This appeal is one made to conservative minds, but also in part to moderate minds and, in a sense, the liberal brothers of political thought. The political battles fought are numerous: health care, the environment, diplomatic policy, etc. These are where our future is determined.

By the will of the free American people history will be made, either for or against the good of our selves and those after us. Former President Ronald Reagan said, “There are no great limits to growth because there are no limits of human intelligence, imagination, wonder.” This concept is a truth we must acknowledge in order to better realize our potential.

We have become encumbered this past year by the folly of socialist policies. The administration desires to disprove human history by establishing in this nation a socializing government. But doing so will only cripple a potent world power. Complying with the folly of current proposals and plans can only further the injustice they inevitably cause.

Some in the United States are acting under the mistaken ideal that people are beholden to the government for sustaining life and liberty. This is foolish. When the citizens of a nation surrender their freedom into the hands of a minority of intellectuals, that nation ceases to be recognized as free.

We Americans must not surrender the God-given right of freedom for the bureaucratic lie of security. We must be proud of the liberties allotted this country, specifically that of each person’s independence, and must not be acquiesce to the lures of the skeletal welfare state.

One of the repeated remarks made about Republicans is they lack the human touch; that in the realm of humanitarian needs, they are out of sync. Some assert supporting tax breaks for the wealthy severely denies the poor. This, though, subverts the individuals own natural need for ingenuity, and is a superficial generalization of conservative economic philosophies. I wonder, also, if the same who say such agree that trillions in debt, enormous tax hikes and irresponsible diplomacy are not greater humanitarian affronts?

The questions we must ask are whether we are content with peace without victory under the weight of socializing foes, whether we will surrender freedom in the name of accommodation. I quote Reagan again: “Above all we must realize that no arsenal of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.” It requires courage to again say the United States’ will is indomitable, its independence unassailable. Renewed traits imbibed with pride for country and love for liberty are required of this generation of freedom loving people. Either we forge these ourselves, or we forfeit the dream, the ideal, the “Last, best hope of mankind.”

The attack at Fort Hood has made apparent some serious revelations about where our leadership is at the moment.

In previous years you might have expected to hear commanders, especially the president, offer condolences and more importantly, a plan or promise to execute justice on those responsible. But this is not what we received from them in the days following that massacre.

Instead, the message we hear is we should be patient, and above all, must not blame anyone. We must especially not blame the religious beliefs of Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim.

The natural disclaimer is that certainly the actions he took are not those of the majority of those in the Islamic faith. But as for extremists who desire perverse ends of justice like Hasan, the case is entirely different. Several news releases have turned doubt and suspicion into anger and apprehension.

ABC news reported the CIA and other government agencies had been aware prior to the attack of Hasan’s efforts to contact known terrorists. He is confirmed to have maintained contact with a radical Imam, who is known for defamatory speech against “non-believing” Americans. This mosque leader, already fled to Yemen, is also connected with two 9/11 hijackers.

Our president’s response to these connections and Hasan’s actions is relatively nonchalant. He offered a quick word Thursday, after a speech he was already scheduled to give. The White House had to scramble quickly so he could offer something weightier than, “It’s bad, but don’t get angry.”

This type of response is disconcerting from our commander in chief. Of all attacks, one on our soldiers on our own ground by one of our own ought to cause a great deal of concern and desire for action. Instead he is more enveloped with passing health care in Congress than dealing with dissension among the ranks of troops.

His politically correct mindset is the same that seemingly allowed Hasan to advance in the ranks, despite repeatedly proffering questionable quotes. The most deleterious of those is Hasan’s persistent repetition of owing allegiance first to his faith, and then to the United States. Especially for an Army psychologist, this should have thrown red flags.

Instead, the politically correct philosophies drowning this nation allowed for Hasan to advance and to attain a position from which to strike at the nation he not only viewed as secondary, but as pernicious. Nothing but utter disdain for the very force he was a part of could have caused him to murder so many of the soldiers at Fort Hood.

It is clear he was in a well state of mind, having prepared in the weeks prior by giving away his belongings, including copies of the Quran. It is clear he despised the army that he was a part of, by his repeated own sayings. It is clear that Hasan is a terrorist who worked to undermine this country in a most serious way, and that he is deserving of the punishment his actions demand.

Americans must realize the importance of these words and events, and the impact they will have for the future.

Among the many volatile threads common in the current administration, there is one that is especially troubling. That is the repetition of the attacks our president and his media representatives have repeatedly made against any voice that dares counter his own.

We saw this when they set up a White House Web site for citizens to report any suspicious or contrary information about health insurance during the summer. We saw it when they unleashed havoc on Fox News for daring to criticize President Barack Obama. And we saw it when the administration decided to let loose another attack. This time it battled Edmunds.com over its criticism of the cash for clunkers program.

