unsuccessful at cutting the fat, let an independent firm do it. I happen to know about this area since I manage a legal bill audit unit for an insurance company. By enforcing billing guidelines and using common sense about how long it might take someone to do a task, my team has reduced millions of dollars in expenses. I suspect that on the scale of our Federal Government, the reductions would be billions, easily.

The last item, but by no means the least important, is for our leaders to keep taxes low on individuals. That means keeping the "Bush" tax cuts and even reducing capitol gains taxes further. By committing to lower taxes on everyone (The Rich included) our economy will start running again.

The bottom line: the new Contract with America needs to be a contract of freedom. Only low taxes and less Government will lift the current or any future recession.

Few things seem to be as controversial as discussing a dichotomy in regard to religious tolerance. I recently posted that I find it interesting that on the nine year anniversary of 9/11 the biggest issue is tolerance of Muslims. While many appreciated how I phrased my observation, at least one person injected the obvious note that we need to be tolerant of everyone (which I don't argue with) and one was adamantly opposed and angry at the characterization of Islam as an intolerant, and often violent religion.

So, I decided to research some of the assumptions that I hold, largely based on what some claim is representative of only 1% of Muslims who happen to be extremists. I am, by no means, done with my research, but I have a few thoughts thus far.

According to surveys, there are approximately 1.5 billion Muslims around the world. This includes 15 million Muslims of the Huy people in China, as well as groups in Italy, France, America, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE etc. Off the top of my head I can think of nations that are run as Islamic governments: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, UAE, Pakistan, Yemen, Oman, and Kazakhstan. There are more that I'm missing, I know. Nearly every one is intolerant of other religions. Jordan is a notable exception that has found liberalization good for its economy and is sort of a Middle-East Switzerland, staying out of most Islamic/Jewish/Christian debates and conflict. But in the others, for instance, Christian missionaries must pose as language teachers and hide their faith in order to enter the country. And while there is a range of persecution in these Islamic countries, all of them, with the exception of Jordan, would prevent the building of a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue. Most would confiscate Bibles and burn them. Most would imprison Christians and their converts and possibly kill them, too.

But does this mean that Islam is a violent religion? Or is it simply the outworking of violent men who have "hijacked" the religion? History seems to indicate that if it is the latter, Islam is uniquely prone to being hijacked. No other religion has such a history of aggression against unarmed civilians. The Barbary Pirates, the raids that incited the first Crusade and on and on.

That still doesn't answer if most Muslims in the world are peaceful. Logic would state that they are. If there are over a billion Muslims, all violent, we'd be overrun. But it does seem to tell us that the leaders of the religion tend to be extremists bent on violence, in act or word.

I will continue to research this, including reading the Quran for myself. But for now I think this may be similar to Catholics around the world. There are far more Catholics than there are priests, bishops and other Church leaders. And it would be unfair to characterize every Catholic on the basis of Rome's overall teaching, whether you think that teaching is good or bad. Basically, many call themselves Catholic and even find comfort in the Church. But they may not have ever read the Bible and they may not all adhere to all the teachings of the Pope, or even their local priest.

What I hope to find out is whether Islam is inherently violent in its text, or if, like some say, it is a peaceful religion horribly hijacked for the violent purpose of bad men?

A comedian on some show made me laugh: He mocked the green crowd for their penchant for electric cars saying, "Their non-polluting...yeah, because they plug in to a wall and the energy comes from a jelly-bean field somewhere!" I'm sure I'm paraphrasing, but I remember thinking, this guy gets it!

At the same time that the "green" crowd clambers for getting away from fossil fuels and over to electric cars, they also fight the use of coal for producing cheap electricity. Oddly, too, they seem against natural gas (even when it has the word 'natural' in it). Nuclear is apparently not on the table, despite the French using it safely.

So, the only energy sources we can use are solar panels and wind farms, both of which are unable to produce a fraction of the energy we need. And certainly not enough to charge all the batteries in cars.

Most lithium comes from Chile and Argentina. The mining process uses 2/3 of the mining area's drinking water as they mine it from brine pools. The metal is toxic to touch and can be explosive. The dust, if inhaled can cause pulmonary edema. Given the rampant litigation that killed asbestos mining and usage, I can only imagine what would happen should lithium start serious mining in the U.S. Not to mention the fact that lithium is not a renewable resource.

