Friday, September 7, 2012

A guest blogger reports on Wednesday night at the Say Anything Convention. If nothing else Bill Clinton reminded us all how repulsive it was to have an impeached serial abuser of women endlessly wag his finger at a nation. 

It's very fitting that a political Party, which is now little more an amalgam of liars, thugs, mendicants, and freaks would have as its most beloved figure, a money-grubbing swine and loathsome creep who's been formally recognized as a perjurious, sexual pervert. Bill Clinton is a vile, filthy psychopath. His record of misogyny, his personal "war on women", includes multiple episodes of sexual and emotional abuse that include his wife. Standing allegations include attempted violent rape and serial Oval Office abuse of Ms. Lewinsky in a situation which clearly would have caused a Republican to be driven from Office and public life. His perversion and perjury caused him to be Impeached (though not removed), legally disbarred, and of course, lionized by the Democrat Party. His record in Office includes wholesale trade in criminal Pardons for cash and political reward. He was and remains a pathological liar about whom then Senator Bob Kerrey of NE, a Democrat colleague said: “Clinton’s an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?” No wonder the Democrats love him so.

An analysis of the veracity of his speech Wednesday follows. This tawdry trash caused pundits on the Left and the Right to swoon like schoolgirls. Brit Hume should hang his head in shame. He said, "He’s the most talented politician I’ve ever covered and the most charming man I have ever met. No one in my opinion can mount an argument — frame an argument more effectively than he can.”  Brit obviously hasn't done much analysis of Hitler's oratory. Adolf used the same methods and dishonest constructs. Chris Wallace added: “The reason he is such an effective political speaker is because he is such an effective political thinker. He is able to frame a political argument more effectively than anyone I’ve ever seen in politics.” It's much easier "to frame a political argument", when you brazenly distort and lie about it. And make no mistake about this. One of the reasons Clinton is able to, "distort and lie", is because so-called objective observers like Hume and Wallace turn into pathetic Clinton "groupies" at the sound of his voice.

Fact Check: Top Ten Clinton DNC Falsehoods--- [Partial List]
Posted on 06 September 2012
Source: Breitbart Feed

"To be blunt, it was a toxic, 50-minute bromide of lies, prevarications, and misdirections so fictional that it ought to be placed on the shelves alongside Fifty Shades of Gray (come to think of it, the speech was also sadomasochistic, if the reaction of the Clintonite media was any indicator).  

There are dozens of problems in the Clinton speech, but let’s just start with the top ten:

1] •  “Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private- sector jobs. So what’s the job score? Republicans: twenty-four million. Democrats: forty-two.”
Technically, this is true. Just as technically, Barack Obama should run screaming with his hair on fire from this statistic. There’s a reason for that: Clinton is measuring presidential tenure purely from inauguration to inauguration. For example, he’s taking jobs numbers from January 1981 to January 1985 to measure Reagan’s first term. Only one problem with this: by this standard, Barack Obama is the second-worst private jobs creator of the last half-century (George W. Bush is first, but still created far more net jobs than Obama overall, putting Obama dead last if you include state and federal jobs in the statistic). Which is why our unemployment rate is terrible.

2] •  “Though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot of other Democrats.”
This is crapola. Clinton frequently says or implies that Republicans are racists who want to toss grandma off a cliff. Here’s what Clinton said about the Tea Party’s view of Barack Obama just a couple years ago: “They want to turn him into a space alien. It helps that his skin color is different. But their motivation is what it always is: power and money.” 

