In the past few years, I, along with other conservatives, have been called every name in the book: idiots, liars, @$$holes, facists, Nazis, etc. Most insults are brushed off as ad hominem, but one accusation seems to have stuck: racists. From Pelosi, to Carter, to Olbermann, to ACORN, to your average liberal, all use the same charge that anyone who disagrees with their political means/ends is a racist.

“I think people who are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American. It’s a racist attitude, and my hope is and my expectation is that in the future both Democratic leaders and Republican leaders will take the initiative in condemning that kind of unprecedented attack on the president of the United States,” President Jimmy Carter

.

“I agree with President Carter that racism is playing a role in recent outbursts against President Obama.” Keith Olbermann, MSNBC

.

“I do think it is disturbing, however, that if you want to go undercover, to come in to an organization, uh, that 99% has, uhh, black and brown people, that you would think to dress up as a pimp and a prostitute and sort of bully your way into these offices. I think that says a little bit about what Mr. O’Keefe thinks that a black-and-brown organization would go for.” Bertha Lewis, ACORN CEO

.

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw — I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco, this kind of — of rhetoric was very frightening and it gave — it created a climate in which we — violence took place,” Nancy Pelosi, D-CA

.

It seems like the figures are in. Anyone who disagrees with President Obama, the Democrats, or their allies, is a racist. For this conclusion, I look to the definition I presented at the beginning. How can a simple disagreement be considered racism when the reason for the disagreement has nothing to do with the “inherent differences among the various human races”? President Carter, Representative Pelosi, Ms. Lewis, and Mr. Olbermann all need to prove that there is an underlying racism behind the dissenters’ thoughts and actions in order to present a veracious portrayal of their character.

This is where the plaintiffs end up showing their true colors: black and white. They have no proof, instead claiming to know dissenters’ thoughts better than the dissenters themselves. Not only is this claim imprudent, it sheds light on their true intentions. They aren’t attempting to point out a snake in the grass, they are attempting to discredit the dissenters by labeling them as malicious, radical, fringe, and racist. At the same time, they employ race as a tool to be intellectually dishonest and to attack the political opposition. They fail to realize that we are all the same race, the human race, and in wrongly calling dissenters “racists”, they show themselves to be the true racists. To assume that the dissenters are racist, simply because they disagree, is a close parallel to the superiority complex presented in the definition of “racism”. It is the intellectual dishonesty that has plagued our nation since its birth.

A final issue I must address is the age-old claim that the Republican party itself is racist. Its history proves it. This claim has been repeated over and over and over and over and over and over. Each time I hear it, a little piece of me dies, as I don’t understand how anyone could be so negligent of our nation’s own history.

Let’s go back to the beginning. The Republican party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. A number of you just crapped your pants. President Lincoln, the first Republican President, freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation and then the 13th Amendment. Though he was assassinated prior to the final vote for the 13th Amendment, he was its largest supporter and was the first to push for the Amendment. Almost every, if not all, piece of Civil Rights legislation that has ever been passed was done so by Republicans. Women’s suffrage was supported and passed by Republicans. As Everything I Know iIs Wrong

Republicans led the fight for women’s rights, and most suffragists were Republicans. In fact, Susan B. Anthony bragged about how, after voting (illegally) in 1872, she had voted a straight Republican ticket. The suffragists included two African-American women who were also co-founders of the NAACP: Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, great Republicans, both of them.

Republican Senator Aaron Sargent wrote the women’s suffrage amendment in 1878,though it would not be passed by Congress until Republicans again won control of both houses 40 years later. It was in 1916 that the first woman was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican Jeannette Rankin. The first woman mayor was elected in 1926, the Honorable Bertha Landes of Seattle, another great Republican.

It is interesting to also point out that all of the black members of Congress up to this point were Republicans as well. Even the first Latino Congressmen and Governors were Republicans. The first Jewish Congressman was a Republican. The first Asian-American Senator was a Republican. But alas, I digress. Enter the 20th Century, and the overwhelming majority of Republicans pass more civil rights legislation, often times overpowering the Democrats. It may be beneficial to take a look at the Democratic Party’s history from a civil rights perspective so we can compare the two.