Oil, on the other hand, while some claim it is limited, keeps getting discovered in large quantities, begging the question, is it renewing itself beneath the earth's crust? I happen to think so, and so do some geologists. Some geologists believe that oil is formed like natural gas through a non-organic natural process and is thus a constantly occurring source of fuel. That might explain how we've constantly had estimates of oil moved upward ever since its discovery.

As other columnists have pointed out, the 'green' bandwagon is causing more geological problems than it is solving. Due to the ethanol craze, more and more land is devoted to growing corn that no one is eating. We've traded food for inefficient fuel and we let politicians hide the costs through tax gathered pay-offs to the farmers and corporations. As a result, we're facing increasing food costs and famine in parts of the world. Now we have the worst of all scenarios: High cost food and high cost energy.

I'm not one to believe in conspiracy theories because I don't think humans have the ability or the humility to work together for any cause, just or heinous, without it falling apart in squabbles and indecision. But, what we may be facing is a  conspiracy of an invisible hand: Political ambition.

When men and women rise to power, despite every good intention, unless he or she can remain focused on the good of all people, trouble brews. Soon, donors with large wallets arrive, relationships form and elections become about power and influence. The subtle lie is that if I can get re-elected, then I'll be able to do all those good things I wanted to do to begin with! Of course, then the next election cycle arrives and the lie starts all over until the politician is completely compromised.

This November I truly hope those who find seats when the music stops will consider common sense and throw cap and trade in the toilet where it belongs, start oil drilling, build refineries, expand coal mining, mine for lithium and build nuclear power plants. We need all the energy to lift humanity higher than it has been. And to have that energy, we need freedom.

Sadly, the life of Mel Gibson increasingly resembles a morality tale from the Twilight Zone. A promising young actor gets a major role one of the first times out of the gate (and allegedly after getting a bruised face in a barroom brawl the night before). He connects with audiences and finds himself catapulted immediately to super-stardom. With advice along the way, this young man lives wild, enjoying success and fame. To all he seems like the perfect star: He's personable, helpful, funny and appears to have a stable marriage (by Hollywood standards, outstanding!). For over 20 years this boy, a recipient of God's grace or fabulous luck, became one of the most successful actors/directors in entertainment, earning him accolades and an Oscar from the Academy.
Then it all fell apart. It seems as though some mystical pact had run its course and Mel had missed the chance to pay the due he owed for his good fortune. Too late, perhaps, he sought to fix his wild-boy ways and 'find' his traditionalist religion in which he was raised. In laudable effort, Mel funded, promoted and delivered a stunning work of cinematic art with The Passion Of The Christ, publicly declaring his faith in Jesus and devotion to turning his life around. The movie earned large amounts of money and Mel appeared transfigured as the Hollywood face of Christianity. Perhaps in blasphemy, marketing for the movie claimed it was the “best outreach opportunity in 2000 years.” Within Mel's personal life, however, no one was reaching out to him and issues that have proven to be his undoing. For what we can see, maybe the personal attacks he endured for his movie, the claims of anti-semitism, the attacks against his father, were too much and they embittered him. We may never know.
From reports, his long-time wife Robyn had long since tired of Mel and his ways (their marital squabbles fairly well-known). Then came his off-the-wagon-drunken-rage

It amazes me how quickly topics are boiled, or morphed into talking points that have nothing to do with the real issue at hand. Case in point, the so-called "Health Care Reform."

First of all, America has excellent, top-notch health CARE. We have the most brilliant medical minds in the world and people the globe over come here to receive care they find scarce in their countries of origin. So, getting to the root here, the debate was never about care.

The mantra coming from the socialist left-wing of society repeated, "Health care is a right, not a privilege." On the positive side, the mantra sort of backhands with some truth that we have excellent healthcare that everyone wants. On the less accurate side, doctors, hospitals, clinics and drug companies provide services to society. So, what this mindless moto conveys is that doctors, nurses and all those in the healthcare industry should work pro bono, for the general good of mankind (leaving the obvious question, how will they eat, cloth and shelter themselves?). If this is not the implication they intend, then their services are not a 'right' for everyone to have. To resolve this dichotomy, looking to the devil in the details, the issue is who should pay?

So, the entire debate was never about health care, per se, but who should pay for this service. The response from the left is that they want healthcare 'available' for everyone, payment is really secondary. That's just as insincere as saying services provided by skilled professionals is a right. We have laws that require hospitals to render care regardless of payment, and the honorable ER doctors and nurses, as well as countless first responders do just that. Again, the issue is payment. Who should pay for services?