And when he was president, Clinton was fond of using the FBI to investigate his political opponents. His political guru, Dick Morris, suggested that Clinton try a “ricochet strategy” to link Republicans with terrorists. Clinton is a hater. He always has been, as Barack Obama should know. He just hides it well because he’s a genius politician and a liar par excellance.
3] • “We all know that [Obama] also tried to work with congressional Republicans on health care, debt reduction, and new jobs.”
Really? Obamacare passed with precisely zero Republican votes, and only after the Democrats used legislative dirty tricks to pass it. On the debt reduction, Obama killed a deal with House Speaker John Boehner by trying to shoehorn massive tax increases into his final proposal. Republicans voted for Obama’s proposed – and sheepish – extension of the payroll tax rates. The Republican House has passed dozens of jobs bills. The Democratic Senate hasn’t even brought them to a vote. Obama’s budgets are so ridiculously non-moderate that they’ve received zero votes in the House and Senate – twice.
4] “They want to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit federal bailouts.”
Ah, the irony. Obama’s Dodd-Frank regulations enshrine bailouts into law. And as for those “pesky financial regulations,” Clinton’s administration is responsible for doing away with the Glass-Steagall Act, the left’s favorite bugaboo on this score. The fact is that Democrats are the largest proponents of bailouts – hell, Clinton was championing Obama’s GM bailouts a few minutes after this point in the speech. And they’re the ones who designed the regulatory regime that created the subprime mortgage crisis.
5] “I had this same thing happen in 1994 and early ’95. We could see that the policies were working, that the economy was growing, but most people didn’t feel it yet. Thankfully, by 1996, the economy was roaring, everybody felt it, and we were halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in the history of the United States.” 
Clinton’s policies were not working early in his tenure. The fabled Clinton recovery started under President George H.W. Bush; from January 1992 to January 1993, the H.W. Bush economy created 1.46 million jobs. Clinton’s job creation numbers only jumped after he admitted that he had raised taxes too much, proceeded to cut capital gains taxes in a major way, signed free trade acts, increased the death tax exemption, and worked with a Republican Congress to pass fiscally responsible budgets. The idea that Clinton just kept applying the same leftism in 1995 that he did in 1993 is a lie.
6] “President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. Listen to me now. No president, no president — not me, not any of my predecessors — no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.” 
False. The economy Ronald Reagan inherited from DNC speaker Jimmy Carter was no better than the economy Obama inherited from Bush. In November 1980, inflation was increasing at an annualized rate of 12.6%; unemployment was 7.5%. Prime interest rates were at 19%. These statistics were about the same when Reagan took office. Within four years, Reagan had completely turned the economy around – in September 1983 alone, the Reagan economy produced over 1.1 million jobs. In November 1984, the unemployment rate was 7.2%, and inflation rate was 4.1%. There’s a reason Reagan won 49 states. And let’s not even discuss how Warren G. Harding’s administration dealt with the crippled economy left by Woodrow Wilson.

7] • “The Recovery Act saved or created millions of jobs and cut taxes — let me say this again — cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people.”  
Saved or created means nothing. Millions means nothing. This is pure hokum. According to certain analysis of CBO data, the Recovery Act – the stimulus – cost taxpayers over $4 million per job created. And as for cutting taxes for 95% of the American people, nearly half of all Americans don’t pay federal income taxes. So how can you give them a federal tax cut? You can’t. These are redistribution checks.

8] “And in the last 29 months, our economy has produced about 4.5 million private-sector jobs. We could have done better, but last year the Republicans blocked the president’s job plan, costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here’s another job score. President Obama: plus 4.5 million. Congressional Republicans: zero.”
Love this magical thinking. If President Obama created 4.5 million jobs over the last 29 months, and if we’re supposed to date responsibility for job creation from the day people take office, then Congressional Republicans, who entered office in January 2011, are responsible for the creation of 2.9 million jobs, and Democrats in Congress are responsible for a massive net loss in jobs. And once again, every time Congressional Republicans attempt to pass jobs measures, President Obama stymies them with the help of his Senate Democratic majority.
9] “During this period, more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama. That’s the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s.”
Picking and choosing periods again. Over the course of Obama’s tenure, approximately 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost on net.
10] “He has offered a reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade, with $2.5 trillion coming from — for every $2.5 trillion in spending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues, 2.5 to 1. And he has tight controls on future spending. That’s the kind of balanced approach proposed by the Simpson-Bowles commission, a bipartisan commission.”
This one’s so bad that even the Washington Post, Obama’s favorite news outlet, debunked it. The fact remains that both Simpson and Bowles are fans of Paul Ryan, the Republican VP nominee. And Obama rejected the Simpson-Bowles plan outright. As the Post puts it, “virtually no serious budget analyst agrees with this accounting.” Ryan rejected Simpson-Bowles because it enshrined Obamacare. 
This doesn’t even get to Clinton’s take on how many kids have been given healthcare they wouldn’t otherwise have under Obamacare (false), his explanation of why health care costs haven’t risen as fast (bull), his take on Obama gutting welfare work requirements (absolute bunk), his description of Paul Ryan’s budget (garbage), his line about oil and gas exploration under Obama (nope), his narrative about student loans (a major stretch), his scare statements about Republicans poisoning air and water (nonsense), and his lionization of the GM bailout (horse-pucky).