After the Civil War and President Lincoln’s assassination, Democratic President Andrew Johnson attempted to veto the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but the Republicans in Congress overruled his veto. Democrats in the South create the Jim Crow Laws, segregation clauses, and a number of them create the Ku Klux Klan. Democrats as a party oppose every piece of civil rights legislation into the 20th century. After the Great Depression and WWII, the civil rights movement picked up steam. More and more Democrats began supporting the bills, but still no where near as wholeheartedly as Republicans. In fact, the majority of Republicans supported civil rights legislation almost 5X more often than Democrats.

“The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.”

With this overwhelming amount of evidence proving that it was the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party, that heralded civil rights, modern day liberals often resort to empty catch phrases such as “Well the Republican and Democratic parties switched during the 20th century,” and “The Republican Party started off supporting civil rights, but for the past 50 years or so, they have opposed civil rights legislation.” The first is simply not true. Do they really believe the two parties simply switched names? What changed were the two parties’ theories on economics, not ideals of entire platforms. The latter is an interesting statement, but still an empty claim. Many prominent Democrats have repeated this claim, but when pressed for evidence, they come back with nothing but air. The most common claim used in an effort to support the idea is that Nixon and the Southern Strategy were racist and brought the racists into the Republican Party, thus making the Republicans the modern party that opposes civil rights. The thing is, no one can tell me how the Southern Strategy was racist. Nixon didn’t promote racist legislation nor use racism during the campaign. Quite the contrary. Nixon, a well known civil rights leader, boasted about his support of civil rights. If he was supposedly using racism to win the South, why would he boast about how he supported civil rights? Remember, this is Richard Nixon, the same man who Dr. Martin Luther King endorsed in 1956. The same man who gave an executive order creating the practice of affirmative action. The same man who supported every piece of civil rights legislation through the civil rights movement. When you begin to piece it all together, you realize that the Republicans as a party weren’t racist and aren’t racist. You also begin to see the liberals who cry racism for who they really are: intellectually bankrupt demagogues.

By Jedidiah Bressman

You have people who are true conservatives and then there are those who are CINO’s (Conservatives in Name Only). This is a three part series that will take you through the top nine views (chosen by Your’s Truly) that make a conservative, a true conservative. This time around, we will discuss Abortion, Gun Rights, and Government. This is what I believe and what I believe it means to be a True Conservative. There will always be controversy, however, as these are core principles of conservatism that I will be discussing.

Abortion- If you are a true conservative, you believe that Abortion is morally, legally, and ethically wrong, and that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. Conservatives also believe that the government has the duty to protect the rights of the unborn. This moral issues needs to be taken care of sooner rather than later. However, the democrats, and even the republicans, are too worried about getting reelected to take on this controversial issue. Too many people are divided on this issue for either side to take the chance. The people who usually want abortions are teenagers and those who’ve had ‘accidents’. The one and only true way to not become pregnant is abstinence. Now, I’m not promoting abstinence or having sex, but what I’m saying that it is the 100% foolproof way to not become pregnant is to simply not have sex. Why do conservatives believe Abortion is wrong? Well, Abortion is the killing of a life that has yet to begin, who knows what that one life could do? Really, the baby has done nothing to deserved being killed before its life has even begun. I tell my friends that I believe the women should have the choice. She CHOOSES to have sex, regardless of whether or not the man used protection. The protection does tell you that it is only 97% effective and you took that chance. Where I draw the line is rape. Personally, I believe that if a women is raped she then has the choice because she did not choose to have sex. I believe strongly on this issue, because my mother did not get the choice to keep my sister. She was stillborn, while these other pregnant women, who did not abstain from sex are able to abort their children. That is why in this country we have adoption, for people like my mom who could not handle the loss for the first couple weeks and then sees women purposefully kill their babies. I do not agree with my religious belief in this aspect, as Judaism teaches that a fetus isn’t alive until it is born . My sister was not even buried, but she will always be in my heart and it is part of my life goal as a (hopefully) future politician to deal with this issue head on.