President Obama has repeatedly castigated the employer-based healthcare system along with the insurance companies. Both are worthy of critique. The employer-based system is harmful because it ties someone's health insurance to a job. The other is problematic because it hides the true cost of services. If all you see is a $20 co-pay or a $100, $200 deductible, getting service from a provider is painless and really valueless. If each person had to pay the bill, I suspect we wouldn't have people demanding unwarranted MRIs or going in to their primary doctor for the common cold.

The Health Care Reform has, in some instances identified the problems we all know exist, but have prescribed something infinitely worse.

Issue one, having an employer-based health provider. President Obama and his supporters want to take the current reform and eventually turn healthcare over to the Federal Government to administer. So, rather than being stuck with the healthcare that our employer provides, we get stuck with healthcare that our Government provides. In this instance, if we don't like the benefit, we don't even have the option of changing jobs. While this isn't in the current reform, it is a goal and we're within the 100 yard-line of losing this game.

Issue two, demand. Right now, health insurance companies are forced to provide a litany of coverages that are cosmetic or non-essential. Many of these items would never even be needed (most men probably are not in the market for breast implants). These mandates have come from the government and impinge on private insurance companies offering packages that people would want to buy. Imagine if each insurer could offer you a buffet of options for coverages that would fit your lifestyle or stage of maturity? These insurance companies also hide the cost of all this care through contract pricing that gives the false impression that they are making healthcare affordable and only require small co-pays and deductibles. As a result, people have come to expect insurance companies to buy Cadillacs for them at the same price of a Ford Focus. This drives demand upwards.

Complicating this issue of increasing demand is the diminishing number of doctors and nurses. Rampant litigation is driving doctors out of business. So, we have diminishing supply and increasing demand.

The Government healthcare will be the insurance industry juicing on steroids. No longer will prices be contract, they'll be mandated. Doctors, hospitals and clinics will have to put up or shut up. And many will shut up. We'll lose providers at a more steady rate.

The end result from ignoring the real issue of who pays for health care--and coming up with the wrong prescription--is that we are worse for wear. We end up with a bloated bureaucracy and worse healthcare.

By acknowledging that consumers should purchase the services (and individuals and non-profits should help pay for those less fortunate), we avoid the debate of having some all-powerful government come in and cover the costs. By identifying the real issue of portability of policies (non-employer based policies) and transparency of costs (allowing expanded HSA accounts and other tax-sheltered funding for medical bills) we could be looking at real reform that would benefit us immensely.

My fear, however, is that those in power do not wish to find results for bureaucratic systems that fail. Rather, they want to construct larger, more cumbersome systems that further control our lives and give greater longevity to their sorry political careers.

This November, I encourage everyone to remember that America was founded by individuals who believed in freedom, not central governmental power.

While I might say, "I can't believe it," I completely do. It is not surprising to me that President Obama's White House is asking for Americans to inform on Americans. It is not surprising that his administration is interested in shutting down democratic dissent over his power grab policies. It is nothing new for the Democratic party to resort to name-calling and ad homonym attacks. Unfounded or simplistic slogans and demagoguery have been staples of the Democratic party since it sponsored slavery and segregation.

What really leaves me incredulous, however, is the appearance that many are so slow to realize the dangerous shift that happened when Barack Obama gained the White House. It baffled me that so many were so willingly blind to the fact that this man had nothing to recommend him outside of absurd boasts and a radical, government-funded, well organized grass-roots network. I don't doubt for a minute that the election would have been far closer if not for voter fraud that undoubtedly occurred and always favors the Democratic candidate. We in Minnesota know first hand how corrupt election officials and counties can skew results in favor of their candidate without batting an eye.

The playbook for the Democrats this time is no different than when President Clinton took office. Most may remember HillaryCare which went down in flames for the same reasons I hope ObamaCare will go down. These respective plans have nothing to do with the poor, downtrodden folks without healthcare. Rather, they are an effort to align power in a National Government steeped in Socialist principles.

In light of that fact, it does and it doesn't surprise me that Nancy Pelosi tried to say that opponents to the Healthcare take-over were carrying swastikas. It is absurd that one would compare free citizenry protesting a National Government power-grab with Nazis, but yet it makes sense, too. Psychologists call this projection. When someone is guilty of something, like say, having neighbors inform on other neighbors to create an enemy list or turning government's power against political opponents in ads that single out Conservatives by naming them as threats to the Homeland, he or she must project that obvious behavior on others.

