Here's hoping we survive Obama

When Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992, I could see nothing to cheer about. A friend calmly assured me that "The Republic will survive." He was right, but only because enough Americans concluded that Clinton must be opposed. We now face the same challenge with the ascension (if that is the right word) of Barack Obama as the 44^th person to hold the nation’s highest office. In plain words, what made the Clinton Administration endurable was the election of a Republican Congress in 1994, which gave substance to vague talk of fiscal responsibility and even gave us the greatest reform of the welfare system in our history.

Naturally enough, the media are full of sophomoric enthusiasm for the new president, but this is hardly surprising, given the fact that 90 percent of the national media are Democrats. Under the circumstances, Republican criticism is muted, one hopes only until the first Obama policy proposals are put forward in Congress or implemented by executive order.

For make no mistake, this administration will constitute a comprehensive assault on the "flawed" regime which Obama wishes to "transform" into the perfect polity wherein, as he said in front of the Lincoln Memorial Sunday, "anything is possible." The idea that there are limits to what can be accomplished by political action has never occurred to the man raised in the soiled world of Chicago politics.

Our constitutional republic will be subjected to what a close friend has called "the death of a thousand cuts." Because Obama’s liberalism is not endorsed by a majority of Americans, because many voted for him because they were so angry at George Bush, and because his cabinet choices are reassuringly "moderate," i.e., Clinton Administration retreads, public attention is deflected from the seemingly vacuous but actually pernicious utopian rhetoric of the political campaign.

Obama knows how to make the right music that appeals to the hopes of his fellow citizens, but only those who can read music, as it were, can know with precision what the melody is. Lots of rock ‘n roll, country and soul music was played in the joyful celebrations that marked the Inauguration, but perhaps the real strain is Wagnerian tragic opera.

It is hardly a secret that Obama is the most vociferously pro-abortion president ever. For those who think Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics and Mormons–and anyone else who takes seriously the principle that all men are created equal–can safely be ignored as fringe elements, it is almost rude to point out that they understand that our rights are in peril.

More unborn babies are going to die each year during the next four, perhaps eight, than in the history of the country. Obama has pledged to sign a vile piece of legislation dishonestly labeled the "Freedom of Choice Act," which would effectively remove every federal and state limit on the judicially imposed "right" to kill unborn babies.

That is not all. Obama will reverse Ronald Reagan’s policy which forbids funding for abortion overseas, and he will overturn George Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cell "research" that entails the destruction of human embryos. As Abraham Lincoln said about slavery, we must daily "crucify our feelings" about baby killing because it is permitted by law and even hallowed by an alleged constitutional interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The greatest aspect of the current euphoria over Obama arises from his being the first American of any degree of African descent to be elected President. Many words have been written about how this will give peace to our nation in that no legal or other barriers prevented it. All of that is true as far as it goes, but there is no assurance whatever that racial peace will occur.

The Democratic Party has for more than 40 years been the advocate of reverse discrimination, known variously as "affirmative action," "diversity in hiring," remediation of past wrongs, and so on. Even if Obama wanted to end the "temporary" policy purported to be necessary to overcome many years of racial injustice, Congressional Democrats would not hear of it. There are too many people, especially well-connected people, who benefit from the liberal racial plantation for there to be any motivation to close it down.

Our commerce, so damaged by government manipulation of credit and currency, will hardly recover from Obama’s policies of even greater doses of interventionism that brought on the sickness in the first place. There is insufficient space here to discuss the perilous times ahead in the international arena, but for now "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Is this a movie?

Barack Obama said this week that this inauguration is not about him.  He's right.  Rather, it's about another huge influx of cash into our political system by donors, foreign and domestic, that have a clear vision for this country.  It's not about him, but he happened to have some of the qualities such as charisma and the gift of eloquence that enticed and seduced the money machines and high-powered  liberals enough to make them want to knight him as The One.  As they say, always follow the money.  Once Barack Obama's handlers decided he should go back on his word (That used to be a sacred contract in this country--guys like Abe Lincoln really bought into it.) on campaign financing, Mr. Obama was able to attract $740.6 million to his campaign.  In keeping his word, John McCain and the incredibly weak, inept campaign system behind him, had only $81.4 million to spend.  Follow the money.  It was never going to be much of a contest. 