In short, this was a Clinton classic: lies, lies, and more lies. It was lies posing as “arithmetic,” as Clinton put it. He says where he comes from, 2 + 2 = 4. Unfortunately, where he comes from, that may be the only math problem he can get right."
So this is the icon of the Democrat Party, its media stooges and  their "useful idiots" on the Right. If truth still had a place in Democrat politics and in our public discourse he would have first been hooted from the stage in final disgrace, and then excoriated for precisely what he is: "A loathsome creep".
Sudden thought: Removing any God references from the wretched abomination called the Demorat Platform, was actually an act of respect for the Divine.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Letter to a Young Mom (on the then Presidential candidacy of Barack Obama in 2008) Part II

This is Part II of the 2008 case against Barack Obama. The focus is on the economy and life. Some see no connection between these two topics. When one realizes we now face a 14% U6 unemployment rate, a $16T deficit and  25 million out of work, it is impossible to believe that the two are not inextricably linked. When a failed administration foists this much economic pain and suffering on American citizens, it is inarguable that life will be compromised.  


Rob expressed in his letter a distrust of supply side economics and denigrated the benefits it offers the “wealthiest” Americans.  While Rob reported this has worked in the past, he posits it will not work in a global economy.  Rob goes on to state it is time “the middle class people started getting a tax break and let the top 5% take up some of our tax burden.”  This is right in line with Senator Obama’s plan to “spread the wealth around” and Senator Biden’s statement that “paying taxes is patriotic.”  There is a word for this philosophy…Marxism.  In short, Senator Obama has declared war on the “rich” and war on “big business.”  Rob failed to report the examples where Marxism has worked because there are none.  Socialism is not the foundation this nation was built on, and it is not the reason we have succeeded as a nation.  The Obama program is not a hand up, this is absolutely a hand out.  How is it possible for 95% of working Americans to get a tax cut when 40% of them don’t pay any taxes now?  The top 5% already pay 60% of all taxes.  In large part, what Rob and Senator Obama are talking about are not tax cuts (if you don’t pay taxes, you can’t get a tax cut).  They are talking about welfare disguised as tax credits.  It is predicted that Senator Obama’s tax proposal will transfer $1 trillion in wealth over 10 years to individuals currently paying no taxes.

Young Mom, the Obama plan, a treacherous political tool for fomenting class warfare, is also unsustainable in view of Senator Obama’s plans to increase spending.  Senator Obama proposes an additional $800 billion in new domestic spending.  This doesn’t include recent additions to the debt in the name of bailouts, to financial, housing and auto industries.  This is the amount of spending proposals Senator Obama has repeatedly told us about.  He hasn’t talked much about the Global Poverty Act (GPA) sponsored by him and currently under consideration by the Senate.  The GPA calls for the US to send $80 billion a year to the UN for redistribution to developing nations over the next ten years.   Marx, Lenin, the whole bunch would be proud.  Not only will we redistribute wealth in the US, we will give the UN $845 billion over the next 10 years to redistribute our wealth worldwide.  Young Mom, who will pay for this?  The last Presidential candidate to sell such economic fantasy to voters was Bill Clinton in 1992.  He proposed billions in new spending with huge tax cuts for, you guessed it, the middle and working class.  The tax cuts never came, the tax increases did.

Senator Obama has decided that families making above $250,000 are rich.  Or is it $200,000?  Or $150,000?  Or $120,000, as Governor Richardson, Obama spokesman, said this week?  Many small businesses file taxes as individuals to avoid what are currently the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  The top corporate tax rate in the US is 35%.  It is 28% in the United Kingdom, 12% in Ireland.  It is not hard to understand why businesses want to move out of the US.  At the $250,000 level (married…$200,000 if single), it is arguable, but as many as 10-20 million small businesses will be impacted by proposed Obama tax increases.  It is also not clear what the Senator means by $250,000 or Governor Richardson by $120,000?  Is this net or AGI?  This makes a huge difference, especially to small businesses.  Numerous economists have recently warned about the impact Obama’s economic plan would have on the nation.  Regarding job creation, expect recession, or worse, to be the watchword.  Young Mom you should think about the following chart before casting your vote:

John McCain will eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax which expands in its effect each tax year, currently punishing 25 million middle class families.  He will make it harder to raise taxes and he will ban internet taxation.  John McCain will increase the tax exemption for dependents, something which will directly benefit you Young Mom.  McCain understand the importance of families and this is a step towards better valuing something we have begun to take for granted.  He will also keep in place the Bush tax cuts which benefit all with any type of investment retirement account.  He has the best plan for attempting to create an investment environment which will encourage job creation and economic growth here in the United States.  Senator Obama proposes further corporate taxation which will drive more businesses out of the United States.  John McCain will drop corporate tax rates which are the highest in the world.  This has two effects Young Mom.  It creates an environment that encourages businesses to stay in the US and reduces costs that businesses pass on to consumers.  Senator Obama has made villains of lots of business sectors which have tremendously improved our lives and promises to tax them more. 

A word about “Corporate Taxes” Young Mom. I am no economist but have learned much this year as both candidates have talked about their approaches to the economic challenges we face as a nation.  When the government levies a tax on a corporation, the corporation is more like a tax collector than a taxpayer. The burden of the tax ultimately falls on people—the owners, customers, or workers of the corporation.

Many economists believe that workers and customers bear much of the burden of the corporate income tax. To see why, consider an example. Suppose that the U.S. government decides to raise the tax on the income earned by car companies. At first, this tax hurts the owners of the car companies, who receive less profit. But over time, these owners will respond to the tax. Because producing cars is less profitable, they invest less in building new car factories. Instead, they invest their wealth in other ways—for example, by buying larger houses or by building factories in other industries or other countries. With fewer car factories, the supply of cars declines, as does the demand for autoworkers. Thus, a tax on corporations making cars causes the price of cars to rise and the wages of autoworkers to fall.

The corporate income tax is popular in part because it appears to be paid by “rich corporations”. Yet those who bear the ultimate burden of the tax—the customers and workers of corporations, all of us—are often not “rich”. If the true incidence of the corporate tax were more widely known, this tax might be less popular among voters.  The bottom line, we, we the people, all pay the corporate tax rate.

Senator Obama proposes the largest spending increases in the history of this nation.  He proposes to increase the corporate tax rates which have already driven business overseas.  His tax reform is a promise to “spreading the wealth” and is pure socialism.  Many may be attracted to Senator Obama’s plan by the thought of a check in the mail from “rich” Americans.  My family would qualify for the Obama tax cut.  We don’t want it.  We simply don’t see this as a long term solution to improving the health of the American economy.  I see the Obama plan as a threat to the long term economic well being of my family.  John McCain proposes numerous actions which will make the economic pie bigger.  He wants our nation to continue to grow, not stagnate.  Five Nobel Prize Economists recently said it best Young Mom: (

Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It
was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

Right to Life

Young Mom, Rob’s comments on this topic need the greatest rectification.  To put it plainly, Senator Obama is the most pro-abortion Presidential candidate this nation has ever known.  He may talk about reducing abortions but the facts suggest otherwise.  He has supported partial birth abortion, voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) and supports the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).  BAIPA sought to provide infants that survived an abortion attempt with the same rights as any other newborn.  Senator Obama claimed that he did not support such legislation in the Illinois legislature because it did not contain language that would protect infringement on the right of a mother to choose abortion.  When some pointed out that he has unwilling to support such legislation twice, with one bill being identical to the federal bill which contained a neutrality clause, Obama called those people “liars”.  Most recently he has attempted to defend his position by saying that the legislation was unnecessary since infants born alive after a botched abortion were protected by existing law.  “Existing law did not so protect them” as the Attorney General of the state said in declining to bring prosecutions under it for the mistreatment of these infants.