The American people should take special notice of Obama and his cronies. The American people should remember the plans brought forward and the party that has tried to advance them. No one should think that they will benefit from these absurd government promises. The promises are nothing more than candy offered by a child molester: there is no real treat waiting for those who choose to accept it. 

The Obama Administration has done the absolute best job of living up to my expectations. Unlike the more charitable folks I hear on the radio and read in the press, I was not so willing to discount all the evidence of his radical upbringing to even entertain the thought that he would, as they liked to hope, govern from the center. He wouldn't and he isn't.

President Obama is following lock-step with the radical agenda that he had wanted all along: use the fear, crisis and turmoil to gin up enough confusion to expand a large, central government control on the country. While President Bush took the battle to the folks who wanted to do our country harm, Obama has become the enemy from within, turning his guns away from the terrorists and bad men and focusing the country he swore to serve.

The latest example, of course, is the decision to allow the former administration to be prosecuted regarding the enhanced interogation techniques. The Statist Left (also known as the Democrats) have given in-person apologies to the world for our strong stand against tyranny and our President just high-fived and brother-hand-gripped Hugo Chavez, a brutal dictator (who seems to be writing Obama's playbook for the years ahead). With the release of our supposed 'torture' memos, we've alerted our very real enemies that we do less than slap detainees. Where they chop off heads and desecrate bodies of the lucky ones they capture, we engage in psychological techniques like playing pop Christmas albums, books on tape, leave them in rooms with a catepillar, keep them awake for long periods of time (kind of like a college cram session, I'd say) or, in the most agregious cases (3) make them think they're drowning. Please note, pain is never an option. Unlike Jack Bauer of 24, we don't bust fingers off one by one, shoot detainees through the leg and then point the gun at the other knee-cap or even pretend to kill a person's family starting with the youngest. Also, our techniques are video-taped, documented, and reviewed to make sure they are not too harsh.

The only reason the enemy video-tapes the beheadings is to further their terrorist agenda and weaken our nation's resolve. Well, they can say mission accomplished. Our country, by hook or by crook, has elected a man who is unwilling or unable to stand up for one of the greatest countries of all time. He points the finger at our country, much like the pastor who was his 'spiritual mentor.' And in the process, he's shown our cards to the enemy.

Now we will live with two grave results, which are not even inclusive of the notion of criminalizing former administrations over interpretations of the law. What we have done is to let terrorists know that we will treat them better than our own citizens get treated in the average office cublicle culture (which is rife with psychological discomfort and pressure games). We've put them on notice that we might simply ask them what they intend to do to us, but then settle for offering them tea and crumpets if they won't tell. Second, we've put those charged with keeping us safe, the intelligence community and various law enforcement personnel on notice that if they do what they need to do to get vital information to protect innocent civilians, they might just get their jobs and/or livelihood handed to them for the trouble.

President Obama is Jimmy Carter 2.0. He's weak or deluded on foreign policy and national defense. He's either a central planner in denial of the obvious effects on any economy or he's devious and simply wants to grab more power for himself like a despot leader. He's indifferent to the country that has treated him well enough to elect him President. I'm not sure what is the greatest flaw in the whole mess that we have before us. My prayer is that, despite Obama's machinations with the economy, the natural industry of the American people will override the destruction he's heaping on us. We've done it before, we can do it again.

According to the EPA, carbon dioxide is now a pollutant. I'm waiting for the agricultural society to sue on this one since plants everywhere will be starved if the EPA succeeds in regulating their food supply. Seriously, though, this has been coming. It is one of those things that slips by unnoticed by the populace at large.

For many, the goofy halogen light bulbs seemed to be a lower energy bulb that would just last longer, another product in a country of choices. Most don't know that the prices didn't magically come down on those bulbs, but rather were subsidized by our tax dollars to create the illusion that they're cost effective. Many don't know those bulbs need to be disposed of by a HAZMAT team. Many believe global warming is occurring, and that all these little things we can do to 'go green' will prevent some catastrophe from happening in the future. Most people don't get bogged down by asking themselves the obvious question of why the winters seem colder lately, or why the seasons continue year after year with no dramatic change. They don't stop to think why folks who are unable to give a reliable 7-day forecast think they'll be better at 100 or 1,000 year forecasts. They simply accept what the men in the white coats (for they certainly are not scientists) tell them is happening.

