I was originally going to title this week's column "Assault on the Private Sector," but I realized that the private sector is America and that its superiority to the public sector is what makes America great. So I renamed Barack Obama's presidency the Assault on America, because that is exactly what he isdoing.

Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrats in Washington have been looking for every excuse possible to destroy the private sector and replace it with the federal government. This began with the New Deal, and since then we have seen such programs as Johnson's Great Socity and such laws as Carter's Community Reinvestment Act that have made America a difficult place for businesses to thrive.

This year, a financial meltdown caused entirely by Democrats in government (the public sector) has been spun as an excuse to increase their own power. A deluge of news reports and Democrat speeches - even John McCain's statements during the campaign - have laid the entire blame for this crisis at the feet of capitalism on Wall Street. Where it belongs is at the feet of government on Constitution Avenue. Rather than make this clear, our leaders and the media have obliterated the truth in their never-ending quest to hijack America. This misconception has now led to the biggest policy blunder of the decade.

Last week, a Merrill Lynch executive had his suite renovated for $1.5 million. The media frenzy was so great that he was forced to pay for the renovation out of pocket. GM executives couldn't fly to Washington this fall in private jets, yet Obama's inauguration set the record for the most private jets in DC history (around 600) and there is not one whisper of outrage.

Ever since the TARP funds have been distributed, every little purchase that could be deemed as an indulgence by these companies has been ridiculed and itemized on the news. If only Congress paid so much attention to its own expenses! Why not itemize last year's $2.9 trillion budget? The government wastes far more of our own money than Merrill Lynch does.

Bloomberg's news wire took the trouble to tell us exactly what Merrill Lynch spent its money on for this renovation, in an effort to stir up animosity towards Wall Street. Such detail in the article included the payment of $87,000 for area rugs, $25,000 for a pedestal table, and $68,000 for a 19th-century credenza (I don't even know what that is). I am now going to extend such a courtesy to Congress, itemizing their latest bill, the economic porkulus of nearly $1 trillion. You may judge for yourself what relation any of the following expenditures have to immediately rejuvenating our economy.

For Healthcare:

• $87 billion: temporary increase in Medicaid matching rate
• $39 billion: support those who lose jobs by helping them to pay the cost of keeping their employer-based healthcare and to provide short-term options to be covered by Medicaid
• $20 billion: health information technology
• $4.1 billion: preventative care

For Education, Science, and Technology:

• $80 billion: local school districts
• $15.6 billion: incrase Pell grant by $500
• $15 billion: rewards for states meeting performance measures
• $10 billion: science facilities and instrumentation
• $6 billion: expand broadband internet access
• $6 billion: higher education modernization

For Energy and the Environment:

• $32 billion: power grid improvements
• $31 billion: make government buildings more energy-efficient
• $19 billion: environmental restoration
• $16 billion: retrofit public housing to be energy-efficient
• $6 billion: weatherize modest-income homes

Unemployment:

• $43 billion: unemployment benefits, job training
• $20 billion: increase food stamp benefits

Transportation:

• $30 billion: highway construction
• $10 billion: transit, rail

Et al.:

• $25 billion: public safety
• $4 billion: local law enforcement

Unlike Merrill Lynch's indulgences, every dime of this spending is taxpayer money. Furthermore, the amounts are astronomical compared toa  few pithy millions on an office. (Has anyone asked how much Barack Obama's renovations of the White House are going to cost?)

This bill is classic liberal legislative procedure. Within ten days of the inauguration, Barack Obama and his pets in Congress have doubled our deficit in the name of the bad economy, and what's more, with programs that cannot possibly create any long-term or short-term economic aid. They would simply have you believe: the private sector has failed you, so turn to us!

The Republican alternative to the stimulus was a wonderful package, elegantly simple and doubtlessly effective. It included a 10% reduction of all income taxes, a 10% reduction of the corporate tax rate (to equal the average of the European Union), a freeze on the capital gains tax, immediate expensing/tax deductions on corporate assets, an incrase of the tax credits to families from $1,000/child to $5,000/child, and a 1% reduction on spending for the next fiscal year. These steps, with some others, would unquestionably help companies restructure and grow witout the government's interference, while giving families permanent financial relief to buy from these companies (why would anyone use a stimulus check for a purchase if the knew their taxes were going up in a year or two anyways?). With the stroke of a pen and not a penny of spending, the GOP could have saved our economy and prevented the death of capitalism. Alas, such legislation was not written by Republicans before 2006.

