Thursday, November 27, 2008

PC Nuts Attack Thanksgiving in California

The politically correct fruitcakes are attempting to ruin Thanksgiving for the kindergarten students of two Claremont, California schools. The two schools said that it will suspend the tradition of having their students dress-up as Pilgrims and Indians during an joint event celebrating the holiday. For over four decades, the two schools have come together while one school dressed as Indians and the other as Pilgrims. Now, a few in the loudmouth minority have muscled the two schools into discontinuing the tradition.

This has sparked a huge controversy in this once quiet small town. People are divided in between those who want traditional Thanksgiving depictions and those who want Thanksgiving to have no visual references to the original guests at the Thanksgiving dinner. They feel that the way that Native Americans are dressed is a racial stereotype that must be averted. Now, I don't believe that modern day Native Americans shouldn't be represented in such a way. I don't know any that still dress like that, but the historically accurate portrayals of Indians from the first traditional Thanksgiving didn't wear a t-shirt and jeans. They wore moccasins, feathers, and other stereotypical dress.

"It's demeaning," Michelle Raheja, the mother of a kindergartner at Condit Elementary School, wrote to her daughter's teacher. "I'm sure you can appreciate the inappropriateness of asking children to dress up like slaves (and kind slave masters), or Jews (and friendly Nazis), or members of any other racial minority group who has struggled in our nation's history."

She is greatly misrepresenting the dynamic of the traditional first Thanksgiving. (The actual first Thanksgiving was in Virginia not Plymouth Rock three years earlier.) Comparing the pilgrims to slave masters or Nazis is like comparing Ghandi or Martin Luther King to Osama Bin Ladin. They don't portray Lieutenant George Custer dining with Squanto. The Pilgrims were a very peaceful people. There is not one account of them mistreating the Indians or trying to eradicate them.

Raheja, who is of Native American descent, went on to call dressing up like Native Americans of that era racist stereotypes. Is dressing up like Squanto or Pochahontas racist? No. She feels that it demeans her as a stereotypical Native American, but there are others who disagree with her. Kathleen Lucas, a parent of Choctaw heritage, said that her son was proud to wear the clothes of his ancestors.

Many people cower to the politically minority because they have the biggest and loudest mouths. Most of Americans don't want to secularize the holidays or become so uptight with all the land mines we have to evade in the PC culture that is so prevelant today. People wouldn't dare to disagree with them because of the fear of being called racist, sexist, or just plain mean and hateful. I'm personally tired of a few knuckleheads telling me what to do or wear because they think that they are better.

Dressing up in the historically accurate dress for the Indians at the time is not racist. It might be racist to have modern day Native Americans portrayed in that way, but not in a historical reenactment. Where does this insanity that is political correctedness end? Will Shakespeare's "Caesar" have to be played by men in three piece suits, so we do not offend Italians by having them dress in togas and sandals? The insanity must come to an end.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

GOP Blue Chippers Looking to Break Into Majors

Who is the next MVP of the GOP? That is a red hot topic on the beltway. Many on the left are gloating at the demise of the Republican Party. However, this is just the down part of the cycle for the party of Lincoln. The demise of the party was greatly exaggerated in 1932 and again in 1974. The party rebounded both times. The Democratic party has also faced similar trials in 1980, 1994, and 2000. This is nothing new.

Their major league roster is just getting older and more inconsistent. The republicans need fresh blood. Just like in any professional sport, they will have to dip into the minors to find new talent and replace the aging veterans. The process is not going to be quick. It usually takes a team a few years to become competitive again especially without the benefit of free agency. Blue chip talent has to be found and developed. Then, they have to be thrown out there to see which one sticks. Who is going to be the next Abraham Lincoln or Ronald Reagan? Who will bring the GOP Pachydermous (Elephants) out of the cellar and beat those Democratic Jackasses (Hey that is the correct term for a donkey. Don't get mad at me.) to win the Congressional and White House trophies?