Gun Rights- If you are a true conservative, you worship the 2nd amendment. You don’t feel safe unless there is a gun in your house protecting yourself and your family. This is where the Republicans have it right and are willing to fight in Congress. Obama believes that ‘The right of the people to keep and bear Arms’ is interpreted incorrectly and that a U.S. citizen should only be allowed to own one gun and only be able to buy so much ammo a month. On top of this, he supports a national “no-carry” law and a ban on all semi-automatic firearms. However, he forgets the second amendment that states that the right to bear arms ‘shall not be infringed’. True conservatives own more than one gun. Heck, my family owns four guns, I’ve bought four extra clips for them (can never be too careful). If you look to Switzerland (before the left moved in and took out the gun rights), where they had no anti-gun laws, you will find crime was a LOT less prevalent than in the U.S., and most of these gun related crimes were made by ‘Criminal Tourists’. Guns were issued to every male as part of their militia and criminals did not dare to mess with any house. Why? Because they knew that once they walked into a house to rob it, they would be met by a gun to the face. That is how you protect yourself, not with knives, but with guns. Remember Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Government- If you are a true conservative, you believe that government should be small and stay out of business’s way. This country has always run on entrepreneurship and it will probably stay that way for at least the near future. For example, look back at Reagan’s presidency. Reaganomics, as it is known, he cut taxes and reduced government spending, which helped businesses by cutting useless taxes and thus letting them lower prices to fit a hard time. They were also able to expand and hire more individuals. The only reason the deficit grew during that time was because Reagan was trying to end the Cold War. What do you think would happen if Obama practiced Reaganomics today? If you said that the government would produce a surplus for the first time in a LONG TIME, you are correct. The true way to fix the economy is to let the companies who made poor decisions (such as GM, or now, Government Motors) fail and let companies who made good decision during good times prosper the economy would even out in time. This is my personal way to fix the economy. No bailouts. Do companies who made good decisions get bailouts? NO, because they made GOOD decisions. These companies should be punished by the market so why give them more money when they will just make poor investments (i.e. AIG). Again. THAT’S YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK. This might be harsh, but a necessary chance to fix an economy that Obama can’t fix anyway.

Tune in next time for: Religion, Dealing with the deficit, Healthcare.

By Chris Grewe

I’m sure by now most of you have heard about the attempt to starve The Glenn Beck Program off the air by getting its advertisers to pull their ads from Fox News Channel in a boycott due to his comments regarding the President’s thoughts and actions towards white people in the last few weeks, specifically, calling the President a “deep-seated racist” and so on and so forth.

My only question to these people: where were you in April when MSNBC and the like went on a teabagging escapade against Tea Partyers, calling them every name in the book, including “racist rednecks” (thank you Janeane Garafalo), and using a slang term for a sexual act as an overused description that’s now flooded the left wing echo-chamber and is now in use as common term for those of us on the right who decide to protest?

Where were you?

Where was MSNBC’s boycott? Where was Geico pulling their gecko advertisements from Countdown (the program on which the “teabagger” comment started if memory serves, or at least, it’s one of the more famous examples of it)? When did that happen?

Where was the faux outrage then?

That’s exactly what this is: faux outrage. If they truly cared about their country, they would turn off MSNBC every time they call someone a “teabagger”. They really should be saying “wow, I really don’t agree with these people, but I respect their right to protest under the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly.” If they truly cared, they would stop listening to every pundit, left or right, who brings the questions of Obama’s policies down to race, and they would look at a man and call him what he is or isn’t rather than just deferring to the color of a man’s skin.

It’s the sad state of race relations and racial politics in general in this country that allows shenanigans like this to continue, on both sides of the political spectrum, and it’s about time we put an end to it. Political pundits on both sides of the aisle use race as a bludgeoning tool to get people to vote for a candidate based purely on the color of the skin of the voter or their ethnic origin. It is complete and utter crap.