Remember what the Democrats did with some of that $740.6 million?  They spent it on flash and pizazz and propaganda.  "Yes We Can" still resonates throughout the country.  In a CBS commercial, CBS is asking if they can put out a prime time line-up that you'll want to watch.  They answer for you with, "Yes We Can".  Pepsi is using the mantra to boost sales and the beat, along with the Pepsi Generation, goes on.  If the ongoing drum beat is getting on your nerves, the mute button works well.  What we can't unfortunately tune out is rhetoric of the RINO's such as Lindsey Graham sitting at the right hand of The One, saying he thinks all the Cabinet picks are going to be just fine and other pathetic ramblings.  Sen. Graham and his cohorts in the Senate are useful idiots in this Hollywood production we are calling an Inauguration and new administration.  They aren't just joining the "Yes We Can" chant, they've taken it to the next level with "Yes We Must"!

Speaking of Hollywood, this entire scenario may one day make a great movie.  Only in our dreams would we see situations like Mrs. Clinton sitting in confirmation hearings and telling the country that her husband is going to continue to accept funding for his projects, no matter the source, no matter the possible conflict of interest.  In that steely Hillary tone,  you'll do what I say.  End of subject.    Only in a movie would they trot out Sandy Berger to talk about how great things are going to be.  He is the only person likely to have ever stolen and destroyed documents from the National Archives and isn't sitting in a prison in Canon City.  He's another cast member that we should love and overlook his pesky little bad habits.  

Only in a movie would the American taxpayer be sold a bill of goods that if we don't pony up and bail out Wall Street, the world will end.  We would then go on to see those same companies use some of our money to help make Inauguration '09 a wonderful, extravagant success, and nary a CEO ever hauled up before a Congressional hearing panel to answer for their misconduct.  Only in a movie would the media buy into the hype to such a degree that cable stations are having celebratory countdowns this weekend much like they have on New Year's Eve.  It could not be believed except in a movie that labor unions that would not budge on any compromise in order to 'save' the auto industry, did in fact, have millions just months earlier to send to Mr. Obama's campaign.  

It would have to be a comedy plot for the First Couple's favorite cheesecake, Eli's in Chicago,  to spend 7 days and use 200 employees to bake and deliver a 1000 pound cake for the Inauguration when the same couple campaigned on redistribution of wealth and everybody having to have 'skin in the game'---what about the poor and starving only a few blocks away in D.C.?  Are they getting their fair share of cheesecake?  Crooks and cronies and people that forget to pay their taxes will occupy the highest seats of power in the land.  Watergate is starting to look like a segment on Sesame Street.  Only in a movie would the majority vote be persuaded by sit com and late night TV humor.  It's a movie plot, all right.  A real blockbuster.

The campaign that had unlimited resources for TV ads and spectacular productions (remember the convention in Denver?) now has obvious continued support.  Labor unions are paying big money to put out TV ads to push the card-check system.  We see actors and actresses that appear to represent the hardest working among us, imploring us with their soulful eyes to please get on board with the new administration and allow card-check to advance upon us in the quiet of night.  We aren't supposed to read or contemplate the countless written reports and even Congressional testimony about employees being harassed and badgered at work by union 'persuaders'.  Just like nationalized healthcare will be the savior for American industry, card-check is the icing on the cake.  Just sit there in front of your TV and be mezmerized and seduced by these commercials.  Hollywood is entrenched once again in the propagandizing of many and driving the political policy of a country that has more interest in Miley, Angelina and Britney than it has in addressing tough challenges and staying on course.