By slowly giving money out, even in very small amounts, to companies in New York and Detroit, the Democrats in power are preparing to control every major business in America. As soon as these companies accept anything from Congress, such expenses as an office renovation will be explored and exposed to a far greater degree of detail and outrage than any of Congress's wasteful spending. Don't be surprised if, in the next couple years while Democrats are still guaranteed power, the government starts controlling business moves and product development. We are slowly on the track to nationalization.

I will always trust the private sector before the public sector. the most overpaid CEO cannot tell me what light bulb I have to use or what type of car I have to drive. He is at my mercy, at the consumer's mercy. The government is not. It can just print more money (and someone has to win elections - the lesser of two evils is still an evil). In the end, all I want to do is live my own life! I don't want the government to interfere. And liberals cannot grasp this concept. They must control everything and everyone.

As long as Democrats are in power in this country, the private sector is at risk. They will stop at nothing to use the government and its control of the national currency to destroy free enterprise and force total dependence on them. This assault on America must end, and our only hope is the Republican Party. This past debate was a good start - it is now the GOP's duty to explain to America why conservatism and less government is the only way to protect this great nation. This will, slowly but surely, pave the road to victory in 2010 and 2012.

Whenever a new president is inaugurated in America, a period of national unity and relative calm follows. The official term is known as the new president's "honeymoon," where he is able to govern with wide authority and relatively little accountability. Especially this year, as a Democrat takes the big job, there is a major call within the nation to be optimistic and hopeful, to root for our new leader. But as entertaining as it was to see Joe Biden sworn in on a 50-pound Bible, I, in good conscience, cannot.

Barack Obama represents the ideology of liberalism. He represents a big government. The goal of the Obama administration is to manage as mch of your life as possible: your salary, your healthcare, your car, your diet, your energy use. It is pure liberalism which, if unchecked, will eat away at the bedrock of American greatness (as it has every time it has been implemented). For America as we know it to survive this president, he must not succeed.

Liberalism is a lie. It is the greatest threat to America that we face. And it is now the prevailing ideology in Washington.

How is anything liberals say inspiring? Obama speaks well, but if you think about it, what he says is really quite depressing. He is going to send you a check. He will increase unemployment benefits. He will raise taxes on those wealthier than you. Just today, he announced a salary-freeze on his top staffers (as if they were going to get a raise anytime soon anyways). How does any of this inspire you to get up and get a job? How does any of this push Americans to go do great things in the world?

He has plans to tighten the grip of our corporate taxes, and he wants to raise capital gains taxes which will make it harder to invest in companies. He wants to mandate employer-based healthcare, forcing companies' hands through fines and tax levies. The word "incentive" was not mentioned once on Tuesday. How does any of this inspire companies to do business in America and hire our talented and educated workforce?

Now that he is elected, the soaring and positive campaign rhetoric has been reduced to such statements as, "Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land, a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights" (emphasis added). His constant lowering of expectations since November 5 has been greatly demoralizing to anyone that has been paying attention.

In an interview soon after the inauguration, a reporter asked about his ambitions. In the first sentence of his response discussing his next four years as president, he stated his desire to make government work. Government, government, government. That is what it's all about to liberals like this one.

Conservatism is truly inspirational. That is why Reagan's first inaugural was atched by 4 million more people than Obama's, and Sarah Palin's convention speech watched by over a million more. True conservatives, both presidents and commentators alike, talk about we as Americans going out and earning our own keep. While being constantly typified as evil and heartless with a cruel to-the-wolves approach to society, conservatives have generated more economic and personal prosperity than any other ideologies in American history.

When announcing the aforementioned salary-freeze, he told staffers that they are now public servants and mustn't let their own personal ambition interfere with their work. This, too, is a liberal philosophy that only seeks to dampen the individual's ability to prosper. It is personal ambition that will motivate these staffers to do a great job for their country in the public sector, and that ensure the American wokforce does a great job for its clients in the private sector. Greed, in moderation of course, drives America and makes it great.

