During the summer "lull" of the 2008 presidential election year, the candidates are beginning to, as they always do, shift their focus away from locking up primary votes to locking up general election ones. Historically, this has involved a move to the center, away from the more polarized voter base that participates in the selection of a party's nominee. But, as in many respects, this year has some exceptions.

John McCain's shift to the middle begin the day he entered politics. Since he was elected Arizona senator nearly 30 years ago, he has been both hailed (by Democrats and the media) and cursed (by Republicans and conservatives) as a "maverick." More recently, he has teamed with Democrats championing anything but conservative causes: campaign finance reform and amnesty for illegal immigrants. While unquestionable on the Iraq War and our soldiers, he used the New York Times to combat Bush's domestic surveillance program that has been an integral part of our national security. I have not seen him shift at all this summer: even in the midst of cries for cheaper gasoline, which conservative policy could easily provide, McCain is offering hundreds of millions of dollars for a battery! He has shifted on one thing I can find: tax cuts, where he has been proven wrong by a strong economy and an actually increased share of tax revenue by the wealthy. (Tax cuts for the rich? I think not!) The point? McCain is in the middle, and always has been.

What of the other? Barack Obama's shift to the center has come startlingly quickly and clumsily. It was so hasty that the New York Times cried for his head in an editorial titled "New and Not Improved." He is offering to "revise" his position on troop withdrawal in Iraq and contemplate offshore drilling. He is agreeing to continue allowing government grants flow to faith-based initiatives, a Bush policy deemed a violation of the separation of church and state by liberals. He expressed favor for the Supreme Court's overturning of the D.C. gun ban, while previously expressing his support for this very ban. The point here? Obama is now shifting to fight McCain for the middle.

Both candidates are now fighting over a single group of voters. But this battle is based on a fundamentally flawed concept, i.e., this group is the one that picks the president.

The polar ends of the electorate choose the president, not the idiots we see on NBC after a debate labeled as the "undecided voter." And this is historically true, even back to Carter. According to polling data, moderates have been forming a small and decreasing percentage of the general electorate since the early 70s, a key fact for Bush's campaign strategy. But more on that in a bit.

Jimmy Carter was elected for two main reasons: he was a liberal (and thus was voted for by liberals), and he was from the South, arguably the most important region for a candidate to win. (We can all agree that the South is right of center and will choose the Republican. After all, only two of the past seven presidents have been Democrats, and both were from the South.)

Ronald Reagan campaigned as a far-right conservative, and was able to inspire all Americans to vote for him. His conservative base guaranteed his victories; his Great Communicating that inspired moderates and liberals gave him his 44- and 49-state landslides. George H.W. Bush was elected on Reagan's immense popularity only.

Bill Clinton is a moderate, but on the left side of center. The reason he was able to win (never with a majority of popular votes) was by weak opponents: the unpopular tax-hiker George H.W. Bush and the lame Nixonian relic Bob Dole. His acceptance of conservatism from the Republican Congress and fallout from the Reagan tax cuts gave him a strong economy, and his ignorance of foreign threats gave him a peaceful decade. This resulted in his extensive popularity, almost enough to get his veep elected in 2000. But in that case, deep-pocket campaigning won again.

George W. Bush won in 2000 against nearly every single statistical odd possible (even the popular vote itself!). Bill Clinton was popular, despite the stains (no pun intended) of the Lewinsky scandal. Al Gore was heavily identified with the success of the 90s, not the kook global warming alarmist fringe he is today. Bush was a bold-headed Texas cowboy with an embarrassing past, little experience, a "threat" to the success of the Clinton legacy, and did I mention his daddy was a bad pwesident?

How does one change the White House's party after eight years of peace and prosperity? Karl Rove knew the answer: deep-pocket campaigning. Go for the base. And in 2000, it worked brilliantly.

Bush campaigned as an uncompromising conservative. He fought for nearly everything the GOP's base stood for, with minor exceptions like education and immigration reform. His conservatism was further contrasted with the "maverick," John McCain, his only serious contender for the nomination. The reason it was so close in the general was the remnants of Clinton's popularity. The base, however, overcame that deficit, albeit in an unconventional way.

2004 was textbook. Had Bush possessed Reagan's communication skills, he could have won by a much larger margin. But even with a minority of Americans approving of his job as president, he won re-election with 51% of the popular vote, the first time since his father's 1988 victory that a candidate got over 50% of the vote. And according to exit polls, the reason voters chose George W. Bush was "moral issues." His base, and thus his voters, identified with his idealogy and values as a conservative.

What does this have to do with 2008? Since 2004, the Bush administration's ideology has been marred or lost. Bush has approved budgets nearing and exceeding $3 trillion, wiping out the gains made in reducing the deficit by his 2003 tax cuts. His nomination of Harriet Miers, support of amnesty, and stubbornness on Iraq policy have caused his conservative base considerable grumbling and disdain. Right now, because of one man and certain circumstances, it is uncool to be a conservative.

This is why a moderate is on the GOP ticket. McCain coudl not be further from a Bush third term (I wish he were; I'd vote for Bush in a second if I could) and still be a Republican. But Obama knows that liberals cannot get elected as liberals, so he has to shift to the right.

Voters claim to be moderates, but I believe they are conservatives at heart alienated and confused by a poor three years of the Bush administration, which so heavily associated itself with conservatism. It is guilt by association. The middle is a ghost, and the sleeping giant of a conservative ideology will require only one man of charisma and patriotism to awaken it. Who is that man? I believe our first chance is Mitt Romney, our second Bobby Jindal. But it really doesn't matter who it is. He or she just needs to appear.

This election is void of a conservative. That means it will be a referendum on Obama and his ideology, which is decidedly liberal (as the electorate knows and will learn as the campaigns continue). Anyone can find common ground with a moderate, but a liberal will alienate a lot of Americans. If Obama cannot successfully fool voters into thinking he is a moderate, he will lose. This ghost of a middle is why Hillary Clinton was (or is) the more viable candidate for the Democrats. She, too, can easily get its vote, a senator with a very moderate voting record.

The phantom of a middle will decide this election, but will re-discover itself as conservatism once again with the right man as it did in 1980 and 2000. And we faithful few are waiting for that day with great anticipation.

I apologize for not posting in a great while, but my life has become quite busy. I want to take a moment to reflect on Independence Day. And I'm going to do the unthinkable: use this holiday to advance my conservative agenda.

I'm doing this because I believe Independence Day in America is the greatest celebration of conservatism in the world. It celebrates the day that a group of men decided to be free at any cost. The Founding Fathers were conservatives, no question. And I believe the modern government we have today is enough to make them turn in their graves, let alone what people like Barack Obama suggest for our future.

What happened 232 years ago was that a government encroached upon the freedoms of the colony. It was not given the same rights and privileges given to the homelands, and was treated with disrespect and disdain. It was used as a bludgeon against the French just years earlier, after which much of the land the colonists fought and died for was simply given right back to them in the peace treaty. They were taxed unfairly, forced to board troops, and were demanded a tribute.

