I'm sure you all remember Nancy Pelosi saying she was going to clean up the "culture of corruption" in Congress when the Democrats took control in 2006. Nancy was referring to the culture of corruption in the outgoing Republican Congress, of course. It was a big campaign issue for the Democrats, and it worked. The evil Republicans were cast out of the temple, and the Democrats, the party of all that is good and holy, the party of light, regained control. Hallelujah, brothers and sisters. A great weight was lifted from the backs of the people, and the shadow removed from the sun. No longer would government be beholden to special interests. Pelosi was going to oversee the "most ethical Congress in history".

Sure. I hope none of you were dumb enough to believe that nonsense for even one second.

You should have known Pelosi was being less than forthright about cleaning up corruption right off the bat, when, about 10 minutes after the 2006 election results were in, she endorsed pork king and unindicted Abscam co-conspirator John Murtha for House Majority Leader. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. Murtha didn't get that job, but still ended up as the chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, where he became, drumroll please, THE NUMBER ONE HOUSE PORKER FOR 2007. Murtha procured $162 million in pork for his congressional district, surpassing all other House members. Go Johnny. It gets better. Murtha secured earmarks in the defense budget for 26 beneficiaries, and every single one of them contributed to his campaign, giving a total of $413,250. Murtha provides the best government that money can buy. He's like a fast food restaurant. You pay your money at one window and pickup your order at the next one.

Here's Andrew Koneschusky, a Murtha spokesman, 'answering' a question about Murtha's ethical problems back in 2006: "We are focused on the future. We are focused on electing the best candidate to lead our party and deliver the change the American people want, and that is Jack Murtha. We are looking forward, not backward". Thanks, Andrew. Excellent non-response.

Murtha was focused on the future alright. He was focused on YOUR money. Like a laser beam. Providing the "change the American people want". There's that CHANGE word again. The same word that is the key for the upcoming elections. What a coincidence. Sound familiar ? Maybe this CHANGE they are speaking of is what you'll have left in your pockets after the Democrats get done with you. National health care, national day care, etc, etc. Spending to the left of me. Spending to the right of me. A thousand points of fright.

And the most frightening thing of all is, THE DEMOCRATS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO WIN IN 2008, and be free to tax and spend us into oblivion, unfettered !!! Pass the Alka Seltzer. The Republican frontrunner is John McCain, for god's sake ! He's barely even a Republican, though he's playing one on television now. Egads. Even I might vote for Obama. What a sorry state. Say it isn't so. Where have you gone, Ronnie ? A nation turns it's lonely eyes to y…alas, too late.

But I'm getting off the topic, which is John Murtha and the NEW culture of corruption. I liked him better in the role of the crotchety old anti-war loon who wanted to redeploy our troops to Okinawa. At least he was good for a laugh then.

A two-year government commissioned study proposed that federal gasoline taxes should be increased up to 40 cents per gallon over five years. The purpose of the massive tax increase would be to fix aging bridges and roads, and reduce traffic deaths.

Calling for immediate action, the congressionally created panel warns that "applying patches" is no longer acceptable, saying the nation risks tens of thousands of highway casualties each year and millions of dollars lost in economic growth.

"The crisis is now," the report states.

Among the recommendations, which are expected to cost $225 billion each year for the next 50 years:

—Work to cut traffic fatalities in half over the next 17 years by urging states to embrace new strategies to improve safety.

—Ease traffic congestion by expanding state and local public transit systems and highway capacity.

—Protect the environment by smoothing traffic flow, encouraging alternative commute options such as carpooling and public transit and promoting energy-efficient construction and lighting in transit systems to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

—Seek to develop new energy sources with new research programs costing $200 million annually over the next decade

Nobody wants our nation's infrastructure to deteriorate and/or collapse like the Minneapolis bridge, and maintaining our infrastructure IS a valid area for government to undertake (unlike so many others where they waste our money), but being the skeptical fiscal conservative that I am, I decided to investigate how our current gasoline taxes are spent. It seems to me that we already pay an awful lot in taxes on every gallon of gas. It also seems to me like virtually all that money should go toward maintaining our roads and bridges. Where else would it go ?