Senator Obama objected to the bill because it provided protections for infants that abortionists deemed pre-viable.  He objected in principle to providing legal protection to such infants.  Jill Stanek, a perinatal nurse at a Chicago hospital, testified at the US Senate Hearings about her experiences as a nurse in Illinois and personally pleaded with Senators to support the bill in the Illinois legislature.  Rob is unfamiliar with what goes on in hospitals regarding birth of live infants deemed pre-viable or non-viable.  On a regular basis at hospitals and clinics infants are delivered alive after abortions and left to die in buckets/trays in cold utility rooms.  Sorry, but this is the unpleasant fact.  In some cases it is even more unpleasant than that as this case from Kansas this year illustrates:

 Abortionist Shelley Sella is a "circuit rider", who splits her time between Tiller's Wichita clinic, a California Planned Parenthood clinic, and other, smaller abortion mills.

"Ms. Davis gave us a very specific eye-witness account about the incident," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "We were told that the baby was 35 weeks gestation at the time of the abortion. The baby came out and was moving. Sella looked up at Ms. Davis, then picked up a utensil and stabbed the baby in the left ribcage, twisting the utensil until the baby quit moving. At 35 weeks, there is no doubt about viability. This is murder in anybody's book."

Regarding the BAIPA, it passed 98-0 in the US senate.  Talk about bipartisan!  Even Barbara Boxer supported it!  Senator Obama was not in the US Senate at that time but voted “present”, a regular position for him in the Illinois legislature, on the Illinois bill which was identical to the Federal legislation.  Rob is incorrect, the Illinois bill was identical to the Federal bill  It had the same Rowe neutrality clause which protected the right to have an abortion.  Senator Obama could not support the measure Young Mom.  But in failing to do so he supported infanticide.  This is the same man who said he doesn’t want his daughter punished with a baby as a result of an unwanted pregnancy.  This is the same man who said an opinion on when life begins was “above his paygrade.”  I suspect if Obama would speak honestly he might tell us he believes in a truly utilitarian view of life, that life doesn’t begin until an infant has reached some level of “consciousness”.  While monstrous, this might allow him to rationalize his position of unwillingness to support the BAIPA.

Lastly, Senator Obama told a Planned Parenthood Meeting in July that “the first thing I will do is sign the Freedom of Choice Act”:

“Once passed, FOCA will protect a woman's right to choose by federal statute. This means that if our worst fear comes to pass and a newly constituted anti-choice Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, women in the United States will have the protection of federal law in the exercise of their right to choose. In addition, FOCA would immediately restore reproductive freedom for the millions of American women who already face interference with their right to choose as a result of onerous state and federal restrictions.

FOCA will supersede anti-choice laws that restrict the right to choose, including laws that prohibit the public funding of abortions for poor women or counseling and referrals for abortions. Additionally, FOCA will prohibit onerous restrictions on a woman's right to choose, such as mandated delays and targeted and medically unnecessary regulations. As a result, women will be freed from improper governmental interference with their right to choose a pre-viability abortion. Women who require a post-viability abortion in order to preserve their lives or health will also be protected by FOCA.”

The above quote is from Planned Parenthood's action sheets.  The bottom line is that Senator Obama can talk about limiting the need for abortions, but he is advocating legislation that allows for unrestricted abortion.

Some of Senator Obama's supporters are now making one last, rather desperate-sounding attempt to defend his votes against protecting infants born alive after unsuccessful abortions. Their argument goes this way: Permitting children who survive attempted abortions to be abandoned is so heinous, so barbaric, that for someone to accuse Senator Obama, a decent man who is himself the father of two daughters, of supporting what amounts to legalized infanticide is too outrageous to merit an answer. There is a problem here though. In light of the documentary evidence that is now before the public, it is clear that the accusation against Senator Obama, however shocking, has the very considerable merit of being true.

Senator McCain is pro-life.  While he would not support the FOCA, abortion supporters painting Senator McCain’s election as the return to an era of “back alley” abortions are out of touch with reality.  Senator McCain supports constitutional judges who interpret the Constitution based on the intent of the framers, not the whims of the judges themselves.  Despite this instinct, Senator McCain supported the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court.  Senator McCain was also part of the Gang of 14 which was a coalition of Democratic and Republican Senators committed to shepherding the nomination of judges with broad based support through the Senate.  Lastly, Senator McCain has always honored the principle that a sitting judge should be replaced with one of a similar philosophy.  The next President will have to offer Supreme Court nominees to a Democratic Senate.  While a President McCain would never nominate one, no one believes that a Democrat dominated Judiciary Committee and Senate would allow the Court to tip in any direction but the left.  As a conservative this dismays me but it is an honest appraisal of how McCain, a man of his word, would act.