The point is, the problem was the government. It was too big. It was too powerful. It was a moment where the government began to intrude upon the "certain unalienable rights" every human being has. And it was intolerable. Luckily for all of us, there was a group of men brilliant enough to recognize these crimes and demand justice.

What was the cost? It was steep. The cause of freedom resulted in a war with the most powerful nation in the world, with an army of great skill, technology, and numbers. At many points throughout the Revolution, one might say all hope was lost. But what Reagan would later describe as a "shining city on a hill" kept the colonists, or rather, the Americans, focused on their goal.

It was almost an act of God that the Americans won the war. Against a massive army of highly trained soldiers, a group of farmers, which Cornwallis would describe as a "rabble," was able to secure victory in the name of democracy, and defeat for tyranny. This epic struggle resulted in the greatest nation in history.

What makes America so great? It isn't its youth; it isn't its location; it isn't its geography. Sure, we're lucky to have so many natural resources, but I don't think that's it. I don't even think our Constitution is the reason. It is our people. It is what we have been shaped to believe about humanity and the world. A simple term can describe the source of our greatness: self-reliance.

The Constitution, the Declaration, and the Framers all helped shape our mentality of self-reliance, but it is that very concept that has kept our nation great. By working hard on our own behalf, by believing that we have to earn a good living, but yet that it is always within reach, is what has kept us going for over two centuries.

How does this apply to modern times? It is essential that this sentiment of self-reliance not be lost. What will happen if it does? We will end up like Europe, Canada, and many other nations. And we are not many other nations. We are America.

The USA has been different forever. This difference is why we rule the world.

Self-reliance is conservatism at its core. Privatizing social security, fighting national healthcare, keeping taxes low; these are all superficial details. The goal is to keep us free. Liberalism's goal is hardly this.

What liberalism seeks to do is change self-reliance to government-reliance. By depending on the government, liberals within it will gain power. They want to control the thought of citizens from day one: socialized hospitals to socialized day-care to socialized schools to socialized college to government-supplied jobs, while taxing you even beyond the grave. Liberalism is a crime against humanity. It seeks to infringe upon the very rights our Founders set in stone.

The recent Supreme Court decision about guns is an example. I will explore the ruling in more detail when I am finished analyzing the opinions. But the Second Amendment is very clear: The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This was designed to give us the ability to protect ourselves from the government should the time come that it becomes too powerful. That time will come if people like Barack Obama keep getting elected. We cannot let this happen. And the fact that four Supreme Court justices wanted to erase one of our rights, one of the main ways we have to protect ourselves from an overly powerful government, is proof that liberalism seeks to keep us from being free.

Independence Day is, as I said before, a celebration of conservatism. It is in memory of the self-reliance our Founders displayed when they made that difficult decision to go to war for freedom. And it embodies a concept that cannot be forgotten or cast aside lightly by those who wish to do so. Silver tongues and empty suits cannot trick their way into power in this country, and I am confidant freedom will be preserved in 2008. But beyond, who knows?

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are mandates of conservatism. So is the voting pattern of this country. It's about time we get a leader out there to recognize this and take up the charge against tyranny.

God bless conservatism, God bless America.

I am growing more and more frustrated with my party as golden opportunities to gain public favor slip past each waking moment.

Gas is averaging about $4.10/gal right now. Drilling here in the US is a plain and simple solution, a win-win for everyone. It will create jobs, reduce our dependence on geopolitical enemies, and most importantly, greatly reduce the cost of gasoline. Why do Democrats insist on punishing the oil companies, the only group of people trying to get gas into our cars? And why do people support Democrats in their endeavor to keep gas out of our cars? For all their posturing of saying they are "for the poor," it is the poor that are getting hurt the most by these prices. I guarantee you that the wealthy aren't batting an eye as they pay $80 to fill their tanks. The guy making $50,000 for his family of four is in serious trouble. And the Democrats claim that they care about these people? Pathetic!

If the GOP could expose how worthless the Democrats are, and how incredibly beneficial to everyone a domestic drilling initiative would be, we could be sailing into a newfound majority in November. The RNC has plenty of money; it should be spending it on commercials and campaigning for any congressman that can go out and convince people that it is the Republicans that want to solve the energy crisis! The days of $2.00/gal gas and no more checked baggage fees are right around the corner if someone would please draft some legislation and force a vote. It doesn't help that McCain is out there offering $300 million of taxpayer dollars to someone who invents a battery. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

Another exposure of the McCain campaign's inadequacy and lack of grapes (pardon the expression) has to do with one of McCain's advisers making a very true and accurate statement: A terrorist attack would help Republicans in November. Of course, Obama is out there using his favorite substitution for the word truth: "disgrace," and the McCain campaign is apologizing left and right. In my mind, this is a golden opportunity to turn it around on the Democrats. First, say that it is a true statement. Second, explain why. McCain should say the following:

"Mr. Obama has called Mr. Black's comments regarding terrorism a 'disgrace.' But why? Why is it a disgrace to point out the truth? Perhaps it only is when it implicates your own party. Mr. Black did not express his wish for a terrorist attack. He simply stated that were one to happen, my party would benefit. This is unquestionably true, and the only way Mr. Obama can combat this comment is by slandering it as a disgraceful statement. He cannot address the meat of the issue, despite his claims to be 'only about the issues,' because he knows that the Democrats, his own party, has been attempting to undermine every attempt Republicans make to stop terrorists in their tracks. The past 7 years have been the longest time in nearly three decades without a terrorist attack on our soil, all due to Republican policy and initiative and no thanks to Democratic stalling and obstruction."

Or something to that affect. In a USA Today/Gallup poll, in all major issues, McCain and Obama virtually tied, except for terrorism, which had McCain leading by over 20 points. That sentence can be scientifically proven to be true!

And finally, a quick note on campaign finance. McCain devised the famous (or, in my case, infamous) McCain-Feingold Act, which hacked away at the First Amendment like George Washington at a cherry tree. That aside, it provided for public financing. If a candidate chooses to use public financing, they can only privately raise up to $80 million. Another provision is the limit on personal donations, setting the cap at $2300. However, so-called Political Action Committees (PACs) can donate as much as they want.

Obama is raising a great deal, and has decided to forgo public financing to avoid the $80 million limit. (This, by the way, after a pledge to use public financing back in the beginning of his campaign. In fact, when he announced this decision, he said he still "supports the concept of public financing." Just not when it limits his ability to raise money, I suppose.) However, in the same speech in which he announced this, he derided McCain for raising money from PACs (which have no limit) and other private means that aren't regulated. Let me get this straight. Obama is accusing McCain of raising money from groups that don't have caps on their donations. But at the same time, he is using a loophole of sorts to avoid capping his total fundraising, a cap that McCain still has to abide by. This is textbook hypocrisy, and textbook liberal. "I have decided to forgo public financing, even though I support the concept." Translation from liberal-speak: "Government intervention is great! Just not when it hurts me."