Where indeed. According to research by the National Center For Policy Analysis (NCPA), gas taxes are as follows:

- The federal government imposes a gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon.
- States levy additional gas taxes at rates ranging from a low of 8 cents per gallon in Alaska to a high of 44.4 cents per gallon in California.
- Combined federal and state gas taxes now average about 45 cents per gallon.

The 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act established the Highway Trust Fund and stipulated that 100 percent of the [federal] gas tax be deposited into this fund. The trust fund finances highway building and maintenance across the nation.

Well, in theory that's what the Highway Trust Fund does. In reality, only about 60% of the money goes toward highway building and maintenance. Why only 60% ? Need you even ask ? It's due to politicians, naturally. They divert the rest of the money into mass transit and pork barrel projects. The NCPA breaks the spending down:

- Only 60 percent of federal gas taxes goes to the construction and maintenance of highways and bridges.
- Thirty percent goes to subsidize construction and maintenance of public transit facilities, such as bus terminals, light rail and subway systems.
- The remaining 10 percent is diverted to other projects — currently 6,000 projects — including bike paths, museums, nature trails, historic building repairs and so forth.

Since the DOT says 12% of the nations nearly 600,000 bridges are structurally deficient, before we saddle all americans with a huge tax that would hit the poorest among us the hardest, and impact most of us in a substantial manner, would it be too much to ask of Congress that all of the Highway Trust Fund money go to highway and bridge construction and repair ? Let the states and cities that want mass transit improvements and bike paths pay for it themselves. Put it on the ballot. Eliminate the pork. (Can we eliminate Congress ? No, I suppose not).

You know what I'd like to see for once, instead of the easy jump the pols always make to saddle the citizens with constantly greater and greater burdens to pay for constantly increasing government ? A two-year study in how to eliminate all the useless government programs, reduce waste, and cut spending. Now, there's a study I'd happily pay for, since it would more than pay for itself. I bet each one of us, regardless of our political allegiances, could review the federal budget and find that extra $225 billion to spend on highways without slamming the poor working man one more time. As almost always, the real answer is in LIMITING GOVERNMENT. Then we'd have plenty of money for roads and bridges, plus a lot more money in our pockets. That's what the movement is all about. And, as almost always, the real answer is, vote for very few Democrats (none of the liberal, big government variety), and vote out any wasteful Republicans as well (replace them with Libertarians or other third party candidates). Then we'd get somewhere, without stepping our citizenry step by step down the path towards insolvency, as we've been doing for decades and decades.

Or, we can just pay a lot more money for gas and complain.

Surprise, surprise. I guess I should have seen this coming, but I didn't. I keep hoping we have grown past all this stuff, but we haven't. Here we are approaching the South Carolina primary, the first with a significant percentage of black voters (50% of 2004 S.C. primary voters were black), and suddenly, out of the blue, the Clintons are charged with being racists, based on racially insensitive remarks that Hill and Billary supposedly made.

What were the 'racially insensitive' remarks made by the KKKlintons ?

1. Hillary said Martin Luther King's dream of racial equality was only brought to fruition when LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, her meaning being that it takes action along with words to accomplish desired change. She was trying to contrast her experience and action with Obama's words.

2. Bill said Obama was telling a "fairy tale" about his opposition to the Iraq war.

If you are wondering how any of that is racist, I'm right there with you. I'm wondering too. I agree Hillary's comment about MLK was ill-conceived. After all, it could hardly be said that King wasn't a man of action. He was. He did a lot more than just make speeches, and without him, there probably is no Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. That doesn't make Hillary's comment racist. You really have to go fishing to extract that meaning from her words, and it appears Obama's campaign did go fishing. An Obama staffer compiled a list of statements from the Clintons that they thought could potentially be spun as racial, and used against Hillary.

Does this mean Bill isn't the first black president anymore ?