So, while people slumber to the noise on TV, radio and the millions of sources of propaganda and entertainment sources, a silent coup has been stealing ground. In the same manner that we surrendered our religious freedom in our public life and let the ludicrous idea that if someone is uncomfortable with the Ten Commandments they must be unconstitutional, we've allowed ourselves to be brainwashed with the implausible notion that we're going to heat up the planet and extinct ourselves. Just the idea of that is so silly. It would be akin to strangling yourself. If, indeed, we could heat up the planet by the number of people using cars, as they died, there would be less of the greenhouse gasses and the temperature would logically decline, right? I can speculate on this since, to enter the Global Warming debate you don't need a degree of any kind. Of course, I'm not truly allowed into the debate since, for one, it is over, according to Al Gore, and two, I have something the Global Warming advocates hate: common sense.

With society so fully accepting of the ideas of a future catastrophe that we can neither detect or predict through any semblance of real, observable science, those who drive this movement of power have declared that our exhale is bad and must be regulated. Let's just think for a moment how that might be regulated. Will we be required to hold our breath? No, more than likely a national system of letting the elderly die will be implemented (something that will go hand in hand with the health care rationing that will come with the government health care). Abortion will play into this as well. In the name of saving the planet the government will dictate first that child tax credits will be cut off for more than two children. Free abortions will be available for those on Welfare. Then, forced abortions for anyone wanting to have more than two children, followed by a reduction to one child.

I might be wrong about the Welfare recipients. The people who look for power want dependent children raised in the slums they create. Those are future voters. They will more than likely deem children of middle-class families a threat and force them down to two or one.

Many might see this blog as extremist, but it is coming. They've outlawed breathing. The only way to regulate is reduce the number of people breaking the law.

I am stunned by the vigor with which Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and others have attacked the woman who gave unnatural birth to eight babies. In principle, I agree that the woman is guilty of a lot of things, namely tampering with God's design and order. But she's not alone in her guilt. The doctors are guilty, too. And that argument has nothing to do with the fact that she has 14 babies in a small apartment. It would be as valid an argument if a woman had one child and had plenty of money and other worldly ideas of security to back up her desire to raise a child.

There are two issues that are astounding here: One, the idea that a child is doomed if he or she is born into poverty or difficult conditions, and two, that the crime here is the number of children the woman birthed.

First, as a Christian, I do not believe that someone's financial situation should dictate whether or not they should answer the call of our Creator to be fruitful and multiply. Plenty of loving families grew up on poverty, mine being one of them. Despite living below the poverty line, we ate food grown in our garden, pears grown in the back yard and pancakes on Saturday mornings--sometimes with hot dogs in lieu of sausage. Amazingly, I grew up and paid my own way through private college and am rising up the corporate ladder. My determination to succeed is perhaps driven by the fact that I didn't have priviledge and opportunity. Those 14 children are not doomed to lives of crime and villainy simply because of the sins of their mother. That should remain an argument of the social warfare left, not God-fearing conservatives.

Second, the problem we face is one where life is merely an experiment that we have the power to control. If someone isn't married or has trouble concieving, we simply manipulate cells and voila, we have a baby--and a number of frozen life-forms in storage. We've reduced humanity to seedlings that we can simply discard when they're no longer convenient or wanted. The design in which God made us where two will become one flesh in an intimate way that will allow them to produce offspring is all but destroyed. Sex has been turned into something like a personal drug to which some are adicted. Through science we've eliminated the chance for life, making sexual activity a simple choice of recreation with no fear of responsibility. Drugs allow men to remain 'in the game' long after  nature has taken their sexual stamina. Personal satisfaction is prime in our society while intimate oneness is shunned.

In this culture we shouldn't raise our eyebrows at the fact that in our government's current 'stimulus' package contraception is proposed to 'contain costs.' Yes, children are merely financial burdens that we should kill off if at all possible, or prevent while frolicking away in whatever lustful manner we please. And should we want a child, why, we can simply grow a few from the frozen bank of babies we have in sterile rooms.

What should strike fear in our hearts is the degree to which our society has grown cold in love for one another. Women are at war with men over so-called equality and men long for a time when their roles were revered. In the midsts of this conflict are children who have become burdens to bestow on day care centers and after school programs. Our divorce rate is an alarming 50% while children grow up jaded and cynical, committing suicide at the highest rate in history.