Where are the Republican guns blazing? Where is the inspiration? There is so much there for the taking. All it takes is a little education to the American people and this country would re-ignite in conservatism and against the knucklehead running on a campaign of tricks and lies.

So I was discussing the gas prices with a friend today, and I said in passing "And now Congress is trying to pass a bill that will make gas even more expensive." Friend: "How?" Me: "Well, somehow, by charging a company more money, they will charge the consumer less." I don't understand this at all. This isn't logic; it's madness! Who comes up with this stuff?

Capitalism is incredibly simple. Anyone with a brainstem and a basic high school education of the economy should be able to get it: supply and demand. If something is needed, demand, then it is produced by someone, supply. The supply is priced by the amount a consumer is willing to pay for the good. In today's global economy, the price of oil is not quite as simple, but still remains within this basic framework. The difference is that "futures," a tool used to predict a commodity's worth in the future, allows speculators to basically bet on how much oil will be worth. This is currently causing prices to rise.

But futures are not a cause of prices, they are an indicator. While they can temporarily inflate prices, the market (and the supply/demand system) cannot support skyrocketing prices based purely on speculation. The reason oil is over $130/barrel is because people will pay that much for it. I realize gas is ludicrously expensive here, at $4.25 down the street in upstate New York, but I haven't noticed any less volume on the streets. People are still going to work; people are still going to sporting events and fairs; people are still going to see Indiana Jones, Sex and the City, and Ironman. Sure, everyone is making adjustments, but the market can support these high prices. Where will people stop driving altogether? My guess is when gas ends up costing more than people can afford with a paycheck. Then people will stop buying gas, and companies will stop buying oil. Prices will drop.

But how do we make prices drop now, for our convenience? Capitalism tells us to increase supply. And how can this be done? Easily. In fact, writing a simple piece of legislation would do the trick: Allow us to drill on American soil NOW! It is absolutely ridiculous that we cannot drill our own oil for our own people. There are no adverse consequences to be concerned about. Clinton/Gore said that drilling in ANWR back in the 90s wouldn't do any good, because it would take ten years to get into circulation. Well it's been ten years, and look at where we are! Maybe it will take ten years from now, but who's to say gas won't be $6, $7, or $10 per gallon by then?

If we drill here in the U.S., gas could (gradually) drop in price to mayabe under $3, or even (gasp!) $2 per gallon. It is such a simple solution. It will not ravage our landscape or destroy our planet. Oil is the only viable energy source we have right now, so let the companies drill it on their own dime and get it to us! It's a win-win-win-win.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants to go after the oil futures, as I described above. But this will drive them to unregulated markets like Dubai, which is catching up to New York very quickly (due in no small part to its lack of rules). This would put crucial futures (vis a vis, oil) in the hands of a competitive Middle Eastern economy, one that Schumer himself claimed is a threat to the New York Stock Exchange.

The liberal solutions to the energy crisis are so complex and high-minded so as to confuse you into believing them. It isn't about fancy words like "commodity futures" or "windfall profits taxes," it's about supply and demand. Increase supply to match an increasing demand. That is a real solution to a very real problem. Liberals aren't about solving this energy crisis, they just want to scare you into more government dependence. And they want to use the political capital from this to force oil companies either out of business or into government dependence as well. That's what every liberal policy results in: more government in your pocket and your lives!

Vote conservative. Vote for real change. And vote for domestic drilling now!

Today is June 6 (or was, I suppose), the anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Normandy. It has been 64 years to the day that this incredible event occurred.

I cannot sum up the meaning of this event in totality; that is something I will leave to those who experienced it, and to those with far greater skill in writing or speaking than I. Ronald Reagan's 40th anniversary speech that he delivered on the beach at Normandy is absolutely brilliant. You can read the entire speech here. But my favorite two paragraphs are as follows:
"The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

"You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you."

I will allow you to read Reagan's words, both these and the rest, to get the full effect of D-Day's symbolism as the epitome of a struggle between good and evil, freedom and tyranny, compassion and hatred.

I am about to compare WWII to the Iraq War. I want to stress that I am not, by any means, using D-Day or the emotional impact of it to further my political point. The first portion of this post is a tribute to D-Day; this portion is a political analysis separate, but related. It was the D-Day anniversary that got me thinking about the similarities between the two wars, and why I think the Iraq War is quite justified.

Very few people in this country, nearly 70 years afterward, will argue that we should not have entered the Second World War. I will also wager that a vast majority of those who oppose the Iraq War would agree that our entry into WWII was justified. Of course, there are some differences, but I believe that the cores of the ideology remain the same.

The main arguments I have heard against the Iraq action are as follows:

1. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
2. Saddam didn't pose a direct threat to the US.
3. Iraq was not tied to 9/11 at all. (There are arguments that Iraq was not tied to al Qaeda, which are known to be untrue.)

Another claim is that oil is the only reason we invaded. I do not believe this is true in the first place. I will concede the above three points are true, but I still agree with the decision to go to war.

In World War II, we did not declare war on anyone until December of 1941, well after the Germans had begun to invade Europe and the Japanese China. We responded to a direct attack on US soil. We deployed troops to both Europe and the Pacific in retaliation. We took the fight to them, away from our own borders and our own citizens.

Germany was not a threat to US security at the time. There was absolutely no way for it to attack us. U-boats of the time simply could not make it across the Atlantic without being easily spotted and stopped; they had no aircraft with the range to cross the Atlantic; they didn't even have a functioning nuclear device to use on anyone, let alone a country over 3000 miles of ocean away. Furthermore, Germany, while closely allied with Japan, was not involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor. It did not supply personnel, resources, equipment, or significant specific funding. (By specific funding, I mean money for the express purpose of attacking the United States.) But we still declared war on them anyways, and no one questioned it once the decision was made.

Iraq is quite similar. Saddam Hussein harbored and funded al Qaeda terrorists. That is why al Zarqawi was in Iraq; he was there well before our invasion. He was building an arsenal of nuclear weapons, as Germany intended to do, but was incapable of attacking us at the time. And there's even another similarity: both nations, Iraq and Germany, tried to invade their respective regions roughly 1-2 decades earlier, and were stopped by the United States.

The crucial point about fighting in Iraq was to take the front lines to the enemy, as we have always done. That is why US soil has remained relatively unscathed in the many wars we have fought. Even in the Civil War, nearly all of the battles were fought in the South, the Union taking it to them to protect the major Northern cities and population. It has been the modus operandi of the US military for centuries.

If someone can come up with a true, reasonable objection to the Iraq War that cannot be compared to World War II, please let me know. I'd be happy to explore it. But I believe, with the list of objections I have been presented with, that it is a double standard to have no qualms about our involvement in WWII but to have many about the Iraq War.

I will discuss my unhappiness about how a political party is currently using losses and despair in Iraq for political gain (vis a vis 2006) but that is for the future.

Remember those that have died in the defense of our great nation and way of life, both 64 years ago at Normandy and presently in Iraq.

In one of the Democratic debates, Barack Obama brought up the 2000 election and added a quick aside, saying "Which I believe Al Gore won, by the way."