Is this an example of how Obama is going to bring people together ?

Hillary successfully defended herself against the silly racial charge on yesterday's episode of Meet The Press (and after the race subject was finished, she spent the rest of the program lying her butt off about her shifting positions on the Iraq war and everything that happened back in the late 90's. That was must-see-tv. Classic Clinton Crapola).

For his part, Bill Clinton has been making the rounds of black radio stations in South Carolina, apologizing for the racial statement he never made. White guilt is incredible, isn't it ?

Expect Obama to disavow this entire subject very soon (now that the point has been made, and the race card played, that is). Ain't politics grand ?

The scene was the New Hampshire debates. Moderator Charles Gibson asked the Democrats the following question: “We started the surge early this year. You all opposed it. But there are real signs it has worked…So I want to ask all of you, are any of you ready to say that the surge has worked?”

Most of the candidates went to the stock Democratic evasion, and said no political reconciliation has occurred, therefore the surge was a failure. Apparently, substantial reductions in violence and deaths mean nothing. Hillary Clinton didn't even apologize for her "willing suspension of disbelief" slander of General Petraeus, the orchestrator of surge progress. Being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry, or even having to acknowledge reality.

But Barack Obama took first prize for creative fiction with his answer. Obama, in a statement not about the Audacity Of Hope, but just pure, brazen audacity, said, “Now, I had no doubt — and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence…I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi'as. We should start negotiating now. That's how you change behavior.”

Obama actually said the DEMOCRATS are responsible for the reductions in violence in Iraq that have accompanied the surge !!! ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME ??? THE DEMOCRATS ??? The 'war is lost', 'impeach Bush', 'bring the troops home now', 'no war for oil', 'Al Qaeda's american political mouthpiece' DEMOCRATS ??? Oh, HELL NO !!! The only thing the Democrats are responsible for in the Iraq war is giving Al Qaeda hope. Except you, Joe Lieberman. Oh wait, the Dems kicked you out. You're an Independent now. Good for you.

Obama also said he opposed the surge even though he knew it would work, due to 'how wonderfully our troops perform' (yes, he's a politician, for sure). Why did he oppose it if he knew it would work ? Could it be because he knows that success in Iraq is very bad news for Democrats ? Could it be because the Democrats are heavily invested in failure in Iraq, that they care more about winning elections than winning the war ? No, I suppose that isn't possible at all. I must be all wrong about that. Sure.

What Obama also failed to mention regarding american troops leaving Iraq (beside the fact that they aren't), is that getting the american troops out of Iraq IS AL QAEDA'S NUMBER ONE GOAL. In 2005, a correspondence from Al Qaeda number two man Ayman Al-Zawahiri to Iraq Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (now deceased) was intercepted, and has been declassified. In that communique, Al-Zawahiri outlined Al Qaeda's four stage plan for domination of the Middle East. Iraq was Job One. The four stages of Al Qaeda domination, in Al Zawahiri's words, are:

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.

There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

I guess Barack Obama just forgot that, as has the rest of the Democratic party. I hope this also puts to rest the idea that Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism. It's the central front. It's the central front because Bush (and Al Qaeda) made it the central front, that's true, but we still have to be successful there. There is no other acceptable option. Leaving Iraq before the Iraqi government can stay together and defend itself is nothing more than an invitation for Al Qaeda to fill the power vacuum, and isn't Al Qaeda the main enemy ? It may not be the position we want to be in, but it's the position we're in. It's about time the Democrats start dealing with the truth about Iraq instead of making up politically convenient fantasies like Barack Obama just did.

Written by Karl Marx in 1848.

My question is, who is promoting this agenda in america today, and who stands against it ?

Here are the ten planks, along with my comments regarding the creeping signs in our country.