It doesn't take much to guess what will hapen when a president fills his electorate with the expectation that the government will provide their needs. Luckily we don't have to guess: we have the 60s. That expectation has destroyed a countless number of American families and their lives. Cities didn't have ghettoes and crack-houses before John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson took turns raping the American social fiber. When people, especially the lower classes, expect their needs to be met by the government, they sink further and further into poverty and despair. It was the Great Society and similar liberal programs that have created such an underlying class of lazy and desperate in our cities. In Europe, 28-hour work weeks, strong unions, and a lazy workforce has led to an economically stagnant situtation, causing riots in Greece and serious expatriation to (you guessed it) America. (It has also brought conservative leaders like Sarkozy of France and Merkel of Germany.) These failed European policies are what Obama and other liberals in power seek to emulate.

There is a reason that Barack Obama is only the third Democrat of the past eight presidents. Since the consequences of the modern, liberal Democratic Party have become apparent (after JFK and LBJ), Americans have wisely chosen Republican leaders. Since Reagan was elected, America has witnessed unprecedented economic growth with only two very mild recessions (excluding what we are seeing this year, which is the fault of Democrats). This is in no small part due to the reversal of liberal economic policy by conservative and moderate presidencies. (Under JFK, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. Under Reagan, it was 28%. Power to the people.)

As long as Barack Obama stands for liberalism, and for big government, and for great expectations of that government, he must fail. I am not rooting against America (to the contrary, I'm rooting for America); I am coming out against a malignant ideology that just happens to be embodied in a man that wound up in the White House. He is in a very powerful seat, and he wants to use it to further a liberal agenda. This is scary. Will the United States of America exist in four years? Certainly. But it may be an unrecognizable welfare state. And I will not apologize for using every breath in my lungs to prevent this from happening.

In the final days of his presidency, George W. Bush broadcasted his farewell address to the United States. In his speech, he exhibited the grace, class, and integrity that he has shown this nation but, sadly, has not seen returned in kind. As a benevolent man, he will not go on the offensive as he walks out the door. So I will.

What has been made of President Bush over the past eight years has been an absolute disgrace. As Americans, we should be ashamed of the way we have treated the man (lest we forget!) we elected to run our country and the world. Petty political disagreements (or even fundamental ones, for that matter) are one thing; the outright hatred and desecration of anything Bush is quite another.

George Bush's inauguration in 2000 was the first I ever watched. I will never forget the rainy day in Washington, the big crowds and sleek black motorcade. But already, while Bill Clinton was still our country's president, there were those in high places ready to go after him. On inauguration day, Bush was wearing a blue tie. Barbara Walters felt that we needed her opinion on the matter, and let us all know that the color of his tie matched her mood that day.

Ever since, the president has been treated with more derision, disrespect, and downright hatred than any other president in history. Musicians proudly shouted their disdain for the man from their stages, Madonna releasing a music video of her hurling a grenade at him. "Bush-bashing" has become a common term in the American vocabulary. Every week, Saturday Night Live and the late night talk shows felt it their duty to inform Americans on how stupid and clueless this man is. In line for the White House tour this past August, I heard the man behind me say to his son, "This president needs a lot of security because nobody likes him."

The double standard of our media has never been more prevalent. The Clinton administration was rife with scandals, from maintaining hundreds of files in the FBI illegally on private citizens to rewarding political donors with certain government favors, from oral sex in the Oval Office to perjury and even a credible accusation of rape. But a virtually scandal-free Bush administration has suffered endless bombardment from both the media and Democrats in Washington, despite no proof of any wrongdoing. Such scandals created by the media include the firing of eight U.S. attorneys (which is perfectly legal, as they are presidential appointees; Clinton's admin fired all of them in 1993), the Scooter Libby case (a blatantly political and fabricated conviction), Halliburton and Harken (both exhaustively explored by the SEC in the 1990s, unlike the Clinton Whitewater real estate scam), and NSA wiretapping for starters.

Bush has been constantly compared to Hitler and the devil, called a "regime" (in reference to Saddam Hussein's), and has been fictionally assassinated in a motion picture (imagine such a film about Barack Obama?). Dick Cheney has a reputation of being a dark, evil man lurking in the shadows and pulling all the strings, when in reality he is a genial, smart, and dedicated public servant.

But the President took all of this with gusto, almost too much so. A perfect example of this came from day one. As Clinton's staffers emptied the White House, they vandalized many parts of the building and left crude, obscene messages in desks and on walls. The "W" keys on most keyboards were smashed or missing. These repulsive acts were made public by Bush staffers as they began to move in. But President Bush came out to publicly downplay the situation, stating that the vandalism was minor and not a problem. The Government Accounting Office did a complete investigation and found that around $20,000 of damage had been done to the White House during the transition. The first thing I think of is Hitler, too!