Al Gore lost the election because of the electoral college. This discrepancy has occurred no more than five times in history, and is extremely rare. He did, however, win the popular vote. Does this mean he should have won the election, regardless of the representation rules the Constitution has in place?

Obama was nominated on a very similar technicality. The delegates were assigned to him and he has won the nomination, even though he lost the popular vote. According to his logic, Hillary should have won because popular vote should supercede representation technicalities.

Just another moment of hypocrisy from a liberal.

We now have two candidates: John McCain for the Republicans and Barack Obama for the Democrats.

Or has it?

Here's a quick discussion of the Democratic battle. Obama has accumulated the majority of delegates, thereby technically clinching the nomination. However, it is well within Hillary's rights and capabilities to challenge the 59 delegates he received from Michigan (4 from her) and still make the case that she is the better candidate to the superdelegates (who can still overturn the decision). But will she? It was hard to read her tonight. It looked like she was waving her accomplishments in Obama's face as a reason to accept her as his running mate, which could happen ("18 million 18 million 18 million!!"). The only snag is Bill, who is not welcome in the Obama camp.

I want to look at all three candidates' speeches tonight. Let's start with McCain.

John McCain is not a good speaker. He is very old, and looks it. He is not charismatic. His awkward smile reveals a mouthful of rotting teeth, while a crackling voice repeats Obama's own slogan with a sarcastic twist. The content was classic McCain. While middle-of-the-road voters will eat it up and think it brilliant, I was not happy listening to much of it. There were several points that made me unhappy:

1. George W. Bush. One of McCain's advisers today started the distancing from George W. Bush today on a talk show pointing out the many instances McCain has differed from Bush. McCain expounded on this tonight. This is an example of McCain only targeting the middle, assuming the right is in the bag. Well I have news for you, Senator: It's not! The right is greatly dissatisfied with the GOP nominee, and will stay home if much of this continues. George W. Bush is very popular among these circles; over 30% of Americans still aprove of him, and this are all the right wingers that McCain thinks he'll win. He will continue to alienate them with comments throwing Bush under the bus. If you want to distinguish yourself from Bush, fine. And he should do so to address this mantra that is the only one Obama is throwing at him for the time being. But he should take the following approach: "I greatly respect George W. Bush, his patriotism, and his indubitable love for this country. But I am not a third term of his administration, and here is why." Stating that he was the only one campaigning for a change in Iraq policy, energy policy, spending, etc., and how he took heat from Republicans is not the way to win adoration of Republicans. He should take the advice of his own speech and look to the future, not the past, on his differences with George W. Bush.
2. I am already sick and tired of hearing this alternative energy business, and I can't stand it. I thought I was listening to a Democrat for a moment. He wants to make alternative energy more viable, pumping more government money into it. He is, however, against an energy bill that gives tax breaks to oil companies for research and development. This R&D is primarily in the area of progressive fuels. Why is McCain voting against a capitalist solution to the energy crisis? And why is there no cry to drill here in the US? There is a vast amount of oil sitting underneath our own borders, both in Alaska and in the continental states, and until we have a viable alternative we should be drilling immediately. This is such a simple solution to the energy crisis. It won't even cost the government any money: just allow the oil companies to drill here and build new refineries. Gas will be down to prices we remember from the good old days in a year's time.
3. This segues into my next point, and that is the populist tone McCain's speech took in many parts. Populism resonates on the surface with middle class voters, but does not appeal to true conservatives and further right-wing voters. Saying he will take on the oil companies and use the government to make life better for the common man is not appealing to me. It isn't the government's job. I want the government to guarantee my right to life, liberty, and property. Anything else is too much intervention. Sure, certain amenities like infrastructure are certain things a country of our wealth can afford, but to control any part of my life or the operation of a private company via government intervention is not okay. Populism belongs in the Democratic Party, along with all the other falsehoods and fake ideas.
4. I was shocked to see "A Leader We Can Believe In" behind McCain. What is that? Why would you mockingly use your opponent's slogan? It looks sloppy, childish, and defensive. Not only was that on the board behind him, but he kept repeating it as he jabbed Obama: "That's not change we can believe in! (snicker snicker)" It is just plain silly. Come up with something on your own, for Christ's sake. How about "Real Progress for a Better Tomorrow"? Anything implying real change and a new future. But not Obama's own retarded gimmick.

So that's McCain's speech. Decent, but full of holes. His raw content on Obama's lack of experience, his extremely one-sided voting record, his desire to be a liberal and increase government control of our lives, and his desire to dangerously withdraw from a stabilizing military situation even at the behest of soldiers on the ground are good and necessary. Hopefully he can develop these themes and more effectively attack Obama in the coming months.

Hillary Clinton's speech was very interesting. Following today's statement that she is "open" to being Obama's running mate, it made sense. It was difficult to read her and to see what she was thinking. There were basically three ways this speech could have gone. Either: a) She would have come out guns blazing, shouting "Denver, Denver, Denver!" and promise to take the fight to the convention and challenge Obama's delegate count; b) She would concede, or at least show some level moderation and state her reluctance to duke it out in the name of party loyalty; or c) None of the above. She chose option c). She specifically said that she will make no decisions tonight. She thanked everyone in her campaign, and pointed out all of her many victories, both from the beginning and recently. The 18 million votes figure popped up numerous times, and rightly so: she does have more votes than Obama does. It definitely looked like her, as I said above, pointing out her accomplishments to force Obama's hand in running with her. There is much animosity on the Clinton side towards Obama, and a Unity ticket may absolve the strife. But who's to say? She will discuss her options with her supporters, officials, and party leaders to determine the best course of action.

Obama's speech was nothing new. It contained a few more jabs at McCain as the general election begins, but the same soaring rhetoric and constant glancing from teleprompter to teleprompter remained the same as always. He said "I am respectful of Senator McCain's accomplishments, even though he is unwilling to recognize mine." May I ask which accomplishments he is referring to? Maybe he means the bill he supported in the Illinois state senate dooming babies that survived abortion via a bad procedure to the garbage can. No, that can't be it. Voting for or against the authorization for the use of force in Iraq? Oh wait, he wasn't in the Senate then. Maybe he meant the numerous bills he has written with members of both parties. But there are no such bills. Decades of military service? Years in a Vietnam prison of torture and death? No. Hmm...Wait! I think I have it! Sticking it to the white man (or, in this case, woman) to be nominated for the presidency!