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

Try not paying your property taxes, and you will find out who owns your property. It isn't you. The tax system makes you a renter, renting from the government. Your property taxes can also be raised at any time, without your vote, merely by a 'reappraisal'. The recent Supreme Court expansion of the powers of eminent domain in Kelo v New London, brought to you by the liberal wing of the court, also weakened property rights substantially. The government can now take your property away and give it to another private entity for the sole reason of increased tax revenue. You have virtually NO private property rights. You're a squatter, for as long as the government decides to let you squat.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Any questions as to which party advocates this the most ? You can add the Social Security Act to this also, since it is nothing but a hidden sham income tax with a welfare program at the back end. The 16th amendment, which made the income tax legal (maybe), violated the original Constitution, which said taxes were to either be direct and apportioned (all are taxed equally), or indirect. The income tax is direct and unapportioned.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance

The Estate tax, Probate laws. Republicans want to abolish or lower the estate tax. Democrats want to keep it and even increase it.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

Confiscation of citizens property without due process (RICO laws), IRS confiscation of property without due process. Both parties are guilty here. Republicans passed the RICO laws, though many Republicans do want to abolish the IRS.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

We call it the Federal Reserve System, a private entity that, incredibly, charges the government (we the people) interest on the money it prints. The Federal Reserve Act was signed into law by Democrat Woodrow Wilson, though it would be inaccurate to put the blame all on Democrats for this. Republicans are probably even more to blame.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State

Hey, we've resisted this one pretty much, but we do have the FCC, DOT, FAA, AMTRAK, CONRAIL, and the post office.

7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

The Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Could illegal immigrants be our new industrial armies ? Could the high levels of taxation that caused mom and dad to both become part of the labor force be for that 'equal liability of all to labor' ? More workers means more government revenue means more government.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

Okay, if you say so.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

People are taxed to support government schools. Democrats support keeping the government school monopoly. Republicans support vouchers and school choice.

At last night's Republican debate, Fred Thompson finally showed up. Better late than never, I guess, and one comment in particular by Fred was worth the price of admission. That was the one where Thompson unmasked Mike Huckabee as the pseudo Republican that he is. Here's the quote:

"I think that governor Huckabee's campaign manager said it accurately, in terms of what they believe. They believe that it is over [the Reagan Revolution]. This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party, and it's future. On the one hand, you have the Reagan revolution. You have the Reagan coalition of limited government and strong national security. On the other hand, you have the direction that governor Huckabee would take us in. He would be a Christian leader, but he would also bring about liberal economic policies and liberal foreign policies. He believes we have an arrogant foreign policy, in the tradition of blame america first. He believes that Guantanamo should be shut down and those enemy combatants brought here to the United States, to find their way into the court system eventually. He believes in taxpayer funded programs for illegals, as he did in Arkansas. He has the endorsement of the National Education Association, and the NEA said it was because of his opposition to vouchers. He said he would sign a bill that would ban smoking nationwide. So much for federalism. So much for states rights. So much for individual rights. That's not the model of the Reagan coalition. That's the model of the Democratic party".

Bravo, Fred, and kudos to whoever gave you the go-juice last night. You won that debate. There IS a battle going on for the heart and soul of the Republican party, and Huckabee is on the wrong side. I only wonder why Fred didn't go after John McCain in the same fashion when he had the chance. Instead, he backed off of his friend. He shouldn't have. This is too important. This liberalization of the Republican party has got to stop. Big spending Republicans have got to go. Republicans who don't support low taxes have got to go. Republicans who don't support strong border enforcement have got to go. Republicans who don't support strong national security have got to go. Republicans who don't support individual freedom have got to go. If the Reagan Revolution is over, then for all practical purposes, the Republican party is over. In that case, all we are left with is two versions of the Democratic party - one moderately left, and one far left. I can think of no surer recipe for disaster. When Republicans start imitating Democrats, there is no longer a reason to vote for Republicans.

Fred Thompson stands for conservative policies across the board, and always has, which is pretty refreshing among this current group of Republican presidential hopefuls. Due to his lackluster campaign (until last night), he probably won't be around too much longer, but I believe he made the single most important statement about the future of the Republican party that we have seen in this presidential contest to date. I hope the voters were listening, and I hope they send Huckabee packing.