Triple A-These are the ones who have the best shot at challenging President-elect Obama and the democrats in 2010 and 2012.

I would be remiss, if I didn't mention Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. She has already has the capability to draw tens-of-thousands to hear her speak. A flood of money came into the McCain campaign and the RNC after the announcement of her candidacy, so you know that she will be able to compete with the fundraising ability of the democrats. Her mayoral and gubernatorial record is very impressive. She was able to cut spending and earmarks while drastically cutting taxes. She took a 10% pay cut while mayor and sold the private jet used for the governor's office in order to save money. Corruption in her state ran rampant. She fought and won to take out those who were corrupt even those in her own party. She has had approval ratings reaching over 90%. Her popularity in her state is perhaps the best in the whole country. She is without a doubt a rising star in the party and probable front-runner in 2012.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota, is another who was thought to be a possible VP pick. He has been the governor of Minnesota since 2003. In his first year as governor, he balanced the state budget. Minnesota went from $4.3 B deficit to more than $2 B surplus with very little up charge in state fees. He went overseas to build up trade in between Minnesota businesses and the international community.

Gov. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana, is also an up-and-comer for the republicans. He was in the running for vice-president under McCain. He showed outstanding leadership during Hurricane Gustav. He oversaw the largest and smoothest evacuation in US history. It was a huge step up from the disastrous handling of Katrina by all levels of government. He has been in office of governor for less than one year, but many say that he is very bright with a reformer's mentality.

Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana won re-election this year by a twenty point margin in a year that Obama won the state. Daniels was able to turn a $600 M deficit into a $300 M surplus in one year without any tax increases by creating the Office of Management and Budget in 2005. The new office was created to find better ways to spend the state's money and cost savings. He used the surplus to pay back money borrowed by previous administrations. Daniels, also, created the Indiana Economic Development Corporation which was started to attract new businesses to the state. From 2005-2007 they posted three consecutive record-breaking years for new investment and job commitments. The IDEC was able to lure Toyota, Honda, and Cummins into the state. To put it in perspective, over 100,000 jobs have been created since he took office in 2005. He passed the Healthy Indiana Plan that helped 132,000 people pay for healthcare. He also removed some barriers to coverage due to pre-existing conditions. He reformed property taxes to the lowest in the nation earlier this year. To compensate, he had to raise sales taxes but just by 1%. He may be a bit older than the previous mentions, but he can still make a lot of waves over the next four years.

Gov. Mark Sanford, S. Carolina, is another who has been receiving praise. He has a track record of using vetoes to cut pork-barrell spending even when bucking his own party and having them overridden anyway. He has said that he plans to retire from politics after his current term, but he could change his mind by 2010.

Double A-These next few potential blue-chippers are still very young or new to the scene but have been predicted to do great things by many pundits.

Rep. Paul Ryan has been mentioned by people like Newt Gingrich as being bright and a real future star. He has won over 60% of the vote in a district the Obama won by 53%-46%. Ryan has been coming up with a lot of new ideas that will help make republicans a party of ideas again. This past summer he released his "Road Map for America's Future." This is similar to Gingrich and the republican's "Contract With America" back in the early 90's.

There is Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia who is rumored to become the next house minority whip, the second highest ranking republican in the House.

Former Lt. Gov. Michael Steele of Maryland has become a prominent voice for conservatives as the current GOPAC chairman. He is also looking to become the next chairman of the Republican National Committee at the beginning of next year.

Returning veterans-These are some in the party that could be coming back to the scene. They still are relatively young and still have the desire in them.