Part II of a IV Part Series

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

A friend in 2008 asked me to explain to a young mother what the implications of an Obama Presidency would be. This young mother had written the Obama campaign and received a response from a gentleman named Rob. Rob claimed to be Relatively conservative. I wrote to offer this young mother a different conservative perspective. The note is lengthy, and in 4 parts, but is as applicable today as it was in 2008. The nation has undergone dramatic change as the result of the Obama Presidency. Much of the hardship and suffering we are now experiencing was predictable...for people who were paying attention. I pray those lulled to sleep by the hypnotic chants of hope and change will not, in 2012, find comfort in the battle cry of Vladimir Lenin, "Forward!"  

 Dear Young Mother,

I read with great interest a letter recently shared with me by Rob’s mother.  You had written the Obama campaign asking why you should consider voting for Senator Obama.  The letter was referred by an Obama campaign worker, Rob’s mom, to Rob for reply.  Rob’s reply, thoughtful and detailed, displayed enthusiastic support for Senator Obama.  His letter to you led me to thoughtfully consider the true differences between the McCain and Obama candidacies.  Rob reported that he was “relatively” conservative.  “Relative” is the operative word.  I hope the thoughts of true conservative might be of value to you in considering your choices in this election.  I apologize in advance for the length of this discussion, but a conservative making this case operates at a severe disadvantage.  Much of the case you have heard from Rob, some accurate and some not, is repeated regularly  in the mainstream media.  Therein lies the great quandary we find ourselves in now as voters.  Rewind twenty eight years.  President Carter was facing Ronald Reagan in the Presidential race.  It would be impossible to imagine then that the New York Times would print an editorial from President Carter on the Iranian hostage crisis and then refuse the submission of Governor Reagan with a statement:

“It would be terrific to have an article from Governor Reagan that mirrors President Carter’s piece,” NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to Reagan staff. “I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.”

This was the reply to Senator McCain after he submitted an op-ed piece on the Iraq War in response to an op-ed from Senator Obama published earlier this year by the New York Times.  Mainstream media has lost any sense of equipoise and has betrayed the American people in the Presidential election of 2008.  I will try to offer analysis and opinion on a number of topics raised by Rob, but found it necessary to go into some detail.  I apologize for what I anticipate to be a lengthy discussion but without some background, my words would likely seem like unsupported political rhetoric.  I have broken the essay up into topics.  My hope is you will be able over the next ten days to get through topics you might deem most important to you and your children.

The election before us is about two political ideologies.  Conservatism espouses the belief that we are a land of liberty where natural rights of individuals precede and supersede the power of the state.  We are a constitutional republic in which government power is limited and employed for the purpose of providing legitimate public goods rather than for the benefit of insiders and narrow interest groups.  We are a free market in which persons, individually or collectively, have the natural right to sell goods and services to willing buyers, and in which the individual pursuit of economic opportunity benefits all. And we are a free society where citizens solve social problems not only through government but also by working together in families, neighborhoods, churches, charities, and other private, voluntary organizations. Alternatively, liberalism operates from the position that the power of the state supersedes that of the individual and only through the state will a utopian vision be achieved.  The state is the best judge of how to achieve that end.  Certainly the intent is that the state exists to wield that power for a larger good.  The state has a role of primacy as protector, educator, physician, moralist, economist, banker, and even purveyor and supporter of arts.   One of the consequences of the ever increasing liberal direction in this country has been a modern government of which democracy’s children increasingly ask for everything and from which they accept everything.

For true conservatives, John McCain is a flawed candidate.  He has supported a number of positions which fly in the face of thoughtful conservatism.  That said, he understands there is a role for government, but believes that role should be relatively limited.  This philosophy underlies his belief in a low tax environment which stimulates economic growth and limits the temptation of those in power to expand their power.  McCain’s principles naturally lead him to freeze and review current levels of government spending which are unsustainable.  John McCain is certain that pursuit of success in a free market best rewards individuals, though he also believes that there are those unable to make it who should be assisted.  He believes in a strong defense that ensures that we will remain a free society.  His core beliefs explain his commitment to a realistic energy policy required to maintain free markets and national security.  John McCain appreciates the tradition and the tenets of the founders of this nation and insists that the Constitution is the source of legal reckoning in this nation, not empathy and “living” interpretations.  John McCain’s respect for individual liberty is best epitomized in his unwavering support for the right of unborn infants to live and born alive infants to survive.