A few months ago, I attempted to determine Barack Obama's actual positions on issues, because his speeches were mostly collections of generalities, offering little of substance. I read his book 'Audacity Of Hope' and found it to have the same vague content as his speeches, and his website didn't offer anything either, so I came away frustrated in my attempt.

That has now changed. Obama's speeches are still mostly billowy inspirational sloganeering, but his website has more in-depth explanations of Obama's plans and solutions to the issues facing our country. You can link to his website here. I urge everyone who is considering voting for Barack Obama to read his entire website.

What I found on Obama's website only confirmed what had already seemed apparent to me, that Barack Obama is a big government Big Brother liberal who would greatly increase the size and scope of government, dramatically increase spending, and implement all kinds of new government programs and regulations. If you think I'm exaggerating the least little bit, I'm not. Following are some of the solutions Obama has in mind for america.

Note - For those not familiar with liberal terminology, I offer this brief Liberal-To-English primer, so you can decipher Obama's lingo. ALL of the following words and phrases, when used by a liberal, translate to 'spend the taxpayer's hard earned money' - Invest, Provide, Increase funding, Create a fund, Create a program, Assistance, Incentives, Increase, Cash prizes, Subsidies, Reimburse.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Obama's proposed government spending increases:
======================================
- invest in America’s highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need…
- provide assistance to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient vehicles are built by American workers.
- increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training
- create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth.
- invest in rural small businesses and fight to expand high-speed Internet access. He will improve rural schools and attract more doctors to rural areas.
- Create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners.
- provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers (for expanded family paid work leave).
- double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program.
- create a program to inform businesses about the benefits of flexible work schedules; help businesses create flexible work opportunities; and increase federal incentives for telecommuting.
- provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders (criminals), so that they are successfully re-integrated into society
- create a prison-to-work incentive program to improve ex-offender employment and job retention rates.
- quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding
- provide affordable and high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families.
- reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law
- provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time (for school dropouts).
- double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.
- provide incentives to give teachers paid common planning time so they can collaborate to share best practices.
- promote new and innovative ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them.
- invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid.
- double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
- create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
- establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
- create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years.
- invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
- invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines (to increase fuel mileage standards).
- pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements
- will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.
- fight for an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated.
- create a "contracts and influence" database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.
- devote $50 million for transitional and bridge employment programs for hard-to-employ groups like homeless veterans, children aging out of foster care, and people returning to communities after a time in prison.
- The STOP FRAUD Act criminalizes mortgage fraud, authorizes $10 million more for anti-mortgage fraud programs
- a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress.
- Subsidies: Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
- create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan.
- expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs
- reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.
- invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT.
- strengthen funding for biomedical research
- provide $37.5 million over 5 years for drinking water systems to upgrade their monitoring and security efforts.

Whew. I only made it about halfway through the issues section of Obama's website to come up with this list, so the actual list of spending increases is probably double this. You'll have to read the website yourself if you wish to see the rest.

As with all liberals, Obama seems to see every single conceivable problem as requiring government intervention, new government programs, and new government funding. That attitude, whether held by Democrats or Republicans, is the real reason this country is $9 trillion in debt and facing enormous unfunded financial liabilities that threaten our future. That is the real reason your liberties are being taken from you. Government intervention comes with a price, and that price is the sacrifice of freedoms. We must reverse this trend. We've been trying the big government way for my entire life, and things have only gotten progressively worse. Obama doesn't represent CHANGE anymore than I represent The Wizard Of Oz. Obama represents the standard, garden variety, big government status quo. He may represent a change from Bush on Iraq, but the rest is the same old, same old, taxpayer ripoff government encroachment that's been going on for decades. DON'T FALL FOR IT. Find the candidate who is for limited government and fiscal responsibility, and vote for that person, wherever they are on the political spectrum. The future of your country depends upon it.

I'm not like John Edwards.