What are you going to do on Tuesday?  I know that I am not going to glue myself to the 24 hour coverage of the Inauguration.  I won't be able to stand the sight of Oprah and Hollywood trying to pretend for a day that they are true blue Americans in the spirit of Abe Lincoln and the Founding Fathers.  Every single Hollywood liberal that's vocal has trashed their country up one side and down the other, both here and abroad.  Kinda like only going to church on Christmas and Easter.  We aren't supposed to judge but you have to wonder where the commitment and sincerity really are.  The Democrats will party heartily, laughing at the Right all the way till morning.  I will fly my American flag on Tuesday, not because I celebrate the excess and hype, but in memory of what once was, and what may be again if our fellow citizens ever tire of the double standards and start thinking again with some real discernment. 

I wish the Obama's safety and happiness and I certainly hope their children are protected from the glitter of the media and have reasonably normal childhoods in the White House.  The country is eager to focus now on style and fashion, anything cool and hip and very much outside the norm of what we typically see in the White House.  We've got ourselves a really cool president to lead us at a time when we may want to put aside terrorism and financial threats to our country.  If as the song says, "It's hip to be square," then I've found my niche for the next four years. 

I won't watch all the glamour and fuss that is being made now and will endure through at least Wednesday.  I'll be one of the square ones, quietly writing to the GOP Congressmen in Washington that really are doing great work.  They deserve our encouragement.  I'll write searing letters to the RINO's in the Senate that need to find other work. 

While on the subject of movies, since there's so much talk about President Lincoln these days, I recommend you watch the old movie, "Shenandoah" starring Jimmy Stewart, who played a farmer named Anderson.  We surely could use some Mr. Anderson's right about now, but in real life, not in a movie.

Stimulate with tax cuts, not giveaways

The United States of America is deep in recession. Our new President, Barack Obama, intends to spend $800 billion or more on a “fiscal stimulus package” intended to jumpstart the economy. As part of this package, Obama talks of injecting $300 billion in government funds into the economy, direct to consumers in the form of tax rebates, in a belief that by sending taxpayers a check, it will increase consumer spending and stimulate aggregate demand, thus spurring a recovery. Yet a review of the effectiveness of such policies reveals the folly of tax rebates as fiscal stimulus. According to economist Martin Feldstein, CEO of the National Bureau of Economic Research, when tax rebates went out as economic stimulus last spring, only around 16% of the checks were actually spent, with nearly five times that amount going into savings. Most of the rebates were used to pay off loans, not to buy new products and services, and the stimulus package utterly failed to preclude the recession.

Furthermore, by the time the checks would be in the mail, the economy will likely be improving, as happened in the 1970s. If implemented now, the benefits of a stimulus package based in tax rebates—a small burst in increased consumer demand—are minimal at best and will not outweigh the substantial costs.

While the value of the dollar has lately gained in strength, it still has the potential to continue its recent decline. As its value goes down, creditor concerns over their holdings of U.S. bonds will rise, resulting in the likely increase in interest as creditors rethink their holdings. By spending $300 billion on a stimulus package that will likely have minimal effect, the U.S. government is essentially assuming even more debt, which has already increased 86% nominally in the last eight years, at greater national risk.

We must therefore institute wide-ranging, permanent, pro-growth tax cuts, starting with making the Bush tax cuts permanent and expanding them. Beginning in 2010, the Bush rate reductions on income, capital gains and the estate tax will start to dissipate. With the dire need for capital injections into the market, allowing the 15% capital gains rate to return to the 20% rate would discourage investment in the economy. Instead, the capital gains tax should be cut in half to 7.5% so as to incentivize greater investment.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has proposed that the 25% income tax rate be reduced to 15%, thereby “establish[ing] a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 90% of workers.” Such targeted tax cuts would give the economy the boost it needs to create jobs and increase consumer demand and investment. We must then cut back the corporate tax rate from 35%, the second-highest in the world, to 25%, the average in Europe. This would expand incentives for businesses to create jobs in America and lessen the enticement to outsource.

If the Bush tax cuts expire, taxpayers will reduce spending before the expirations take effect, stunting the benefits of the rebates further. Alternatively, the knowledge that tax rates will be cut and individuals will be permitted to keep more of their income will give a sense of comfort to the beneficiaries. By cutting marginal tax rates now, the short-term effect will be a rise in consumer confidence, resulting in a boost in consumer spending.