Rob espouses clear support for Senator Obama in his letter.  That is fair.  He is and should be proud of the opportunity to support his candidate.  There are a number of statements and positions he espouses to Young Mom that require significant clarification.  I address a couple of questions to Rob in this letter.  My hope is that the numerous concerns I raise would help him re-evaluate his position and rediscover his past conservative roots.  My hopes for this election and intent in writing are no to take issue with Rob personally, but in replying to his comments, it seemed clear to me that while Rob may have been a registered Republican, he has no conservative leanings.  Quite simply, a conservative, even one struggling with his political identity, could never make the statements Rob makes.  To attempt to enhance the power of his arguments by suggesting to you that he is a “relatively conservative Republican” who has abandoned his core beliefs for the visionary leadership of a candidate who contradicts all conservative principles, is simply disingenuous and unsupportable by any of his commentary.

To the issues…. 


Rob expresses deep admiration for the Obama plan.  Regarding education, Senator Obama’s plan revolves around increased monetary support for what he reports is an unsatisfactory system.  Senator Obama blames the “No Child left behind” policy which passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority (87-10) in 2001.  It passed because the education system was already diagnosed as severely ill before “No Child Left Behind”. Senator Obama reports that the problem with the legislation is that the Bush administration has failed to maintain adequate funding.  Really.  Well, over the time of this law, Congress increased federal funding of education, from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. This equates to an increase which outpaced inflation by 5%.  Based on discussion in some circles, one might believe the legislation has had funding cut.  While funding could have been increased further, the fact is we spend more per pupil to educate in this nation than any other country.  Many of our worst schools spend the most money.  Obama calls for more Head Start money, but Head Start doesn’t produce any long term benefits.  There is lots of data to support this.  It does allow the state access to children at a much earlier age, however.  Obama and Biden support transitional bilingual education and will help Limited English Proficient students get ahead by holding schools accountable for making sure these students complete school.  This approach to educating non-English speakers also has proved a dismal failure, unless we plan on a requirement that we all will have to learn Spanish.  No Child Left Behind sadly allows schools flexibility in this area and rather than fail students, many alternative language options are being offered.  The end result is that non-English speakers are saddled with the racism of diminished expectations.  John McCain has called education the civil rights issue of this century.  He is correct.  Senator Obama, however, is willing to allow children across the nation to continue to be subjected to a failed state education system controlled by an NEA driven agenda.  Senator Obama refuses to consider the injection of competition into the system via proven voucher programs that would allow the inner city kids of DC the same opportunities his kids have.

What about college.  Yes, the Senator is proposing a $4000 college tax credit for those who will agree to serve the community.  His website reports that 100 hours of community service would be required.   One way to look at this is that college students would earn $40/hr for duties that likely pay much less in the private sector.  The nature of such service is not defined.  Not sure Rob has ever served, but 100 hour stints in the military are not easily accommodated.  This past Memorial Day Senator Obama gave the commencement speech at Wesleyan.  As a military veteran I was flabbergasted that he told these young Americans that there are “so many ways to serve” that are available “at this defining moment in our history.”  There’s the Peace Corps, there’s renewable energy, there’s education, there’s poverty — there are all kinds of causes you can take up “should you take the path of service.”  Senator Obama never mentioned the military…on Memorial Day speaking at a college commencement. So I doubt the Senator is considering military service as an option.  One might, however, reasonably suspect that such service would include working for ACORN to recruit Democrat voters.  One might more reasonably ask does everyone need to go to college?

Senator Obama is poised to make college education the next addition to the Bill of rights, after home ownership.  These are great aspirations but they should be earned by individuals with individuals making honest choices about what is best for them and what it is they can afford.  Would some high school graduates be better served by other types of technical and job training rather than four years of achieving a certification with uncertain evidence of ultimate benefits?  We have built an expectation that everyone needs to go to college, but all colleges are not create equally and the same diminished expectations which have hindered the ultimate mission of grade and high school education are now prevalent in colleges.  These are questions I would like my next President to be willing to consider Young Mom.