Obama compared himself to the great presidencies of Roosevelt (I'm assuming Franklin), Truman, and Kennedy. Would Obama have dropped a nuclear weapon on two major Japanese cities? I know the answer is no; he has already stated his determination to remove America's nuclear arsenal and turn our ICBMs off "ready" alert. Would he take a tough stance if Russia plants 50 nuclear warheads just a few miles from our coastline in the socialist stronghold of Cuba? I know the answer is no here, also; he wants to negotiate with Russia regarding our missile nets that are currently protecting Europe from annihilation by Putin and his quest to bring back a new USSR, a safety net opposed by Russia but not by the rest of NATO. Wonder why that is? Would Obama start a war with a country that presented no direct threat on the US, as FDR did with Germany? I know the answer is no yet again; he is against the operation in Iraq and is ready to pull out after five years even as success is becoming visible and after 4000 deaths. Ten times that number were killed in Germany and decades were spent repairing Europe. We're doing this in a mere few years in a job that is just as important, yet no one questions our involvement in WWII. It is despicable and offensive for him to compare himself to these three great presidents. They did all they could to combat socialism and protect America from it; modern Democrats embrace socialism.

So we'll see what happens in November. I believe it is McCain's to lose. And he definitely can: a poor campaign could quickly allow Obama to sneak in. But an effective one involving a touch of conservatism, patriotism, and respect for right-wingers like me will result in a landslide to Obama's disrespect and disgust for normal Americans. The middle is McCain's for the taking (assuming Clinton is out), and coupled with the right he can win. The fun has just begun. I'm just sad that I can't get excited about anyone until 2012. And it may take four years of absolute liberal failure to jolt this generation of voters into action.

Let the race begin!

Just when I thought the 2008 RNC was the worst-run political organization in America, the DNC decided to have a meeting of the Rules Committee and determined not to be outdone. The DNC has proven itself, yet again, to be one horribly managed and bloated example of Democratic irresponsibility, stupidity, arrogance, and ultimately failure.

Let's take a moment to look at the current political landscape of the presidential election. The current president is a Republican, a very conservative one at that. Our economy is in a "recession," at least according to MSNBC. Inflation is increasing. Gas prices are obscenely high. An unpopular war drags on. Never in a situation like this does the incumbent party even have a chance for another term. But McCain is polling extremely well. He is neck-and-neck with both Obama and Clinton, several polls pegging him in the lead. Rasmussen Reports has him with 10 more electoral votes than John McCain, with a hundred electoral votes too close to call.

How can this be? How is it that, as Paul Krugman said, (I love this quote) the Democrats are going to "snatch defeat from the claws of victory"? It is due to 2 things: bad candidates and bad party organization.

Today, the DNC Rules Committee met to discuss the seating of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Because the primary season moved up this year, these two states decided to follow New Hampshire and Iowa (which are exempt from party punishments from either side...I don't understand it, don't ask me). To punish them for breaking the rules, the DNC stripped them of all of their delegates. Zero. None. Two extremely important general election swing states completely alienated from the party's nomination process. For comparison, the GOP faced the same problem. Several states moved forward as well. But the RNC voted to strip half of each state's delegates. This way, they were punished for breaking the rules, but the voters still had a voice in the nomination. Problem solved.

The DNC's meeting today decided to allot the delegates between the two in the following manner: 87 to Clinton, 64 to Obama. I will not go into the math or process; read about it here. But in short, this is an absolute outrage. If I were a Clinton supporter in Michigan or Florida, of which there are many, I would be furious with my party. This was not a "compromise," an agreement designed to mollify both sides. The pure and simple motivation behind this decision was to squeeze as many delegates as possible out of the contests for Barack Obama. An unelected group of 27 party leaders heard arguments, then, behind closed doors, decided on how to best count the votes from the two states. Casting math aside, a conviluted mathematical formula was developed to give Obama a delegate victory.

Fallout? Hardly a rally behind Obama's cause. According to the above-linked article, angry supporters had this exchange:
Obama supporter: See you in Denver!
Clinton supporter: See John McCain in November!
Clinton supporters are furious over the way the party and the media is absolutely screwing their candidate. Whether this is true or not, feel free to argue, but in their minds it most definitely is. Votes are not being counted for the sake of a quick Obama victory! And now, Clinton has the ammunition to take the case all the way to Denver, even if Obama accumulates the majority. She can contest that these 64 delegates were unfairly assigned.

This is an absolute mess. Democrats can tell themselves that it is good for their party: record registrations, more excitement for the party; but deep down, the smart ones know that this is bad. A weak McCain campaign is being completely ignored due to crap like this, and it will continue to be until August. It will be a bitter fight to the death, and John McCain will triumph (unless Clinton manages to steal the nomination, which I see about a 10% chance of happening).

This isn't a presidential campaign. This is a chaotic scramble to the finish line. And a man not even in the race is going to benefit the most.

So I realized today that I haven't posted on here for a long time, and that I haven't really had any big political discussions or arguments in about a week. So I felt like writing a post, and what better than on a pressing issue of our time and the topic of 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain's speech today: national security.

Ronald Reagan summed up what American national security should be in a simple phrase of three words: Peace through strength. This has been misconstrued by many liberals to mean a kind of "fake peace" constructed only by force and coercion. There was definitely peace in Auschwitz and the Soviet Union under Stalin. But this is not what Reagan meant; otherwise, he would have used the words "force" or "coercion" in place of "strength."

What Reagan meant was that the presence of enforcement will always ensure justice and peace. The United States is, and isn't, an international policeman. It is not in the sense that we do not have the responsibility (or the means) to resolve or become involved in every conflict throughout the world. But it is in a sense that virtually every conflict affects U.S. interests merely due to its huge size and tremendous influence. The Israel-Palestine conflict interests us; Iran, Iraq, and North Korea's acquisition of nuclear weapons interests us; even a Chinese economic law can change our domestic stock markets. But I digress.

When the United States is subtly sitting in the background with a substantial, but fair, military force, it keeps the world in line. During the Somalia fiasco during Clinton's administration, we pulled out after eighteen casualties. Osama bin Laden pointed this out and described America as a "paper tiger." This single display of weakness set in motion the planning of a massive terrorist attack on American soil, eventually evolving into 9/11.

George W. Bush has responded to this in a way precisely the opposite of what the terrorists wanted or were expecting. In the 80s, while distracted with single-handedly toppling the evil empire of the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan's policy towards Islamofascism was going after only the individuals or organizations responsible. During the 90s, we ignored Islamofascism completely, including half a dozen attacks on U.S. soil such as the World Trade Center bombings in 1993 and several embassy bombings in the Persian Gulf region. In 2000, there was a direct attack on a U.S. naval vessel that went completely unaddressed.

Finally, in 2001, we got our policy right. We took the fight to the terrorists. George W. Bush appropriately used a horrible attack as an opportunity to wage a war on all terrorists, not just a few. He took the fight to the entire Taliban in Afghanistan rather than just Osama bin Laden. He took the fight to Iraq, a hotbed of terrorism and tyranny, not to mention a dictator who has been seeking weapons of mass destruction for over a decade and has been a U.S. military interest since the Reagan administration.

This policy has had the terrorists in complete disarray. They say that we have created terrorism; this is completely false and untrue. Terrorists have been flooding into Iraq to fight Americans, but they haven't been becoming new terrorists. This is the equivalent to the Union Army in the Civil War crossing into the South for almost all the battles. We took the fight to them. If we invaded North Carolina but all the Confederate Armies stayed in Georgia, would that do much good? Hardly. This is what is happening in Iraq. The terrorists know that if they can get us to leave and retreat as we did in Somalia (and as Obama would have us do next year), they will have a landmark victory and inspire more terrorism there and abroad.