John Edwards wants revenge, because, by gosh, his father was a mill worker. That makes things, in Edwards' words, "extraordinarily personal" to him. Not just "personal", but "EXTRAORDINARILY personal". Edwards stressed that repeatedly and passionately during last night's New Hampshire debates. He wants revenge on corporations, because his dad worked for one. Evidently, working for a corporation is cause for revenge and hatred, because those corporations call the shots, leaving someone like Edwards' dad powerless to do anything other than go to work, do his job, and collect his paycheck…………………………

Am I missing something here ?

Every time I ever got hired by a company, I expected I'd have to go to work, do my job, and then the company would pay me for it. I kinda thought that was the whole deal, the nature of the contract. Was I supposed to be expecting something else ? Was I supposed to expect to be making the same amount of money as the owner or CEO of the company, for instance ? Was I supposed to expect that every penny of profit the company made should be diverted into my pocket, rather than those of the entrepreneurs, investors, and shareholders ? I never had any such expectation, nor the brass cojones to ever suggest anything so audacious. I never looked at things the way John Edwards does, as ME versus THEM. Usually, I was grateful to THEM for giving me a job so I could support myself and my family. If the CEO lived in a nice big house and drove a nicer car than I did, it didn't cause me to lose any sleep. I only expected a job, not a life forever free from all worry or care.

John Edwards thinks our lives are being controlled by those evil corporations. He thinks the high price of oil is due only to corporate greed. If you thought it had something to do with supply and demand, such as the maxed out oil production along with the rising needs of China and India, for example, which you'd call 'economics', you would be wrong, according to John Edwards. It's just greed. End of story. After all, Exxon made $40 billion last year (a profit margin of 9 cents per gallon, btw. The government makes a whole lot more on each gallon of gas, but apparently the government is NOT greedy, probably because John Edwards wants to run it, and he'll need LOTS of your money to implement his plans). Ditto with drug companies. The drug companies may make the medications that save our lives, but they are all evil and greedy. Just ask Edwards. Well, I shouldn't say they are ALL evil and greedy, because John Edwards pointed out last night that there are SOME good corporations, like there were SOME good plantation owners during the slavery days in the old racist south. Edwards mentioned Costco as a good corporation. I'm guessing Costco must not make a profit.

Edwards does enumerate some authentic american problems. The high cost of health care is a problem. Edwards says so, and he's right. Edwards has a plan to force people to buy health care insurance. Edwards has a plan to raise taxes to pay for more people's health insurance. What Edwards doesn't have is a way to deal with the actual problem, which is THE HIGH COST OF HEALTH CARE. He's got nearly zip to address that. Another problem Edwards mentions is the high cost of education, college education in particular. This is a real problem. Edwards has a plan to help people subsidize their college tuition. Edwards has a plan to increase taxes to subsidize college tuition. Edwards has a plan to increase the salaries of teachers (making education yet MORE expensive). What Edwards doesn't have is a way to deal with the actual problem, which is THE HIGH COST OF EDUCATION. He's got zip on that.

John Edwards doesn't so much solve problems as he does figure out a way to get america number one to pay for america number two through redistribution of wealth. All the actual problems remain. What John Edwards does is declare war on the rich, so he can steal their money. Edwards declares war on corporate america, so he can steal their money. Edwards has to criminalize the wealthy in order to make his own criminality appear less criminal.

Edwards claims he will brook no corporate lobbyists in his administration. What Edwards is saying to you is, when he considers, say, an energy bill for america, he won't invite the energy companies, the energy providers, to the table. He won't care what their opinion is. That isn't just getting revenge on those evil corporate fat cats who made his dad work for pay, that's taking revenge on all of us, because that's just dumb. Who knows the energy industry better than people who have worked their whole lives in the energy industry ? Does John Edwards know better ? Harry Reid ? Nancy Pelosi ? I don't think so.