So Young Mom, the recurring theme in education programs for Senator Obama is more support of the status quo, no choice and a much larger investment in the current failing state education system.  There are no new ideas here and there is no motivation for schools to improve.  There will be a call for more “investment” by Americans with no reason to hope for different results.  This is what you can expect from Senator Obama in the realm of education.

Young Mom, you should also know what the philosophy of an Obama education program would be.  For insights into this we need to look at an epoch in the Obama history which he has worked very hard to conceal.  While he has been criticized for his lack of executive experience, Senator Obama did chair the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) from 1995-2001.  The Senator, a young lawyer with no prior education experience, was hired by Bill Ayers to run this project.  We won’t discuss how this job offer came about now, but the CAC ultimately spent $110 million dollars in efforts to reform Chicago schools.  The bottom line of the report on the effort was “that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence.  This indicates that there was no Annenberg effect on achievement.”

What were the principles of the Obama-Ayers Education reform work in Chicago?    Well, Ayers was the mastermind behind the project.  He submitted the grant.  He chaired the Collaborative portion of CAC, which set education policy.  Senator Obama was responsible for fiscal control of the project.  Ayers is a despicable, cowardly terrorist.  This should disqualify him from the company of thoughtful patriotic Americans, but his past history is not the concern now.   What is of concern is that Ayers has moved his war against America to the classroom.

Please indulge me in a short review of the history of public education Young Mom, it is important in understanding where we are and where we might be going.  Bill Ayers has intense admiration for John Dewey.  John Dewey, the most influential shaper of the public schools in America, saw the public school system as the vehicle for indoctrinating children into a new democratic, secular faith.  He understood that the success of his effort would require children to be liberated from the prejudices and values of their parents.  In his book, A Common Faith, Dewey advocated a radically secular vision for the public schools and the larger public culture. His concept of a humanistic faith stripped of all supernatural claims, doctrines, and theological authorities, would replace Christianity as the dominant culture-shaping worldview. “Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class, or race,” he claimed. “Such a faith has always been the common faith of mankind. It remains for us to make it explicit and militant."

Young Mom, Senator Obama believes in the Ayers philosophy of education.  Senator Obama spent 6 years chairing the CAC, a Board committed to spending huge sums of money on the Ayers approach.  Ayers is a disciple of the “critical pedagogy” movement.  From Sol Stern at the Manhattan Institute, “critical pedagogy” describes how the “oppressive hegemony” of the capitalist social order "reproduces" itself through the traditional practice of public schooling.” Simply put, this is critical pedagogy's way of saying that capitalism and corporations exercise thought control through the schools.  The answer, stop teaching traditional math and science.  Infuse politics and social justice into all levels of education.

From “Revolution”, the Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party in 2006 (aren’t most close associates of Presidential candidates interviewed by “Revolution”), in an interview with William Ayers (, some comments by Ayers on John Dewey, “John Dewey was one of the brilliant, brilliant writers about what democratic education would look like and was himself an independent socialist. But he never resolved a central contradiction in our work, the contradiction between trying to change the school and being embedded in society that has the exact opposite values culturally and politically and socially from the values you’re trying to build in a classroom. This contradiction is something progressive educators should address, not dodge. So this is what got me going.”

Young Mom, the Obama/Biden plan proposes to address the dropout crisis by proposing legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in “intervention strategies” in middle school.  This includes strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.   Obama and Biden will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.  What will children be doing in these programs?  Will their time be structured by disciples of the Chicago Citizen of the Year in 1997, or perhaps the master himself?

Young Mom, you need to know that Senator Obama has no intent of allowing your children the options for education that he has for his children.  Senator Obama holds this view despite the demonstrated achievement successes of numerous programs which have injected competition into the education system.  Senator McCain wants to aggressively explore such programs.  Teacher unions in public schools do not.  In the Obama plan, your children will be relegated to an extremely expensive, failed public school system.  This system will be subsidized by more tax dollars, controlled by teachers unions, and  will be a laboratory for the failed experiments Senator Obama and William Ayers previously conducted in the Chicago public schools.

Quaere Verum

Part I of a IV Part Series