President Bush has been endlessly attacked for human rights violations and with shredding the Constitution, with one novel (yes, novel) entitled The Case for Impeachment (available in fine bookstore basements everywhere). The prison at Guantanamo Bay has been endlessly called for closure, despite a recent Pentagon report that over 60 Gitmo prisoners upon their release returned to terrorist acts. A major plot to use British and American trans-Atlantic airliners to attack the US was broken up by a wiretapping program, a program that has not produced a single lawsuit in the United States. (I have yet to hear of a specific example of an American having his or her rights violated by the wiretapping program. The proof of its effectiveness is far more obvious.)

I am greatly laughed at for listing President Bush in my top 5 list of all-time presidents (number 3), and I am mocked for even stating that he is simply a great man in every sense of the word. I could care less, but it bothers me that people find such a thought so horrible. No one agrees with anyone on absolutely everything. I have just as many disagreements with Bush as the next guy, albeit maybe not as significant. But I ask you: what exactly did he do to deserve the treatment he has received in office?

Bush has graciously include the media in every step he has taken. He let them inside the war effort in Iraq, a courtesy not extended by his father, and perhaps wisely, as a reporter for MSNBC took it upon himself to reveal the location of a crucial US battalion on the air.

During this economic crisis, we have been constantly pointed to Bush for his lack of foresight and "deregulation," when in fact it is the Democrats who have kept any bill that would have prevented this mortgage meltdown in committee. In 2008 alone, the White House specifically requested Congress over ten times to pass regulatory legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Before the wheels came off the mortgage wagon, causing banks to swoon and markets to collapse, our economy was very strong from the bottom up as Bush gave money back to the people. There were twice as many millionaires in the fiscal year after the tax cuts than before, which not only made more Americans prosperous (on their own!) but also dramatically increased government income tax revenue! I don't know about you, but that is the kind of change I want to see. (I will praise Obama to the stars if he can pull that off with any of his spend-like-hell programs.)

If you want to hear a list of the great things Bush has done for America, please listen to his farewell address. (On second thought, listen to it even if you don't.)  But my goal in this piece is to ask you to consider, especially if you are a "Bush-hater," what he has done to deserve any hate from anyone. George W. Bush is as great of a president as one can ask for: a decisive but humble leader that served his people with decency and respect.

As our 42nd president steps down on Tuesday and hands the baton to the fledgling, take a moment to clap for George W. Bush. I guarantee these past eight years have been rougher for him than for you. Farewell, Mr. President. Your persona, if not your policy, will be sorely missed.

As if anyone could be surprised, the New York Times editorial board wrote its official endorsement piece on Friday, "Barack Obama for President." And I could not help myself: at first, my blood boiled. But about halfway through the piece, all I could do was laugh.

The same paper endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain for their respective parties last spring. They had substantial arguments both for John McCain and against Barack Obama. These arguments were blatantly ignored and in some cases reversed for the sake of this endorsement. Some of their justifications behind electing Obama are just plain amusing. So let's start from the beginning. Unless otherwise noted, quotations mark direct excerpts from the piece.

The keystone of the Democrats' campaign is that the country is in absolutely wretched and horrible shape. The Times agrees: "The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush's failed leadership." Battered and drifting? This reminds me of the way Obama ads say they desire to "rebuild America." As if we just suffered some nuclear holocaust and second Great Depression that requires us to "rebuild."

The first and foremost justification to elect Obama is stated in the piece's thesis: "After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proven that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States." I suppose a grueling campaign outweighs a 26-year Senate record and about a decade spent in a Vietnam torture facility. My mistake.

"Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change." Wait a minute. Is this a newspaper or www.barackobama.com?

They go on to say that John McCain has run a campaign based on "partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism." I would love some examples of this. I have examples of all three of these things from the Obama campaign. Partisan division: Obama has been constantly blaming one party and one party only for this country's shortcomings. Class warfare: It is Obama that is stirring up jealousy and rage of the upper classes by promising to "share the wealth," and Joe Biden who has stated he will go after CEO's pensions first. Hints of racism: It is Barack Obama who stated that Republicans will bring up the fact that he "doesn't look like those guys on the dollar bills" and who associated with a bona fide racist for over two decades.