In such a bleak society we might argue that it is a crime to bring more children into the world. But that argument has been used for generations upon generations. On the contrary, we desperately need good men and women to rear large numbers of children to offset the darkness that threatens to smother our world. We need beacons of light to show goodness when our culture's values prove vile. And for this reason we need to celebrate life because it comes from God. We can condemn our culture's tampering with God's handiwork, but He allowed those eight children to live. We can trust God will work his purpose in their life, no matter how wacky the mother may or may not be.

The Great Unifier... well, that was George W. Bush, and we can't use the same title over again, can we? The Post-Partisan Post-Racial Post-Capitalist President of the country formerly known as the United States of America has repeated a phrase that is interesting: He states that he doesn't believe any political party has cornered the market on wisdom or good ideas. In the next breath he summarily dismisses all dissent from his Big Government Coup by saying we cannot rely on "tired old arguments and partisan politics." He also derides "cable chatter" that he feels is a mere distraction from accomplishing the only thing that will save us from certain economic catastrophe. In his address to House Democrats he followed that remark with the astounding declaration that, in paraphrase, Democrats won and nah-nah-nah-nah boo-boo. He likened his supposed mandate to change course with veering a car away from a cliff.

There are many, many problems with President Obama's arrogant demeanor, but I'll try to remain focused. First, we've heard this economic doom tale before. As I recall it came from that evil George W. Bush who warned that failure to act and act big would result in a total meltdown of our very way of life. Of course, their action has proven to have no affect at all. That might have something to do with the fact that government is wholly inadequate for any task that requires focus, timeliness and limits. The first plan, in its conception was going to be somewhat focused, timely and limited. That lasted for about two days. Now they squandered millions or billions (who's counting) of dollars with no accountability. But THIS time it is essential that we act quickly! If we don't, well, frisbee fields and fleets of cars and other shopaholic items for Nancy Pelosi will never get passed. To quote Sting from his Regan era song, this is a lie we don't believe anymore.

President Obama also likes to appear humble by stating he doesn't believe any one party has the corner on the market of wisdom. And he underscores that fact by showing how little wisdom he or his fellow democrats have. He stood there on my TV screen shaking his head and making childish remarks deriding his critics while addressing none of their concerns. If his Presidency will be judged by his response to the economic crisis that he claims he inherited, he, above all should be deeply concerned at the apparent opportunistic vigor that his fellow democrats have launched in this so-called stimulus bill. Rather than defending the bill and lauding Nancy Pelosi as such a great, visionary leader, and far from stating that we shouldn't make "perfection the enemy of progress," he should demand perfection based on the grave seriousness of his purpose. If he is so adamant of the dire consequences of innaction, he should be equally adamant about the quality of the solution.

Rather, President Obama creates the impression he is simply winging it at best. He has shown no leadership in outlining what he wants in the bill and how he hopes to save or create jobs. He appears to have given the reigns to Nancy Pelosi and the other Euro-socialists that currently masquarade as representatives of Americans and now rushes to a hasty televised speech to turn the tide against the critics of his cohort's bill. To do this, he claims the "crisis" is seen by numerous unnamed economists (from both sides, mind you). And while debate is good, he claims, it appears blind support of this pork-ridden bill is better.

During his speech I didn't hear one logical defense of the bill. He claims buying a whole fleet of flex fuel vehicles for government workers will keep the auto makers in business and lower energy costs. Lowering energy costs for the government, however, is the least of their concerns. We might also cut congressional pay rather than hike it and reap more instant savings. And besides, what's good for the goose is good for the gander: Why not buy all Americans with old, gas guzzling vehicles these new cars? Wouldn't that be in the size and scope of a massive stimulus?

President Obama is simply out of his league. The propagandist news media carried him over the finish line and will, no doubt, hope to keep him afloat for as long as they can. Unfortunately, we the people don't want terrorists in our backyard. We don't want rabbid liberals fulfilling their fantasies on the backs of our economic woes. We don't want empty rhetoric and snarky remarks from our Commander In Chief when he's faced with a serious debate over a bill. We don't want a Chief Executive who gives us a new memo and tells us that our concerns are tired old arguments and partisan politics. 