The long-term relief that came in the form of broad-based tax cuts in 2003 resulted in the largest single-quarter GDP growth in 20 years, 7.2%, and the creation of 8 million new jobs through 2007. The aforementioned cuts would especially aid America economically in the long term, opening the door to greater and more sustained long-run economic growth as we come out of the recession.

History shows that the net benefit of tax rebate stimulus packages is minimal, and he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it. A fiscal stimulus of tax rate cuts, not tax rebates, would stimulate an economic recovery by putting more money in people’s pockets long-term and increasing demand in the short-term.

Jimmy Sengenberger is a political science student at Regis University in Denver, a 2008 honors graduate of nearby Grandview High School, a national organizer for the Liberty Day movement, online radio host, and a columnist for the Villager suburban weekly. He is also College Liaison for BackboneAmerica.net, working through the Backbone Americans group on Facebook.</em

BHO steers US toward Eurosocialism

As Barack Obama is about to be inaugurated as America’s 44th President, a huge question mark hangs over the future of American society and, by extension, over the future of freedom in the world: Will a majority of the American people turn their backs on individual responsibility, free enterprise and the Constitution and follow in Europe’s Socialistic footsteps, or will they remain true to America’s exceptional heritage and destiny? As they make their fateful decision amid talk of Big Government entitlements, bail-outs and deficit spending, I would strongly urge them to ponder the penetrating analysis which Barry Goldwater made of the effects of the Welfare state on individual freedom in The Conscience of A Conservative almost fifty years ago:

“The currently favored instrument of collectivization is the Welfare state. The collectivists have not abandoned their ultimate goal – to subordinate the individual to the State – but their strategy has changed. They have learned that Socialism can be achieved through Welfarism quite as well as Nationalization.

They understand that private property can be confiscated as effectively by taxation as by expropriating it. They understand that the individual can be put at the mercy of the State – not only by making the State his employer - but by divesting him of the means to provide for his personal needs and by giving the State the responsibility of caring for those needs from cradle to grave.

Moreover, they have discovered – and here is the critical point – that Welfarism is much more compatible with the political processes of a democratic society. Nationalization ran into popular opposition, but the collectivists feel sure the Welfare State can be erected by the simple expedient of “free” hospitalization, “free” retirement pay and so on… (…)

I do not welcome this shift of strategy. Socialism-through-Welfarism poses a far greater danger to freedom than Socialism-through-Nationalization precisely because it is more difficult to combat. The evils of Nationalization are self-evident and immediate. Those of Welfarism are veiled and tend to be postponed. (…) The effect of Welfarism on freedom will be felt later on – after its beneficiaries have become its victims, after dependence on government has turned into bondage and it is too late to unlock the jail.”

Judging by Goldwater’s 1960 impeccably conservative standards, Big Government in a country like France has spread so much wealth around to build a Welfare state of its own that French society often feels like a gulag.

As Barack Obama’s term as President of the United States is about to start, calls for philosophical and political restraint within the GOP sound irresponsible, if not cowardly. Due respect for the democratic process should not be mistaken for acquiescing in America’s destruction as an exceptionally freedom-loving country.

As in 1964, 1980, 1984 and 1994, it is time for Conservatives to stand up and be counted.

Note: “Paoli” is the pen name, er, nom de plume, of our French correspondent. Monsieur is a close student of European and US politics, a onetime exchange student in Colorado and a well-wisher to us Americans. He informs us the original Pasquale Paoli, 1725-1807, was the George Washington of Corsica.