I am sick of the media treating my fellow Americans and me, regardless of color, as a voting bloc. Not all white people have the same ideals. In fact, I have more in common thought-process wise with Ken Blackwell than I do Ted Strickland. That’s why I voted for him in 2006 for governor of the great state of Ohio.

I have more in common in terms of my issue preferences with Senator John McCain than President Barack Obama, and that’s why I voted for John McCain in 2008 for President.

One more digression before I get back to my overarching point. Last year, on the campus of The Ohio State University, in theory, a place of many diverse opinions amongst faculty and students, my friends and I with the McCain campaign witnessed a truly disgusting event. We had (among others) a yard sign with us that stated very plainly “Another Democrat for McCain,” because in part, we had some former Democrats working with us during the campaign because they agreed more with Senator McCain than then-Senator Obama. A young white man working for one of the lefty groups (and clearly, not representing the opinions of said group) walked up to our sign, shook it with his hand, and stated very loudly and very clearly to the five of us standing there “Whoever owns this sign is a racist,” and walked away.

I talked to one of the folks with the campaign he was working for (which was not the Obama campaign for the record), and she agreed with me that what was said was a) inaccurate and b) completely out of line, and her group did not condone such behavior or agree with the sentiments of the statement.

So what does this all have to do with Glenn Beck? A great deal. He spoke his mind, something this country has been renowned the world around for allowing, and the court of public opinion is trying him based on the facts of the case as presented.

The problem is the full facts of the case are not being presented, as the media has time and time again separated the statements of Reverend Jeremiah Wright from the time President Obama attended his church in Chicago from the President’s views, disavowing any potential crossover between them.

When you attend the church of a man who very loudly screams “GOD D*** AMERICA!!!” from the pulpit more than once for twenty plus years, and do not walk out immediately after the very first time it is said, never to return again, it very much calls into question your views on the subject. That should be a valid topic for public discussion in a political candidate or officeholder.

When you nominate a woman to the United States Supreme Court who ruled against a fair test based solely on some backwards notion that just because only one minority firefighter (who joined the suit not knowing the results of the test) passed the test, it must have been unfair, it definitely calls into question your views on race in this country.

So are we any closer to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision of an America where men are judged solely on the content of their character and not by the color of their skin?

Whether or not Beck was right, and whether or not MSNBC continues to air clips of protestors being called teabaggers and racist rednecks just for exercising their First Amendment rights, I’d argue very stoutly that no, we are not closer.

And until every debate stops being about race, and starts being about policy and substance again, with legitimate questions raised, asked, and answered by candidates regardless of how uncomfortable it may make us, we’re not going to get much closer than this nonsense from both sides. We need to take this country to a place where the only colors that matter are red, white, and blue, and beyond that, who cares? We’re all Americans here.

By Brandon Scott

Free world, let us embrace Barack Obama’s views on education. We notice valuable things in his statements. Early childhood education goes up, middle education goes down. Teacher pay goes up, which causes more to be laid off. It’s all a cheap attempt to make us feel at home with his words. Further breathe the power of the internet, and realize his incompetence.

He tells us:

“We’ll keep our promise to every young American–if you commit to serving your community and your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.”

So does this mean if a child is rebellious when young they won’t receive the same education as one who is a perfect kid who isn’t allowed to have fun? Does it seem fair to not allow someone a chance in the world due to their actions as a teen or a child? We need not to judge someone as a child, but as the person they become. Do not hurt someone’s future before it begins.

He is putting too much time and effort on early education, and not realizing how much education is lacking in High Schools. In Coldwater, Michigan alone there were a total of twenty -six teachers laid off. Why is it that so many teachers were laid off in a nice middle-class city? (Ironic how he said he was helping the middle class, isn’t it?) Because he is raising the salaries of the teachers and not realizing side-effects. I’m sure if those teachers who were laid off were asked if they would rather have a job or be laid off, the would take the job regardless of pay. If that many were laid off in Coldwater, think about the state of Michigan, or country as a hole. They need money, yes, but they need a job in order to get the money.