To sum up the squabble quickly, Edmunds claims the administration failed to deliver the facts about each “clunker" (which cost taxpayers $24,000 per car). Though it boosted third-quarter sales, the fourth quarter, which is traditionally the worst season for car dealerships, will report abysmal numbers at best.

This administration reports, in contrast, the excitement their inventive vehicle program drew in purchases that previously would not have happened. What they fail to say is this is highly unlikely for those who did not qualify, which is a greater percentage than one would initially think and that during the CFC program, prices on vehicles actually rose.

This results, then, in another disappointment predicated on the same failed logic of government overspending and overreaching its bounds. While the GDP has risen in the third quarter by 3.5 percent, most analysts propose the fourth will take a greater hit, largely because the recent upward trend is propped up by used car sale numbers.

Reasonable minds must then inquire on what rational basis our president is making these attacks. Or, if it is not him, then how does he not have control of his own White House? I would assert he does have control of the White House releases and each of these are meditated attempts at undermining opposition to his philosophical and political aspirations.

Such a defamation is troubling because it is not traditional practice for a U.S. president to be so abusive in his relations with media. It was especially not the practice of this administration’s favorite punching bag, former President George W. Bush.
These actions should incline American citizens to have reluctant feelings about our president. Not only are the attacks contrary to typical practice, they are blatantly opposite every promise for non-divisive and non-sectionalized politics under the Obama White House. If the solution to party politics is wiping out the opposition, then the United States had better wake up to the reality of our leader.

There ought to be no greater worry than too much power accumulated in the wrong hands at the moment. And I can without reservation say there is too much control being freely offered our president.

Obama is running out of time to make up for his being derelict in promises and in service.

He received raucous applause when, in every speech, he spoke of a utopian situation in which Americans may practice and exercise freely their rights. But no action taken since he was elected provides for this. In fact, many of his actions have been contrary to the fundamental rights provided in our Constitution. The First Amendment states American citizens have liberty in the areas of the free exercise of religion, of speech, of the press, of assembly and to redress grievances before government. This is a statement that ought to take primacy in the lives of our leaders.

When Patrick Henry thought the Constitution was an abridgement of American freedom he said, “I smell a rat,” and refused to attend the convention. Now that we apparently are casting aside this founding document, the rat has taken on a new form.
A multiplicity of actions taken by our president has caused a stench of divisive, partisan politics that should not be tolerated. He slammed the Cambridge officer for right action in the line of duty, he upholds unnecessary fear over a swine flu “epidemic” and he abuses presidential power by staging photo-ops with the fallen from the military.

Obama slammed his predecessor for a self-righteous and elitist attitude, for failing to listen to the opposition. So far, the only one guilty of those things is himself. Each of these actions in summary make for one obscene abuse of executive authority.

We should not pardon such foolishness for long because doing so will be contrary to the history he apparently loves to despise.

'President's peace prize a farce'


President Barack Obama is the recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, as I’m sure many are aware. In other news, the pope also won the lottery, Michael Moore is the new GOP head and the Boston Red Sox reportedly offered Alex Rodriguez a multi-million dollar deal.

OK, so the last few are satirical mimicry of the former, but one must admit it is a rather unfortunate misappropriation of praise, especially considering the other candidates who were far more worthy than our president to attain that prize. When you compare not only those who have won in the past, but also those over whom our president was selected, it is much more a European farce than laudable achievement.

He is not the first president to win this award. In 1906, Theodore Roosevelt was granted the prize in recognition of his having mediated the end of the Russo-Japanese war. In 2002, Jimmy Carter won the award for diplomatic efforts and his decades of influence on “international conflicts and social development.” In 2007, it was former Vice President Al Gore who was praised for disseminating knowledge to American people about the importance of global warming (or was it climate change, or global cooling ... maybe all three).

It is not an alien idea for a United States president to win the prize. What is foreign to the award is that someone should win it without a significant mention on his resume.

Jean Henry Dunant won in 1901 for his founding of the Red Cross. George Marshall won in 1953 in recognition of his plan that rebuilt Europe after World War II. Martin Luther King, Jr. won in 1964, celebrating his willingness to speak anywhere as a proponent of human liberties, and having traveled millions of miles to do so. Mother Teresa won in 1979, recognizing her humanitarian efforts. Elie Weisel, an acclaimed writer and Holocaust survivor won in 1986.

Each of these people made significant contributions to humanity through their actions, is it too much to expect this years winner to have done the same? Perhaps the remaining options were sparse in humane contributions? I will let you decide; here are several:

Denis Mukwege, a doctor from Congo who has spent the past 12 years aiding rape victims in his country. He has, during that time period, treated 21,000 abused women. In a nation where 70 percent of women in each province are raped every year, certainly that is a considerable cause.