GOP: Reclaim the spirit of Lincoln

Lincoln inevitably came to mind when I toured the Civil War coin exhibit currently on display at the American Numismatic Museum in Colorado Springs. My grandson asked me to take him to see the exhibit which he'd already seen  a few times and will likely see several more times before the exhibit moves on in October.  The museum is a hidden gem, and the Civil War displays are well worth your time.  My grandson is an avid coin collector, history buff and is developing a very keen interest in our presidents, at the tender age of 6. The Civil War era holds so much history beyond the typical textbook renditions.  As we hear alot about Mr. Obama hoping to fashion his presidential career after that of Abraham Lincoln, I've spent time delving into some of the oft-missed historical content of Lincoln's presidency and politics of the day.  As a quilter, I'm intrigued with the accounts of the Underground Railroad quilts, love letter quilts women made to send with a loved one going off to war, and the message quilts that were hung on clotheslines to assist soldiers in avoiding nearby enemy encampments, or depicting a route they could take if wanting to defect. It is incredible to ponder what it must have been like for the women that stayed behind, with some having sons fighting against each other.  The conflict and mental anguish they must have suffered is beyond my comprehension.  There are amazing stories also of women that joined the soldiers in the combat fields, served as surgeons, helped with burials, and other sobering duties.  Many women believed so strongly one way or another on the slavery issue that they disguised their femininity and enlisted under a man's name.  They fought and died side by side with men.  The issue of slavery and civil rights in general caused great divide and aroused fervent passion and desire to stand up for what one believed.  There were few 'moderates' in terms of support for or against Abraham Lincoln.   People were outspoken with respect to how they viewed their president.  Families were often divided in opinion and friendships were severed.  The press frequently did it's best to undermine Lincoln and create dissent.  Sound familiar?

The Obama's visited the Lincoln Memorial over the weekend and it's reported Mr. Obama will be sworn in with his hand on the same Bible that Lincoln used, and will dine on some of Lincoln's favorite foods for his Inaugural luncheon.  While neither Lincoln nor Obama were born in Illinois, it's reasonable to expect certain similarities between the two, both coming to the White House from the state of Illinois .  {Of note, Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois, yet little recognition  is made in that regard.}  Some are suggesting Mr. Obama may be going a bit too far in trying to mimic President Lincoln.   No matter, the coming Inauguration will be, as always, a monumental point in America's history.  Our system allows for a peaceful transfer of government with as much pomp and circumstance and celebration as the incoming President chooses to enjoy.  The true connection between Mr. Obama and Mr. Lincoln is yet to be revealed in terms of how the country will be governed.

As we look at some historical context, let's clarify that Lincoln was a Republican.  I spoke with a woman during the campaign that said she was voting for Obama because he was going to be the next Abe Lincoln.  I kindly suggested that might be difficult if Obama follows a partisan agenda.  She looked confused, so I told her Lincoln was a Republican.  She was immediately angry and disputed it.  She had believed her entire life that Lincoln was a Democrat.  Afterall, he was against slavery and he wanted equal rights for all people.  It was hard for her to swallow the idea that 'all men are created equal' and civil rights, personal freedoms, along with small government have been foundations of the Republican platform since inception.   Democrats have done a good job of convincing the electorate that it is their party that is compassionate and protective of rights.  I wonder as Lincoln's name continues to be invoked during the coming presidency, how many people will learn for the first time of his political party!

During the Inauguration festivities we will hear repeatedly about the phenomenon of our country electing the first black president.  While it is rarely stated that Mr. Obama is actually bi-racial, the country as a whole should be proud of this  accomplishment.  A particular landmark that is significant to many has been achieved.   Yet, there has been no support from the Left for other African Americans that happen to also be Republicans.  When I think of Ken Blackwell, Rod Paige, Thomas Sowell, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, J.C. Watts, Lynn Swann and Condi Rice of our modern era, I believe any of these individuals may well possess the qualities, experience and background requisite to serve our country as President or any high office in government.  They are Americans of great character and integrity. The media and Democrats as a whole have little to no respect for these individuals, but still claim to be the party of progression and fairness and equality for all.   