Ahh, a final plea. In his speech in Flint, Michigan he talked about giving free-education to all who want to become a teacher. That maybe a nice thought, but lets be realistic. If you already have teachers being laid off, then you’re just going to have a spike in unemployed teachers. Wait, what was that? More unemployement? Great. Just what our country needs, more people sitting at home wasting government money doing nothing. To top that, they didn’t even pay for schooling so the government wasted the tax-payers’ money . Liberals are known for that though, aren’t they? They waste money like a Hummer wastes gas.

Let’s face it. You can see how Barack Obama is wasting our money in useless places in education. Instead of focusing on High School where a young person becomes an adult, he focuses more on when they are a toddler, when all school is show and tell and playing with toys. Early education is great but to spend billions of dollars on it? That’s to the extreme. Five Billion on early learning, and seventy-seven on grade school, where is the High School money, where is the middle school money? There is none because he doesn’t want to help fuel the future republican candidates of the world. He wants to turn all the young ones into Liberal minds.

About the Author: Brandon Scott is a 16 year old High School student from Coldwater, Michigan. He is a conservative to the heart, who has a left-wing sister. He dominates her in almost every argument. He is in the local “Young Republicans” and is Class President. He is in National Honors Society, Interact, and is the captain of his wrestling team. You can catch him either hammering the opposition, or eating.

Our Federal government is nearly unrecognizable to the one explained in the Constitution of the U.S. Our government ignores the framework and instead creates its own, one that can stretch to accommodate everything on their liberal wish-list. What was supposed to be a limited and small government, has expanded into an encompassing and overbearing power. Under the liberal policies of President George W. Bush we saw and expansion of government even beyond that of the Clinton expansion. Now, under President Barack H. Obama, we are seeing that expansion turn into an explosion. What once was considered horrendous by liberals during the Bush Administration is now being considered “progressive” and “American”. Let me be clear: There is nothing American about big government.

In our not-so-beloved Constitution (I love it, liberals don’t), Article 1 Section 8 spells out sixteen very specific powers granted to Congress, along with the Necessary and Proper clause that enables Congress to pass all laws necessary to carry out the powers in Article 1 Section 8. Think about your government today: Are they exercising sixteen powers, or far more? What was supposed to be a rigid, binding document has been defiled by politicians, warped into an elastic boundary that can easily be stretched in order to legitimize their legislation.

Take the current healthcare bill being considered by the Senate. No where in Article 1 Section 8 is the power to regulate the healthcare or insurance industry granted to Congress. The bill is clearly unconstitutional, but what does Congress do? The plug on anyway, attempting to discredit those who point out its demerits by calling them “racists”, “un-American”, and “astroturf”. No, going against the Constitution, the same document they swore to uphold and protect, is un-American.

From the government take-over of the auto-industry, to that of the banking industry, Congress continues to overreach the boundaries to which they should be confined. Cap and Tax presents another example of unconstitutional legislation that has a great deal of support. Again, no where in Article 1 Section 8 is the power granted for Congress to regulate or cap emissions.

The 90% tax requirement on AIG bonuses provides an excellent example of Congress not doing what they aren’t given the power to do, rather doing something they strictly are forbidden to do by the Constitution. The tax was clearly meant to be a form of punishment for executives, Obama even said:

“I’m choked up with anger here.”

And, As Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe explains:

“Its punitive intent is increasingly transparent,” Tribe says. “when you have Chuck Grassley calling on [executives] to commit suicide, and people responding to pitch fork sentiment, it’s hard to argue that this isn’t an attempt to punish an identifiable set of individuals who are the subject of understandable outrage.”

This goes against Article 1 Section 9 which states:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

The 90% tax would be considered a Bill of Attainder, or a piece of legislation that strips a group of individual rights as would a criminal sentence. This sort of “trial by legislation” is clearly prohibited by the Constitution, but Congress went ahead and passed it anyway.