I guess I must be sounding like those "forces of the status quo" that John Edwards was referring to last night, when he said "every time there is a force for change, the forces of the status quo show up to attack" (I hope I have that quote right. If not, it's a close enough paraphrase). Edwards was talking about Hillary as the "status quo" when he made that remark, and was bundling himself and Obama together as the "forces for change" (translation: neither Edwards nor Obama has any experience running anything ever. The 'change' thing is all they've got).

There aren't two americas. There's one america. All this dividing of people up along the lines of class, race, wealth, religion, or whatever isn't helpful. It isn't really our diversity that makes us strong. It's our unity. You know, one nation, under god, indivisible. That's where the strength comes from, not from pitting one against the other through the class warfare of John Edwards.

My last post was about how popular 'Change' is with presidential candidates and voters.

As long as it's not real, meaningful change.

Thus, the Iowa caucus winner on the Democrat side was Barack Obama, a candidate who utters the word 'Change' in about every third sentence, a candidate whose campaign slogan is 'Stand For Change'. Obama speaks of bridging the partisan divide, of bring unity to america, of restoring hope, and most of all, of implementing change.

For Obama's claim to a new kind of politics, it all sounds rather familiar, doesn't it ? Here are some past presidential campaign slogans:

George Bush Jr - A uniter, not a divider (hey, just like Obama)
Bill Clinton - Build a bridge to the 21st century (so Bill can get to the hotties in the 21st century)
Ronald Reagan - It's morning in america (change)
Herbert Hoover - A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage (talk about pandering)
Warren G. Harding - A return to normalcy (change)
Abraham Lincoln - Vote yourself a farm (I kid you not)
John Kerry - It's flip-flopping traitor time ! (or something like that)
Michael Dukakis - Don't I look like a big boy in this tank !?!?

Obama's a good speaker, and I detected some distinct Martin Luther King inflections in Obama's voice during his Iowa victory speech last night. MLK was a fabulous speaker with a fabulous message. Obama has the inspirational patter down, but I have major questions about his content; not the content of his character, but rather the content of his platform. After all the smoke is cleared away from Barack Obama, I see nothing but the same liberal prescriptions as all the other Democratic candidates are offering. I see the same liberal prescriptions that have been offered for decades. The only difference with Obama is that he isn't nearly as specific as Edwards and Hillary. Obama talks about taking america to a better place, but he doesn't tell us much about how he's going to get us there. Instead, he keeps talking about change and hope and unity, and hopes nobody notices the lack of substance. Yesterday, Iowa didn't notice. Associated Press surveys revealed that the biggest factor with Iowan voters was 'Change'. Only 20% cited 'experience' as a primary factor (Hillary's alleged strength), and another 20% cited the candidate who would stand up for people like them (Edwards' platform).

However he's doing it, Obama has 'shocked the world', at least until the New Hampshire primaries. He's generating lots of energy and buzz, but fame can be fleeting. John Kerry (2004) and Al Gore (2000) won the Iowa caucus and went on to win the Democratic nomination, but other Iowa winners didn't fare so well, like Tom Harkin (1992), and Dick Gephart (1988). My personal favorite Iowa caucus results were when 'Uncommitted' beat both Jimmy Carter (1976) and Edmund Muskie (1972). Too bad 'Uncommitted' didn't go on to become the president in 1976. Then america wouldn't have had to suffer through the Carter era.

On the Republican side, the winner was Mike Huckabee.

This guy is NOT going to be the Republican nominee.

Is he ?

Every four years, we hear our presidential candidates talk about the need for change. Most of them refer to themselves as candidates for change, even if they've spent a lifetime inside the Beltway. You rarely hear a candidate say 'I want to be the candidate for the status quo !'. Such a candidate wouldn't get many votes. The closest they get to that is to call themselves the candidate of experience. Sometimes, candidates want to take us back to the past, like Republican Reagan impersonators, or Democrats longing for the 90's. On the Democratic side, Obama, Edwards, and Hillary are all trying to be the 'change' candidate. Being viewed by america as the candidate who will bring change is almost always an attractive position in which to reside, because one thing americans can agree on, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, is that the status quo is messed up. That's certainly true now, as the President, Congress, Democrats, and Republicans all have low approval ratings.