Just as many may not know Abe Lincoln was a Republican President, some may also not realize that the great civil rights activist, Martin Luther King, Jr., was a Republican.  His niece, Dr. Alveda King, also a Republican, is an accomplished author, college professor and believes the most significant civil rights issue of our time is school choice.  She is also adamantly pro-choice.  While the election of Mr. Obama is a historical benchmark, the clear division in our country that follows party lines veils the deserved acknowledgement of other black Americans that have equally remarkable personal stories,  professional accomplishments and contributions to their country.  As Mr. Obama settles into the Oval Office, hoping to fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, he must recognize that the great divide in thinking and opinion today is not necessarily between races, but rather between political parties.  It is partisan politics that has diminished our standing in the world and divided families and friends.   It is the vitriolic and caustic rhetoric of the Left, supported by the MSM, that inflames dissent and inspires anger.  To be fair, there are some extremes also on the Right, however, they don't get nearly as much media coverage, and often when they do, they are quoted out of context within 30 second sound bytes.

The heroics of Harriet Tubman during the Civil War are very inspiring.  The restraints of space here don't allow an adequate tribute to her contribution to civil rights and humanity in general.   History also recounts the difficult work of Sojourner Truth, who also fought hard in the Abolition, and later stood up for women's rights.  Both black women staunchly supported their Republican president and praised his work in supporting freedom for slaves.   In the post-war late 1860's black men were granted the right to vote.  Women--black or white--were not yet allowed to vote, but many Republican women became activists.  Black women are credited for recruiting many Republican voters in the South during this time.  They supported their fathers, husbands and sons as they started to run for office, make speeches on the issues  and other political involvement.  Black women organized political rallies, marches and parades to support Republican candidates, and many became very active in making speeches themselves and worked to get out the vote.  This effort to support Republican causes did not go forth without conflict and threat to personal safety.  In South Carolina, Democrats still angry over the freeing of slaves organized raids to terrorize blacks that were so vocal in support of the Republican Party and it's platforms. 

Today, it is little reported and seldom mentioned that it was the Republican Party, lead by Abraham Lincoln, that stood for free speech, abolition of slavery and women's suffrage.   At the time the Republican Party was founded, the country was divided by political discord among Democrats and a handful of other parties, such as the Free Soil Party, the Whig Party of the South and their spin-off, the the Conscious Whigs of the North that were anti-slavery.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act provided for states and territories to determine for themselves whether or not slavery was legal.  President Lincoln saw the great divide all these radical factions were causing.  He won the presidency campaigning on determined action and strong resolve to end slavery and bring the country together.

As Republicans, let's stand up for our conservatism.  Let's not allow the Beltway Boys, Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan and other moderate-to-left voices carry our message.  While they have every right to speak and have opinion, they do not speak for us on many issues.  Here in Colorado, don't let our GOP leadership whither away until the next election draws near.  Get involved, ask why you aren't receiving weekly emails with updates about Party activity in your county and our state.  If you don't get the desired response, make noise at the state level and ask why.  Help identify bright, energized, articulate, persuasive, charismatic youthful conservatives and then get behind efforts to set them up for speaking engagements at our colleges, universities and civic organizations.  Find out what is being taught to kids in your school district in terms of accuracy in civics and government.  We need to make sure people around us know who the Republican Party is, what we've done, what we stand for and where we intend to lead.  We aren't just the minority party, we also have an uphill battle to get any press coverage or make any opposition known.  A great effort continues to silence questions and differing points of view.  In the spirit of our founding fathers, we have a responsibility to defend our right of free speech.  As they say in the football coaching industry, "Next year starts today." We won't win back anything in '10 or '12 unless there is activism and movement happening today.

Perhaps Democrat leadership will help us out.  As government grows larger and becomes more intrusive, our version of hope can be that our country takes a hard look and decides it wants some of the freedoms back, and change of a different sort will be desired during the next election cycles.  

Bold leadership worked for Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan in bringing about real change.  It's past time for Republicans to do some history homework and revisit what wins elections and brings people together.  Reclaim Lincoln's goal to "lift the artificial weights from all shoulders, and clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all."  Thomas Jefferson had the same philosophy in mind.  Reagan perfected it.  Freedom of expression, free markets and enterprise, freedom to vote, freedom to practice religion, and opportunity limited only by an individual's personal desire to succeed are the foundations of the Republican Party.   As the spirit of Abe Lincoln prevails during next week's Inauguration, I'm inclined to believe he'd have stern words today for his party:  "Return to your party's values and core principles, and do not become weary in that pursuit."