The examples are nearly limitless, and new legislation is put forth each week that is unconstitutional. However, one of the largest insurrections of our Federal government has been its complete neglect for the Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments to the Constitution were included in its first copy, at the request of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. They felt that without these rights being set in stone, the government would eventually try to encroach upon them, stripping them from the people. Here we are, 222 years later, and the government is doing just that. Take the 2nd Amendment, for instance:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Set in stone, that the government cannot trespass on the citizen’s right to own and carry a firearm, yet our own government forbids you from owning certain firearms (More-so under what is now the expired Brady Bill), is talking about passing a national “No-Carry” Law that would prevent citizens from legally carrying a concealed weapon, and prevents you from buying as many firearms as you’d like within a certain period of time. Individual states have even infringed this right, passing laws that prevent citizens from owning and carrying firearms, Washington D.C. even banning all handguns. The states claim that it is their 10th Amendment right to pass their own laws on firearms, as the 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What they fail to realize is they do not have the right to pass laws already prohibited by the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment prevents not only the Federal government from encroaching on the right to bear arms, but also the state and local governments. The 14th Amendment further prohibits states from denying the people the right to keep and bear arms by stating:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So we have the Federal government expanding power beyond that what is granted to it, state and local governments doing what is prohibited by the Constitution, and an entire culture that seems to not give a damn.

Maybe when the Federal government is knocking down their door, they will start to care.

The cap and tax scheme has so many fallacies and outright lies that it is almost hard for me to address in a civil tone. For starters, it claims to use an economic friendly method to address CO2 emissions. How, I ask? They dish out carbon credits to companies, allowing them to trade or sell off their extra credits to companies who go over on their emissions. Each year, less and less carbon credits are dished out as more companies shift to technologies that use less electricity and use solar, wind, and hydro power. They claim that this creates a new billion dollar market that would spur economic growth. Now, anyone with half a brain and who understands how the economy works knows this is bollocks. This is a tax, and a big one. There will not be enough carbon credits to go around, and thus the companies will be fined. Energy costs rise as households need to become more efficient and new energy taxes are imposed. As the Wall Street Journal explains:

Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn’t take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others — manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Not only does the cap and trade system hurt the economy, it hurts American families who are already struggling to make ends meet. Next they go on to say that it will solve the “problem” of global climate change (global warming just didn’t sound- cool enough). I say that even if human emitted CO2 is the main cause of global warming, then they are treating a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. The real problem would be the use of the fossil fuels. In order to switch to other fuels, those fuels need to become as efficient and as cost-effective as fossil fuels. This can be done by encouraging the economy to invest their money, aka promoting a healthy economy. Any hindrance to the economy would mean that progress is slowed. We have seen during this current recession a lull in investment in alternative fuels. So really, from the environmentalist view, cap and trade is more of a threat to the environment than the fossil fuel industry.

Most of you can figure that I am on the non-anthropological climate change side of the debate, but that debate does nothing. It doesn’t matter whether global warming (or cooling like we have been for 10 years) is man-made or completely natural, the solution is the same. We can all agree that fossil fuels will one day need to be swapped for sustainable fuels, but the way we get there is through a healthy economy. Taxing companies, hurting American’s finances, and imposing outrageous regulations is no way to move into the future.

For those who doubt my analysis, look no further than Britain:

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can’t repeal that reality.

A little known fact is that Obamacare, or something similar to it, has already been tried in the U.S. Socialized healthcare is common in Europe, and Canada has a similar system as well, but in the U.S., individual states have tried their own versions, and failed. Miserably. Not only did the socialized plan drive up costs, it increased waiting-lists and diminished the quality of care.

This all goes back to the Democrats not realizing that the problem isn’t the lack of insurance, it is the cost of the care. The cost of the care is not only due to the demand, but due to the extremely high cost of medical malpractice insurance. Fix the malpractice debacle, and you fix the healthcare system. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that treatments cost thousands of dollars when doctors have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for malpractice insurance.

Americans are beginning to see through Obama’s plan, realizing that it would do more harm than good, increasing costs, racking up the deficit, and not solving the problem. Just 23% of Americans believe that Obamacare would reduce costs. A Gallup poll showed how two-thirds of Americans think Congress doesn’t have a sufficient knowledge of healthcare. Only around one-fourth of Americans think Congress has a good grasp on healthcare issues.