With all these candidates who supposedly represent change running for office year after year, a logical question to ask is 'why don't things ever change ?'. The answer is - because none of these politicians really represents much of a change at all. When Democrats are elected, government gets bigger, more intrusive, and we go deeper in debt. On the other hand, when Republicans are elected…government gets bigger, more intrusive, and we go deeper in debt. The differences between the two parties are only in what areas are emphasized in the bigger, more intrusive, and ever more expensive government. It reminds me of the Ghostbusters movie, where Gozer asks the Ghostbusters to choose the method of their own destruction. Whichever method is chosen, destruction is the end result.

But this year, there is a candidate running for president who really does represent change, and he's right in one of the major political parties, not in one of the fringe third parties where the true reform candidates are usually found. His name is Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas (though he's really a Libertarian).

Democrats like Paul because he's against the Iraq war. Republicans like Paul because he's for limited constitutional government. Independents like him for one or both reasons. Libertarians like him because he's one of them. Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988. The general voting public didn't notice him back then. I doubt if one american in a hundred could name the last Libertarian candidate for president (it was Michael Badnarik, also from Texas), much less the one from 1988. People are noticing Ron Paul now, especially on the internet, and his campaign is raising lots of money. The problem is, nobody is voting for him, at least according to the polls. His poll numbers are between 3-6%, and Fox News intends to leave Ron Paul out of their upcoming debates, because his poll numbers are too low (Fox is also leaving out Duncan Hunter). So, I'm wondering, do we really want things to change, or do we just pay lip service to the notion, as we keep voting for the status quo over and over ? They say you get the government you deserve. Maybe we do.

On the Change-O-Meter, Ron Paul is off the scale compared to the rest of the pols running for president (I'm exclusing Dennis Kucinich on purpose). Here are Ron Paul's stances on issues:

On foreign policy - Not only would Ron Paul immediately pull all the soldiers out of Iraq. He'd pull them all out of Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and anywhere that isn't part of the United States as well. Paul's foreign policy position is non-interventionist, unless the USA is directly threatened. No more United States of America as world policeman. Even though I disagree with this position of Paul's, it should be enormously attractive to many US citizens, who don't like that we mess about in foreign countries and wish we'd just take care of our own here at home.

On debt and taxes - Paul would dramatically slash the size of government, give people back their tax dollars, and eliminate the Federal Reserve (watch out Ron. The last two who tried to abolish the Federal Reserve were John F Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. Look what happened to them). One thing Paul points out in this area is that if we cut the size of the federal government in half, it would be roughly the size it was just ten short years ago. Think about that for a minute. It's pretty shocking that the size of the government doubled in just over ten years. It isn't just some anomaly under Bush either. It's been happening all along, and expect it to continue and get worse with the future Social Security/Medicare unfunded liabilities.

On illegal immigration - Secure borders immediately. No amnesty. No welfare for illegals. No rewards for breaking the laws of the USA. End birthright citizenship for illegals.

On free trade and world government bodies - Ron Paul says, "So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites".

On education - Ron Paul says, "The federal government does not own our children. Yet we act as if it does by letting it decide when, how, and what our children will learn. We have turned their futures over to lobbyists and bureaucrats…I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources. To help parents with the costs of schooling, I have introduced H.R. 1056, the Family Education Freedom Act, in Congress. This bill would allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools".

On health care - Ron Paul says, "The federal government decided long ago that it knew how to manage your health care better than you and replaced personal responsibility and accountability with a system that puts corporate interests first. Our free market health care system that was once the envy of the world became a federally-managed disaster. It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support:
- Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
- Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
- Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
- Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
- Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.

I can go on and on with this stuff, but I don't want this to get too long. Check out Ron Paul's website at the link above. Ron Paul's positions are based on the US Constitutition. Kind of ironic that they should be so far out of the mainstream in several areas then, isn't it ?

If you really want change, this is the guy.