Sima Simar was the first woman to graduate with a degree in medicine from the university in Kabul. While such an occupation had previously been impossible, Simar has reached the status of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, and also as United Nations representative of human rights in Sudan. She started working in 1984, after her husband had been kidnapped by the then Communist regime. Three years later Simar had endeavored successfully with 10 clinics, four hospitals and schools to hold 17,000.

Ghazi Bin Muhammed is an Islamic scholar who has worked continually for peace between Islam and other faiths. He has consistently attempted to bring Islamist philosophers together to consider the similarities between the East and West. “Without peace and justice between these two religious communities,” he said, “there can be no meaningful peace in the world.”

Wei Jingsheng is also known as “the father of Chinese democracy.” While first a member of the Red Army and conscientious communist, Jingsheng amended his path and chose to take part in the “Democracy Wall” movement in 1978, and it earned him 17 years in jail.

From prison he wrote letters on toilet paper for his supporters and spread the Democratic movement in China through published writings. He was released and came to the United States, where he published further works detailing his nation’s struggle for democracy. Jingsheng, back in China, has been imprisoned for “exposing government abuses,” at the expense of his movement.

There are many such people, each of whom dedicated their lives to a worthy cause, worked substantially to achieve it, and have shown the results of their labor with tangible consequence.

The Nobel committee decided, however, to spite each of those people and instead recognize a rookie president. It’s like handing a redshirt freshman football player the Heisman before the season is even over. While they superficially seek to amend perceived wrongs and chasms between the United States and Europe, the five-person Nobel squad has instead re-engaged that rift.

-Excited about golfing this weekend
-Ready for some more free food



'Iranian problem is going nuclear'




Our president declared during the weekend after Chicago lost the opportunity to host the Olympics, “One of the most valuable things about sports is that you can play a great game and still lose.”

It’s refreshing to hear him be straightforward for once. This statement also correlates with most of his socialist speak which seems more backward than anything else. Evidence also that perhaps our president is actually a Cubs fan.

But the subject of this column is the nature of the upcoming G-6 discussions that are going to be held between six of the worlds leading powers and Iran, a nation that is facing increased scrutiny upon greater realization of its nuclear capabilities. There is sound reasoning for not engaging in unconditional dialogue with the heads of Iranian government. It would be unhealthy to believe otherwise.

First, Iran has repeatedly shown no measure of caution in its nuclear weapons program, especially of late. The nation has boasted of the thousands of weapon-ready centrifuges that are necessary for the arming process. Are we deluded enough to think they will not use them?

Second, Iran is a severely unstable nation led by a severely unstable president. Whether you believe him to have actual power, it is undeniable that the forces behind his authority condone his largely outrageous rhetoric. President Ahmadinejad dictates with hardly a scruple to mention.

Thirdly, it is likely Iran is armed already with some sort of nuclear weapon, or is very close to it. Should we engage in futile talks with such a nation?

An interesting thing to note is that Russia, supposedly a nation we would use to leverage influence onto Iran, is the very nation responsible for supplying the Iranian government with nuclear technology. That has been well documented going back several years. What rationale is being used to enforce the idea these talks could possibly be successful? The same, it seems, that was used by Churchill before the Spanish Civil-War and by Chamberlain before World War II.

U.K. spokesman Barry Marston said Friday, “We have often repeated our recognition of the Iranian people’s rights to enjoy the benefits of nuclear energy and the E3+3 have offered to help Iran construct a modern civil nuclear programme.” This situation is not in capable hands, and with collusion by Russia and China to be decidedly against disarming Iran, there is a simmering situation in the Middle East that is simply waiting for another “solution” for it to explode.

Let us abandon any reserved notion we might have had about Iran not wanting a nuclear arsenal. Not only do they have the beginning phases of one, they are racing to attaining arms that would endanger not only our allies in that region but also abroad.

Iran’s influence does not end simply in Arabia, they also are closely tied to the cause in Cuba and especially so in Venezuela, the ruler of which, Hugo Chavez, is direly interested in adding his own nuclear weapons. If allowed, weapons would then be placed in North Korea, Venezuela and Iran — each of which has goals contrary to the success of the United States.

To act under the illusion it is not so is again, futile. To believe China and Russia would actually desire the disarming of these nations is again, foolish.

History is marked by seminal moments; important times where important people made decisions that decided the futures of generations to come after them. This, perhaps, is one of them. Whether we allow Iran to arm and Venezuela to follow will likely shape the future generations of Americans.

Will our president be steadfast against such allowances, or will he, like Churchill and Chamberlain before him, be content to “play a great game and still lose”? His decision will determine our future.