I have already shown how you may not be able to keep your private insurer, that you will be forced to have a “qualified” plan as defined by the government, that the healthy will be subsidizing the cost of the unhealthy, and that it would greatly increase the deficit. On top of that, European and Canadian style healthcare have created long waits, improper care, and put more debt on the backs of their citizens. Obamacare is no different. We will have long lines, shoddy care, and a huge cost to go with it. Why buy failure?

Obama tried, and failed, to get the legislation passed before the August recess. This is because he knows that the more people who understand his plan, the less support it will receive. This is one of the biggest problems I have with certain politicians today. They don’t care whether people support them or not, they want their way, regardless of how devastating their actions may be. It is the kind of Chicago politics that makes the political realm so slimy. I can only hope that once I am a public servant, that my actions can help clean up some of this mess. If you would like to see an example, just watch the following video.

Now, we shall fast-forward to Barack Obama, who had gained a majority of the Jewish vote in the 2008 election, however it was one of the lowest Jewish majorities for a Democrat since Carter vs. Reagan. Obama recently visited Egypt and made a speech about the situation in the Middle East. Muslims received this speech very well, as it talked about how Israel needs to give up it’s settlements and give them back to the Muslims but the Israelis did not give a very ‘satisfying response’ to his speech. Now, only 6 percent of Jews view Obama as Pro-Israel and 50 percent of Jews view him as Pro-Palestine. A giant difference from George W. Bush, Jews voted that he was 88 percent Pro-Israel, while only 2 percent viewed him as Pro-Palestine. Now, Obama is willing to pour America’s relationship with Israel down the drain, so he can play nice with the Palestinians.

You may be wondering why Israel is so important to America’s safety? I will answer that question. The reason America has been one of Israel’s strongest supporters is because Israel started up about the same way America did in 1776. A state that was full of people with a common purpose, people who felt that they were either religiously persecuted or felt betrayed by their form of government, and went to a country that they could call their own. Also, after a couple years of fighting to be recognized to be a state, they were finally recognized in 1948. They were immediately challenged, just like the U.S. was, by the countries who thought the land was theirs and Israel came out on top (with America’s help, like the French gave America in the Revolution), just like the U.S. did. This led the state of Israel to become a democratic state and the only one in the Middle East at that. Israel is also one of the biggest supporters on the War on Terror and gives air support for the U.S. army. This is a major benefit for the army, because Israel’s Air Force is one of the best Air Force’s in the World. If Israel is destroyed (which has been predicted for decades), America will be in a defenseless position in the Middle East. Believe me, Israel is something worth protecting and saving, you want to win this War on Terror, support Israel.

As I have previously shown, we already have universal healthcare. What the Democrats are pushing for is universal equal coverage. By coverage, I do not mean access to healthcare, as everyone already has this by Federal Law, but rather insurance coverage. What many fail to acknowledge is that Medicare and Medicaid already take care of those who are unable to afford insurance. The majority of individuals without insurance don’t have it, not because they cannot afford it, but rather because they choose not to have it.

So enter the real debate, the one inside Obama’s head. We all know Obama is the master of words, slipping through questions without truly answering them, or answering them with ambiguous quips filled with inaccurate statistics. The first question, and probably biggest one, is whether Obama should sign the healthcare bill or not. Obama has been urging the Senate to pass Ted Kennedy’s bill within the next week. Like the stimulus which was pushed through as “emergency legislation” even though it wouldn’t take effect for months, this 612 page document has no pertinent policy changes that would begin upon its signing into law. Obama wants it pushed through quickly because the more people who understand it, the less support it will receive. So Obama obviously wants it passed, but then why wouldn’t he sign it? I am referring to his statement made during his weekly address:

“I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade,”

This means Obama is pledging not to sign the healthcare reform bill, as it would add more than $239 billion to the deficit over the next decade according to the CBO. So which is it Barack? Are you going to sign the bill or not? Based on what I have seen, he shouldn’t sign the bill as he never pledged to sign it, but instead pledged not to sign a healthcare bill that increases the deficit. Democrats are trying to get around the deficit spending by changing the accounting rules. They want to spend the money, but not have to record it. I think I’ll do the opposite with my taxes: Not pay them, but record it as if I did. Hey, according to the Democrats in Congress, it is legal and ethical. I think Obama’s cabinet would agree as well.