"Mr. McCain offers more of the Republican every-man-for-himself ideology, now lying in shards on Wall Street and in Americans' bank accounts." I seriously think the extent of this ed. board's research was Barack Obama's website. It was three Republicans, one of them John McCain, that introduced a bill in 2005 that would create a federal oversight agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Democrats killed it in committee. It was Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who stated that "we don't have a crisis at Freddie Mac and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines," while again killing an important oversight bill in committee. Bush brought up the risks in the mortgage market 17 times in 2007 alone, and has been sounding the horn on it since 2002. The reason American bank accounts are "in shards" is the fact that the government thought it could spend it more wisely. And it failed. This is not change, and this is what Obama wants to continue once elected.

"Mr. McCain, who once opposed President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy as fiscally irresponsible, now wants to make them permanent." This is clearly for two reasons. (1) Now that taxes are at this point, it is "fiscally irresponsible" to raise them in a time of economic recession. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would raise taxes on everyone. (2) Since the Bush tax cuts, government revenue has increased by $1 trillion, even in the midst of an expensive war. That sounds fiscally responsible to me.

On national security, the Times states that "Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq." Who cares? Why is his opinion five years ago relevant? Now that we're in this war, it is our duty to see it through. It is despicable that people in Congress are playing political games to get elected at the peril of our troops and Iraqi stability. Furthermore, why is Afghanistan so much more important, even after bin Laden himself states that Iraq is the central front for the war on terror? Why not send troops to both countries and make sure both are successfully rebuilt?

Continuing the obsession with our "image," the Times says, "Both candidates talk about repairing America's image in the world. But it seems clear to us that Mr. Obama is far more likely to do that -- and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world." Is the Times telling us to elect him because he's black? That's what that sentence means. Also consider this. Since Bush irreparably tarnished our international image, we have been completely safe from terrorist attacks, and pro-American, conservative leaders are winning elections all over the world including Canada, France, Germany, and potentially Great Britain. Let me make this clear: I don't want Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela to like us! Because if they do, as Obama wants them to, then we have sacrificed that which makes this country great.

"[Mr. McCain's] righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians." Let me translate: Republicans chose Bush due to racism in 2000. Now, Americans are voting for McCain because of racism. Incredible!

On judges, "Mr. Obama may appoint less liberal judges than some of his followers might like," (really?) "but Mr. McCain is certain to pick rigid ideologues." That's fine with me, if the ideology they are so rigid upon is the U.S. Constitution! When four Supreme Court justices, whose ideology is shared by Mr. Obama, tried to make the Second Amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional, I'd prefer rigid ideologues to those who see a "living Constitution." I'd also prefer those who don't see the right to life guaranteed by our Constitution only applying to those who are completely out of the womb.

By only consulting the Barack Obama campaign's "fact" sheets, the New York Times has spit out lie after lie and misconception after misconception. They have not only been blatantly in favor of Barack Obama on their editorial pages, but also in the "objective" news pages. It is no wonder to me that their circulation is falling drastically as it sacrifices its credibility in the name of elitism and partisanship.

No honest endorsement should be free from criticism. For example, the New Orleans Times-Picayune devoted several sentences of its Obama endorsement pointing out "concerns" they have with the man's policy. The New York Times's senseless worship of a man with no qualifications and dangerous policy is, while unsurprising, quite unbelievable.

In the end, consider what these candidates honestly stand for, and how their record compares to their rhetoric. (Yes, I stole that from McCain.) And this will present to you the clear choice for election day: John McCain.

One of Barack Obama's opening statements at Friday's debate was that the current economic disaster is a "final verdict" on trickle down economics carried on by the Bush administration. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

A quick summary. Trickle down economics, coined "Reaganomics" in the 1980s, is the idea that by giving more money back to the rich, the benefits will "trickle down" to the lower tax brackets. Cutting taxes is the most ideal way to get the economy going again; by trickle down economics, to cut taxes more for the rich is the most ideal way to carry this out.

George W. Bush did this in 2003. He made a significant cut into the tax rates of the top brackets. Between 2003 and 2006, we saw one of our strongest economic surges. The deficit shrank faster than ever, from over $400 billion to around $120 billion. (The reason it is back up high is due to increased spending, not decreased revenue.) The number of millionaires doubled in this country over those three years. The rich's share of tax revenue actually increased. It was a textbook case of trickle down economics, and it worked famously.