It is the pressure Ronald Reagan exerted (via the U.S. military) that caused the Soviet collapse. It was the weakness of the Clinton administration that culminated in the weaknesses allowing for 9/11. And this will happen again if Obama is elected.

The Republican Party is not the only one in this century to have such an attitude. The Democratic Party was just as fine on foreign policy as the GOP during and after World War II. Franklin Delano Roosevelt wisely used Pearl Harbor as a reason to declare war on the entire Axis of Evil, including Japan and Germany. After winning WWII in Europe, his successor Harry S Truman smartly dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of American lives that could have been lost in an invasion and quickly ending the war in the Pacific. The civilian casualties were a tragedy, but it has ultimately led to the success of a capitalist Japan that is one of the most successful nations in the Far East.

When did this change? JFK was a bridge between the old and new Democrats. JFK was known to be weak on foreign policy. This is why Kruschev put a bunch of nukes 50 miles off our coastline. JFK held a tough stance, risking nuclear war but ultimately saving us from it. But after his assassination, Democrats embraced socialism rather than feared it. Lyndon Johnson made the New Deal permanent, something FDR did not intend or want, screwing every low-class worker into government dependence that is still a major problem in this country. Social security is falling apart and will be, according to one estimate, $53 trillion in debt in a few decades.

The point is, a strong national security is necessary for American safety and security. "Diplomacy" will only get us so far, and it also implies legitimacy. We cannot sit down with Ahmadenijad because it will legitimize his tyranny. We must pressure him through economic and social means, and, if necessary, military action. Yes, military action is a last resort, but diplomacy isn't even on the list of options, nor should it be.

There can be peace throughout the world. But it depends on the strength of America. America stands for justice and freedom. And that is the force that needs to have power in the world, not Iran or North Korea or Iraq which stand for oppression and tyranny.

"We will always be prepared so that we may always be free."

As the returns come in from Kentucky, Clinton has yet another massive victory. Currently with 93% of precincts reporting, Clinton has trounced Obama 66% to 30%. While the Oregon returns are still 2 hours away, we can expect a double-digit Obama victory. But "exit" polls (phone polls conducted among Democrats who claim to have mailed in their mail-in ballots) show such a victory being in the vicinity of 14%, not even half of Clinton's 36-point victory here or her 41-point victory in West Virginia.

So, fallout.

Despite Clinton's incredible performance over the past 6 weeks, Obama will still most likely garner the majority of pledged delegates of the party tonight. Nearly 300 superdelegates have yet to speak, but they say they will follow the pledged delegate allocation. In all honesty, Barack Obama will still most likely receive the nomination. I believe this is a huge mistake for the Democratic Party to make. And it is a perfect opportunity to prevent Obama from becoming another McGovern, which is why the superdelegate system was created in the first place: nominate Hillary Clinton.

I am not going to list the reasons why, because I have repeatedly on this blog. Tonight continues to prove my point. The exit polls in Kentucky are extremely disturbing for Obama.

One poll in particular caught my eye. Of Hillary Clinton supporters, only 50% would vote for Obama in the general. 32% would vote for McCain instead. 15% would stay home.

What it boils down to is that Obama is a left-winger. Clinton and McCain are moderates. When Reagan and Bush 43 ran, they were able to win the middle by appealing personably to the common man. Their incompetent opponents helped as well. Neither of them sacrificed conservatism to get elected. McCain has. He is a total and complete moderate, barely right-of-center on the political spectrum. Clinton, too, is moderate. She is barely left-of-center. The two of them would have one hell of a battle for the presidency. Obama, however, is a left-winger. He is very liberal, voting on the left of issues 97% of the time in the Senate. Clinton and McCain have done a great job of exposing him as the liberal he is. As I've explained before, this does not appeal to the majority of Americans, which is why he just can't get rid of Clinton. She is a bastion of moderation in a sea of anti-Americanism (embodied by Obama and his media followers).

There is a slim chance that Clinton will steal the nomination. If she can use the recent contests, her votes in Michigan and Florida, and the fact that Obama has lost 300,000 votes to her since Wisconsin and all but one state since March 1st, to convince the superdelegates that she is the more electable, then who knows. But this is unlikely. And a McCain landslide is in store for November.

I think it is safe to say that Barack Obama has an 85% chance of being nominated for the Democratic Party. It is going to be a close race, and the superdelegates will be split very close down the middle. After all, even now it is only a difference of 1-2 votes, and only about 2/3 of them have checked in. But they will follow the delegate count and nominate Barack (even though I still believe this to be a mistake). I also believe that if this happens, Hillary will be his running mate; this is the only solution I can come up with that could speed up the healing of the wounds from this ridiculous nomination process.

So what is the deal with Barack Obama? Today's sermon in Church brought up the Rev. Wright. It wasn't what we have been hearing on the tube, however; the priest actually quoted Wright's NPC speech from a couple weeks ago. He used a short excerpt regarding the need for a radical change in the way society elevates some and denigrates others; how some are "more equal" than the rest. Today being the Christian feast of Pentecost, celebrating the Holy Spirit's descent from heaven, the priest emphasized this need for change toward a better world.

But where must this change originate? Here is where the interpretations differ between my priest and Rev. Wright. This change comes from prayer and a call for the Holy Spirit's presence in our lives. Real, radical, positive change is inspired by God. And here is where Barack Obama comes in. He believes that he is God. He is the source of change. He can make this world a better place! His silver tongue has gotten people to faint over the way he presents his ideas to radically alter the way society thinks and acts. But the problem is, this change cannot originate with him. It cannot originate with anyone. It has to be inspired by God.

Granted, not everyone in America is a Christian. There is even a sizable population that doesn't believe in any type of higher power. But a belief in something greater is innate in our government system. The Founders, while not necessarily Christians and some even atheists, gave the government legitimacy by stating that its power is derived from "God." Our currency says "In God we trust." Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence refer to God frequently. While separation of church and state is important, the government has to admit that its government comes from something else. Once that principle is abandoned, the government becomes all-powerful and replaces God. This results in socialism and tyranny.

The problem with Barack and many liberals is that they have no problem with this. They want the government to control everything. It's not about success, it's about power and control. Tax hikes, healthcare, social security, welfare: all programs to make you more dependent on the government rather than on yourself. The Founders would be shocked to see what we're wasting our money on right now. It is sad and unfortunate that it has reached what it is now, and it will only get worse if a liberal is elected.

Barack Obama does not seem to believe in America. He has never once made a statement one can claim is truly patriotic; his appreciation of the American dream is a narrow view of his own success from a lower class. He overtly refuses to wear a flag pin; while many liberals may tell me this is irrelevant and a stupid argument, I will disagree. Our flag is revered here more than any other flag in the world is revered by its people. It is a symbol of freedom, democracy, justice, righteousness; it reminds us of that incredible story of the Revolution. By not wearing it, many Americans (including myself) are confused and slightly offended by his disregard for a country we believe in and hold dear. Only 45% of voters believe Obama shares their values, while 55% believe John McCain does.