The recent election is historic not only for the fact that our country elected a man born of a race that was once relegated to slavery. That alone shows that America still leads the world in advancement of moral causes (we also have the cleanest air and best pollution control in the civilized world). What we also have is that the President's primary challenger remains in the Senate and can voice his opposition to the administration's proposals. Currently, President Obama happens to be proposing a 'stimulus' package filled with pork spending that will not even go into effect for a couple years. To the extent that it will create jobs, it would only be government make-work which will do nothing to stimulate the private sector. The alleged 'tax-cut' amounts to a welfare check to working families. In other words, it is a large-scale consumer-side economic package that will likely sink the economy. And John McCain is there to oppose it. Given his stature from a highly publicized campaign, his voice carries weight and gets headlines.

It may be that John McCain will have a greater impact for America as a highly visible Senator. Unlike John Kerry with George Bush, John McCain has credibility, accomplishments, a record of achievement. The same applies for Al Gore, though he didn't seek any public office. Essentially, every Democratic candidate has been just as filled with fluff as Senator Obama. Each declared the same empty rhetoric and short-sighted, big-government solutions rooted in class envy. But Senator McCain has always stood for government responsibility and against pork barrel spending. He's known for that, he has a record of doing those things. He's a tireless watchdog for those causes. And that befits a Senator more than a Commander In Chief.

As for me, I don't trust a word that comes from President Obama's mouth. He's proven himself filled with empty words that benefit the occassion. Thus, I don't take his "we will defeat you" verbage as anything more than a bone tossed to conservatives amid his celebrations. It was a toast to the losers and it cost him nothing. He's followed that by signing the closure of Guantanamo Bay, signaling negotiations with Iran and outlawing any use of interrogation techniques of terrorists that might be uncomfortable (or perhaps without the presence of a lawyer). In other words, his "we will outlast you" comment was clearly not followed up by actions that might suggest he meant what he said. I suspect we will see more of that from this administration.

Now John McCain can be the outcast, the voice of reason that 52% of American's failed to trust, that the media tried to malign as loony. To a lesser extent, Sarah Palin can point out that under her command, the state of Alaska is not in debt and their economy is weathering the recession just fine.

What remains to be seen is how McCain's stalwart opposition will renew the Republican Party and lead the younger generation to form a solid base of fiscal responsibility and moral leadership. His opposition to the pork stimulus is a good start.

The First Lady Michelle Obama famously commented on America that the "bar" gets moved up right when folks are doing everything they need to succeed. Well, in keeping with that, it seems President Obama is more than happy to allow the media to keep raising the bar of expectation. He has yet to denounce the euphoria that surrounds him or correct the rising public expectation for his presidency. He hasn't come out and told people, "No, I will not be paying your mortgage, put gas in your tank or eliminate your utility bills."

With the inaugueration done with, I wonder how long it will be until the glow dims on Obama's star? There certainly were times during his campaign that he took some hits and showed his obvious displeasure at being lowered to human standards. He took vehement exception to a certain down-home girl from Alaska pointing out his absurdities regarding the supposed rising ocean levels. More importantly, I wonder if President Obama will drop the aire of self-importance?

Early in the campaign we heard off-handed comparisons of Barak Obama and Abraham Lincoln. But the comparisons have not been limited to his home state. Rather, they have grown to include the inaugural Bible used by Lincoln, as well as some who seem to think President Obama has somehow fulfilled a mission started by the first Republican President. I fear that the joke about measuring Mount Rushmore for Barak Obama's bust wasn't so much of a joke.

Looking at his retoric, anyone can gleen what they like from his speech. If you want a president who is tough on our enemies, he declared we will defeat them and unapologetically, to boot. If you want us to use governement money to fund embrionic stem cell research (despite the disappointing results of that line of research) then he is going to start that. If the so-called global warming is one's cause, he will make sure we stop it. And like a good politician, he failed to spell out the specifics of any one of those declarations, leaving it up to each person to interpret it in their most desired way. I suspect our new President will dish more of the same for the next few years.

What he won't be able to do, however, is hide his actions. While he is a clever politician with a press core more loyal than any government run propaganda branch of the Soviets, he will be unable to control the ham handed liberal ajenda of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. He will face the choice of going along with his fellow Democrat "progressives" and usher in a New-New Deal of disasterous proportions, or govern from the center-right and find a less damaging middle ground.

Given his unremarkable history, I don't hold the bar too high for him. I hope he proves me wrong, but it appears we may be in for a term of exhuberant hope while willfully ignoring the lessons of history.