You remember this next pledge made by Obama throughout the campaign trail and even up to today: You can keep your private insurer if you would like to. The government will not force you out of your plan. To this day, Obama still makes this claim. Apparently he hasn’t read the healthcare reform bill. What is even more insane is that if you do not have government approved healthcare, you will be taxed. Yes, for those of us who choose not to be forced into a plan that we do not agree with, we will be taxed thousands of dollars, then put into a plan randomly.

The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).”

This would be unconstitutional, as the power to force citizens into a healthcare plan or force insurers to accept a certain plan is not granted by Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Not only would this be an overreach of power, but by the Fifth Amendment, citizens cannot be deprived of property or liberty without due process. In order for the healthcare reform bill to pass, the U.S. Constitution would first need to be amended, which we know won’t happen.

With the Democrats having 60 seats in the Senate, along with a few RINOs, they will most likely be able to push through the bill without much modification. After that point, we can only hope that someone is bright enough and strong-willed enough to take the legislation to court. Seeing as how Sotomayor will most likely be confirmed and how she has no respect for the Constitution, she will probably side with Obama.

Either way, at least we now know that there are three Obama’s: Campaign trail Obama, Promises Obama, and Broken Promises Obama.

By Jedidiah Bressman

You might not know what Sonia Sotomayor stands for after the Senate hearings conducted earlier this week, in which she avoided critical political questions. Some of these questions included her position on abortion and gun rights, which should leave you asking questions about her and what she will really do when she goes into the supreme court. She has ‘said’ that she doesn’t rule on issues according to law and not to her liberal views. However, you don’t know how she will rule on these cases because she will not give a straight answer. You want one? She will vote liberal for just about everything. Yes, maybe she will vote conservative once in awhile, but you just can’t know.

To get a little perspective on Sotomayor’s views, the NRA came out and said that they will oppose Sotomayor on her gun rights views. To even take it a step further, in her Maloney v. Cuomo opinion she said that the Second Amendment was not a fundamental right and that it only applies at the federal level, not the states. I still remember getting a mailer from the NRA saying that Obama wants our guns taken away and surely enough a couple months later, I can’t buy ammo at the local gun shop. Why, you might ask, when Obama wants to limit the amount of ammo we can buy, would he nominate a woman who supports guns? Newsflash: He nominated one who didn’t.

On abortion she swings the way you would think she would: a pro-choice liberal. Even many of her friends have come out and said that she is a sure hit to vote pro-choice. Is she denying this? Yes of course, because she wants make everyone think that she works both sides of the table. Why? Because she wants to get in to the Supreme Court and never look back. Again, I refer back to Obama. The American people voted for him in November and I know that some of them at least regret their decision. Please call your Senator and tell him/her to vote against Sotomayor, as it might be our last chance to save conservatism enough to be able to pull it back in 2012. But, by that time, it might just be too late. With Obama sitting in the Oval Office, you will have to expect a liberal candidate no matter where you go. If she does become a Supreme Court Justice, she will be tested quickly on her views and won’t turn out to be the judge the American people thought they were getting (Ring a bell? aka Obama). They may not ever have the chance to appoint someone like her for the rest of our lifetime.

About the Author: Jedidiah Bressman is sixteen years old,lives in Ohio, and has a nice and caring family. As the President of the WKHS Republican Club, he has received much inside information about politics; more specifically, Ohio politics, but has even gone as far as House politics. He has worked countless hours on Political Campaigns including Pat Tiberi, Steve Stivers, John Kasich, John McCain, David Goodman, and others. He is also a part of the Franklin County Republican Party and will be interning there starting in the fall. His father is a member of the Republican Central Committee and is currently on the School Board. Jedidiah wishes to thank his father for all the insightful conservatism he has learned from him.