I do not like John McCain's policy initiatives because they compromise with liberalism far too much. I do not want him elected because of the redefinition my party will suffer. But compared to Obama, he is a far better choice. He loves this country, nearly losing his life for it. He believes in it and understands what it's about. I believe Hillary Clinton does as well, which is why she is the one I want to win.

Obama has friends that overtly hate this country and its ideals. His mentor of decades is on video for saying some of the most horrible things you can imagine about the U.S., and he is very close to a known terrorist who has bombed government buildings and wants to bomb more. His wife has stated that she is only proud to be an American now that voters are choosing Barack, and she claims Americans are "ignorant" when it comes to race relations. Hamas has stated that they support and respect Barack Obama, to which one of his staffers offered thanks! He himself has stated that middle Americans cling to guns and religion and antipathy towards people different than themselves to help guide them through times of economic trouble. I see no evidence that he is in this for America; he is in this for himself. It is just a job promotion to a post of more power.

This scares me. I believe the voters will see this and flock to John McCain. It happened in 2004: even the exit polls had Kerry winning handily. But people knew that Bush loves America and wants it to succeed. McCain is the one who wants this country to do well. While I disagree with his methods, he is the lesser of evils.

We have to keep this man out of the White House.

Tonight's two contests fulfilled virtually every prediction. Clinton is winning a narrow but decisive victory in Indiana, but losing by a very large margin in North Carolina. It is still early in the returns, but it is no question that he wins NC, and by a larger margin than he loses in Indiana.

What does this mean? Let's first look at how the Obama camp will spin it.

Obama's victory means that he is the more popular. He was able to win big in North Carolina and lose small in Indiana. The pure math is in his favor and indicates him as more electable, and thus more appropriate for the nomination. It is just another in his long list of states that he has racked up and indicates a will among the electorate for his nomination.

This is what the campaign will say, and most likely what the Democratic leadership will take into consideration. It is now extremely difficult for Hillary to steal this nomination, even though I still believe she is the one who should run against McCain. Why do I think this, even after this night that looks so good for Obama?

What I think tonight really proved was Obama as the race candidate. He won over 90% of the black vote, and in NC this is over 1/3 of the electorate. This allowed every network to call the state the second the polls closed. In Indiana, he did just as well among blacks, but there simply weren't enough to counter Clinton's popularity in the other groups. Clinton won, in both states, both white men and women, seniors, uneducated citizens, and working class voters. This is the majority of America and the majority of voters.

Tonight should prove to the superdelegates that Barack Obama cannot win outside of the "black belt" if you will, such as the south. He won other states early on because of a wise campaign strategy that focused on caucus states and his messianic speeches about change and hope. But he lost that magic. He looked like an absolute idiot at the debate in Philadelphia, is on record for insulting the religious beliefs and gun ownership of the majority of Americans, is close to a pastor that has repeatedly insulted his country and associated Obama with him, is close to a terrorist who has attempted to bomb multiple government establishments, and is married to a woman who has never before felt proud to be an American. This will all come out again in the general election.

Clinton carries baggage as well. But she is doing an incredible job lately overcoming these negatives. She looks vibrant, looks happy, looks friendly, and looks like she's having fun. Her interview with Bill O'Reilly was smart, and she looked on her game and intelligent. She is down to earth and has a clear set of solutions.

Barack Obama seems to have a golden road to the nomination because of the thick-headedness of Democratic party leaders. But he cannot beat McCain. He will get eaten alive by not only McCain but by independent groups that will do everything they can to keep him out of the White House. He just claimed, in his NC victory speech, that Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat! Watching this speech, he sounds like he is trying to rejuvenate the magic that got him through the string of states after Super Tuesday. That is what it was: magic. Barack Obama is a complete moron with no qualifications whatsoever for president. He will absolutely destroy this country for every American, rich and poor. His policy is unwise, unsound, and poorly thought out. This will be proven when McCain spars with him and shows that this guy just doesn't have a clue.

Barack Obama is change we can't believe in. He hasn't done a thing in the name of change for his entire career. He is in it for a promotion; if he really cared about the party and the country, he would drop out and throw his support behind Hillary. Same goes for her. They are selfish and only in it for themselves. I want Hillary Clinton to win the national to avoid the redefinition of the GOP while still maintaining some semblance of a successful America, but if Obama gets in there is no avoiding the disasters he will incur.

Tonight means that Obama is the race candidate. He cannot win in the general election, where blacks don't make up 1/3 of the electorate. McCain will win the south, and Obama will get creamed in the swing states. So who knows: maybe a few smart Dems will realize it's Clinton's chance. But I doubt it. And the Democrats will, as Paul Krugman said, "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

This week I got a chance to see Michael Moore's latest award-less documentary, SiCKO. It details the plight of American healthcare, calling for universal, government-paid healthcare for everyone. He spends the first half of his movie discussing the way insurance companies screw most of their applicants out of coverage, then the second half exploring foreign universal systems in Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba.

Of course, it is the Republican Party's fault for this disaster: Richard Nixon's administration started the HMO system in which companies have a financial incentive not to insure people; George W. Bush signed a prescription drug bill that resulted in costlier pills.

I'm not going to argue that our healthcare system is fine. It is a mess. No hospital should have to turn away a patient with a sawed-off finger or a tumor just because they don't have coverage. But in today's system, they have to, because there is no way to be sure they will be able to pay for their treatments. But I do not believe a universal system is a viable answer in American society.

I admit, universal healthcare systems are amazing. I like them. I wish we had one. Just imagine, walking into a hospital for anything for free at any time of day. But the thing is, we can't afford it in this country.

In Europe, people get taxed obscene amounts of their salary, rarely blow 50% and usually around 60-70%. Furthermore, their populations are a fraction of the U.S.'s, so to guarantee their people healthcare is much easier. If America taxed that much, our healthcare system would be absolutely incredible. But I do not want the government taking that much money, and most Americans agree with me. No one will get elected if they campaign on raising the taxes enough to pay for a universal healthcare system.

I believe the solution, as it always has been in the U.S., is capitalism. Look at dentists. Dentists are not in the HMO world. Granted, they don't deal with life-threatening diagnoses or treatments, but it is an interesting case study. Dentists are free to set whatever price they feel is fair and charge it. You give them your credit card and you pay. It's like buying anything else. (Insurance will cover dentistry in some cases, but they simply sign a check; you are free to choose any dentist.) Dentists have to compete for customers, and therefore price accordingly.

Doctors do not have this luxury. They are told which patients they will get by insurance companies, and to go to a specialist requires time-consuming referrals and other paperwork. Care is costly and inefficient. I see no reason why we can't have a free enterprise system in healthcare like we do in all of our other industries.