The reason we are in the current crisis is bad mortgages and preferential loans being given out primarily by the government entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two "companies" had no accountability, and were able to give out mortgages that no one could afford. To me, this is the opposite of trickle down, which I like to call trickle up. It is almost the idea of government as a charity or the Robin Hood complex: give more money to the lower tax brackets first, while not giving any back to (or perhaps taking more from) the wealthier taxpayers.

This is what caused the crisis. These lower-income families buying a $300,000 house on $60,000/year salaries realized that they just couldn't afford it. The market could no longer support them. And Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae started a domino effect as they collapsed, snowballing into huge corporate and banking losses.

You may be wondering how this is possible. (I mean, how many people really got these bad loans?)  You are right in the fact that this phenomenon was extremely rare throughout the country. Today, even after all hell has broken loose on Wall Street, over 95% of homeowners are making good on their mortgages. But that 5% was enough to tip the markets overboard.

Barack Obama needs to stop blaming trickle down economics. It worked fine. The current crisis is due to housing and mortgages, which have nothing to do with tax cuts. It has all to do with Democrats in Congress and at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae turning the government into a charitable organization. And this is what Barack Obama plans to do. He wants to take from the rich and give to the poor, even after this catastrophe that makes quite clear how ineffective this strategy is. The economy cannot be "built from the bottom up" in this manner; the rich pay most of the taxes, so they should get the most back. And because they have that much more money, they will dump it into the economy far sooner and to greater effect than lower income taxpayers.

Trickle up failed miserably. Trickle down worked brilliantly. And voting for Barack Obama will make this crisis look like the good old days.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." So begins Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities. And when I think about September 11, 2001, I cannot help but apply those words to that fateful time.

No one will argue this: September 11 was the worst day in American history. It was one of only two successful attacks on American soil (the other being Pearl Harbor), and this time it was nearly 3000 civilians killed as opposed to military personnel. It was a heinous attack, one that would forever change our view of the world and the evil that exists.

While it was, most definitely, our worst day, I think the terror and evil brought out the very best in us as Americans. And in this way, I see it as our best day. It was our finest hour. Evil struck, and struck hard; but America prevailed.

On the anniversary, I watched numerous videos from those weeks: first the attacks and the buildings collapsing; the raw video footage with "Attack on America" plastered across the bottom; people covered in gray dust and dried blood. Then I turned to the recovery: George W. Bush standing on a pile of rubble with a megaphone, arm around a fireman, shouting, "the people who knocked these buildings down will be hearing all of us soon!" Then his address to Congress, where he decisively declared that we will not falter, we will not fail.

I remember exactly where I was when I heard, just as we all do: sitting at a desk in my grade school history class, my principal walking in and saying that a plane crashed into the World Trade Center and they think it was terrorists. After school for the rest of the week, I went to my grandpa's little flag store, taking orders for American flags. The phone was ringing off the hook for hours straight every day, so much that me and my grandma had to come help. He sold over 200 flags in 3 days.

I remember one of those days, eating lunch and watching the mass at the National Cathedral. I remember the thousands of people there, most of them crying. And I will never forget the sense of unity and purpose we all shared.

Those times came, and those times have gone. But I think it's important that we remember how we felt. Was it just hysteria, as many have since called it? Was it just anger and spite that fueled support for rash decisions? I don't think it was. I think it was real, coherent decision-making. Our heads were clearer then than they are now. We knew what had to be done, and thanks to a magnificent leader, we did it. We took the fight to them. We enacted necessary security measures. And we have been safe for seven years.

Out of our worst day came our best days, and out of evil came good and justice. We have not faltered, and we have not failed. Our people are safe. They say that four thousand deaths in Iraq are not worth it, but I disagree. The military exists to protect us, and it has. Enough said.

On September 11, 2001, a large network of terrorists known as al Qaeda knocked down North America's two tallest buildings. On September 11, 2008, al Qaeda is "broken" (according to a CIA report), the mastermind hasn't been seen in years, and the new World Trade Center is four years from complete reconstruction of Freedom Tower, a gleaming pillar of freedom standing 1776 feet tall. We win.

It was indeed the worst of times, but it was most definitely the best of times. And hopefully it will not take another attack for America to rediscover such a sense of purpose and pride once more.

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.