When you are only taxing the public between 20-30% of over 300 million people, there is no way to afford a healthcare system that will be on par with private doctors as far as care quality. I see nothing wrong with a healthcare system for people who can't afford care, much like a type of welfare, but to guarantee free healthcare for everyone is just impractical.

I also do not understand this conclusion that the government must guarantee healthcare. What makes it different from other necessities? The government doesn't guarantee housing or food for every American. These are just as essential to life in this country. The idea that this is necessary I believe is just wrong.

Liberals know they cannot set up a healthcare system right now with the tax dollars coming in. The goal is not decent care, it's more control. Call me a selfish jerk, but I do not want my tax money paying for some idiot who skateboards off the side of a building. Would I want my tax money paying for a hard working American family father who has a tumor? Probably. But it's not the government's place to tell me that I have to. And believe you me, once universal healthcare is created, the road will begin toward the elimination of free enterprise and, as the goal always is with liberal government, higher taxes.

As far as prescription drugs go, I think it's troubling when drugs here are hundreds of dollars for 30 pills, but any quantity of any pill is £6.65 in the U.K. Yes, I believe in competition, but pharmaceutical companies don't compete. They race to find a drug first, then sell it for as much as they can. This is not fair, and it is not competition. I believe drug patents should be dropped to 1-2 years, so that they have that much time to be rewarded for the invention of a drug. After that, all companies should have access to the formula, be able to produce it, and compete for the lowest cost. Seems like a reasonable solution to me, and gasp! It means changing an existing law rather than adding ten new ones.

The system sucks. There is a problem. But universal healthcare is not the answer. In the end, Moore's film isn't about healthcare, it's about government control. It's about how America sucks. And his anti-Americanism makes me sick. Our country has problems, but they can all be solved with less government rather than more.

Let's sit down and make some common-sense solutions with the money we have, rather than try to expand the government so much that it collapses upon itself and becomes the failures of Medicaid and Medical in New York and California, which have forced both states into billions of dollars in debt.

Let's put real competition back into the healthcare system.

I took a little walk earlier this week to clear my head about some things, and as always, my brain took me to politics. When confused about something abstract, like a relationship or emotions, the mind will almost invariably settle on something that, to you, makes perfect sense. For me, that is politics; it gave me something concrete to hold on to in the middle of some confusion.

As I was walking around the campus at night, I noticed all of the orange lights they have lighting the paths. The new area, however, has white lights. Personally, I think white lights look a lot better than orange ones, but orange ones are far more common. I was thinking to myself, why? They may be cheaper, use less energy, something like that, but I jokingly thought, "It's probably just another liberal conspiracy."

But as I thought this, I began to explore this sentiment a bit more seriously. Obviously, the orange lights themselves (I don't think) are a liberal conspiracy, but how many things have liberals forced us out of or into using?

Liberals are the ones telling us what light bulbs we can use; what cars to drive; what to set our thermostat at; what pesticides we can use (DDT was banned, resulting in the deaths of millions around the world); how to dry our hands in the bathroom (I don't know one person who enjoys using an air drier); what textbooks to use; where we can or cannot smoke; what pictures we can have in our lockers; how much money you're allowed to make; what healthcare provider you're allowed to have; what type of gun you can own, and where you can own it; what size toilets we need to have; how much you should pay your employees; the necessity to wear a seat belt in your own car; how a town can punish its criminals. I am all for sensible regulation: I agree with speed limits (or at least their concept, they are too low because of liberals who wanted to limit gas usage during the oil crisis 30 years ago), prevention of monopolies, and monitoring of the workplace. But liberals have forced so much upon us, and wish to force more.

Being (I hope) a well-rounded political analyst, I of course turned to the conservative side. When have we ever tried to force things upon the American public? I can think of two things: making abortion illegal and preventing gay marriage. I can also think of a liberal citing the Iraq War, which I'll discuss momentarily. As far as abortion and gay marriage, these are specifically defined by our Constitution and law as wrong. The Constitution guarantees life to every citizen; by condoning abortion, the government violates this most important right given from God. Marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman by the Defense of Marriage Act, passed with bipartisan (shudder) support in the 1990s (this isn't some "archaic" concept from hundreds of years ago that needs to adapt, it is a modern perspective).

As far as the Iraq War, the idea that liberating 40 million people from the grip of a power-hungry dictator is "force" is just wrong. "Forcing democracy" is an oxymoron: people naturally want to be free and govern themselves. By giving them democracy, we are giving them the ability to be self-sustaining. It was Saddam Hussein torturing dissidents, his brothers torturing the Olympic teams for losing; we're building them a Parliament building so that they can express their views and govern together! If that's not freedom, and if that's force, the world really doesn't make sense to me anymore. (Why we chose Iraq over other nations is another argument for another day.)

So what's my point? Liberalism is about force. It is about knowing what's better for you, and therefore making you do it. If you think about it, it is elitist in nature. By banning smoking in entire cities, they are saying they know what's better for you. They are trying to ban it in your house to protect your children: We know how to raise your children better than you. They know how much a worker deserves to be paid, and can judge that better than you. They know you'll be better off with your seatbelt on, so they pass a law saying what you must do inside your own car. (Many might point and shout at me, "But you are!" Yes, maybe so. But it's not your job to tell me that. I can decide for myself.) If you're rich, you should either give your money to charity or the government, because making hundreds of millions a year is just "unfair." If you're poor, you shouldn't have to work, the government will take care of you. Liberals know what's better for the planet, and are saying that all car companies in the U.S. should have average fuel economies above 30 mpg in the next five to ten years (INSANITY!). In related news, trust us, CFL's are better than incandescents, we're going to make them illegal.

Conservatism is about freedom. We don't pretend to know what's better for you. The reason we want to "force" the banning of abortion and gay marriage is because these are things deemed completely illegal and just wrong by U.S. law and the morals we were founded on. (As a federalist, however, I believe it is up to the individual states to decide these issues via public referendum.) What you want to do in your own house or car is your business: as conservatives, we trust American individuals as good people that will make the smart choice. Of course, not everyone will, and once harm is inflicted on another it is the duty of the government to intervene. But every individual deserves that chance. Regulation is one thing; stepping in and forcing someone's hand is another. Conservatives seek to elevate the individual at the bottom, not take down the individual at the top. By cutting taxes on the wealthy, a stronger economy will present more opportunities for those below. We give the people more freedom, less government.

America was founded on conservatism. The entire purpose of creating our nation was to rid ourselves of a tyrranous, liberal government. Liberalism, to a certain degree, is un-American in that it seeks to use the government to control multiple aspects of people's lives. That is why I'm a conservative, and that is why I believe conservatism will always prevail in this country. All it takes is a good leader and speaker to state the obvious: America is the greatest country in the world, and I want to continue the tradition of greatness. People like John Kerry can't beat people like George Bush by insulting America; the same goes for Barack Obama. None of the current candidates are saying that, and it's a problem that people like me have to deal with. Hopefully soon another man like Ronald Reagan or even George W. Bush will return and say, America is great. America is conservative. And only then, will America be truly free.