Mitt Romney-He was a highly successful businessman. He was asked to return to Bain & Co. as CEO to save it from financial ruin. Within one year, he was able to turn around the company to profitability without any layoffs or partner defections. He left Bain to do the same thing to the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. The Olympic Committee was running on a $379 M deficit in 1999. After he joined as president and CEO of the committee, the games ended up with a $100 M profit. He did this by cleaning up the corruption and many budget cuts. He did this while still spending $300 M on security for keeping the games safe from terrorist threats. He gave his entire salary to charity. Upon entering the office of governor of Massachusetts, he faced a $1.2 B deficit. By 2006, he turned that into a $700 M surplus through a combination of spending cuts and raising taxes and fees. However, after the surplus was achieved, he was able to cut taxes. Romney does have a problem with his "for it before he was against it" record on abortion. Also, the tax burden was higher when he left office than when he went in, but many of his spending cuts were overridden by the state legislature.

Mike Huckabee-He ran for president this year and finished second overall. He has a huge following with black conservatives. He received almost 50% of the black vote when running for governor of Arkansas. He reformed healthcare which made it more available to low-income families. While he was governor in 2001, he was named a "friend of the taxpayer" by Americans for Tax Reform for his statewide spending cuts even though he did raise some taxes on gas and nursing homes. His tax policies and rise in state debt have garnered a lot of controversy though. However, overall he was able to cut those on welfare by almost half and grew the economy by 4.4% which was larger than the national average.

Dark horses-Those that have an outside chance at rising in the party.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida, would have been a bigger contender, but the unpopularity of W. will more than likely prevent his rise to higher office, unfortunately.

Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi is also a dark horse to make some noise within the next few years. He handled Katrina tremendously and has cut a lot of frivolous spending.

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has been a bright spot in the party. He has been sucessful at balancing the state budget, improving the transportation infrastructure, and bringing jobs into Texas.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has also been talked about making a comeback in the next few years. He is still a very polarizing figure, however. That might make it hard for him to make a run for the presidency in 2012.

The Senate has been pretty much depleted of any young talent for the republicans. However, these are some of the names of some possible long shots to be a phoenix that rises out the ashes in the Senate: John Cornyn of Texas, Bob Corker of Tennessee, John Thune of S. Dakota, Lindsay Graham of S. Carolina, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

The Republican Party might be down, but they are not out by any stretch of the imagination. Both parties have been down before and have risen back into power. In time, it will happen again. The GOP must focus on what brought them to the show in the first place lowering taxes, reform, and fiscal responsibility.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Stretch Obama

President-elect Obama has a very difficult first 100 days ahead of him. He is going to be pulled apart in a tug of war between the center-right electorate and the liberal left. It is going to be like a couple of two-year-olds fighting over a Stretch Armstrong doll. Either one of them is going to win and make the other throw a temper tantrum, or he is going to torn so far apart that he will be unrecognizable in four years.

The radical left wing blowhards have already begun to say that he has a mandate from Americans to swerve us to the hard left. MoveOn implied that they put up millions of dollars to help him get elected, so he better do what they say. Monday, the ACLU demanded that Gitmo be shut down. The next day the New York Times uses a hate crime against a hispanic to go after those who want to enforce our illegal immigration laws. The Times is angling for the president-to-be to give pardons to all illegal immigrants.

Left wing bloggers are also getting in the act. David Sirota of and Mark Green of the Huffington Post both wrote articles directed straight at President-elect Obama. They both say that his election is a "mandate" to proceed with their liberal agendas. They claim that the nation has turned into a center-left nation. Is the democratic wave because of a new liberal majority or because he successfully stole conservative ideas from republicans?

Obama ran on a budget and tax cutting platform. The promise to "cut" the taxes of 95% of workers was key to his victory over McCain. He said that he was for the right for an individual to bear arms. These are all issues that republicans have been known for the last 100 years. He didn't win on a platform of "spreading the wealth around", abortions without any restrictions, or legalizing gay marriage. He won as a fiscally responsible spender that would only raise taxes minimally on the rich and would cut everyone else's taxes.

Let me start first with David Sirota of Salon. He said that, "Voters want you (Obama) to go big and go liberal -- and not channel Clinton-style incrementalism." However, that is exactly how he campaigned in the latter days. He gave praise to President Clinton as an example of how he will govern. He basically said that if you loved the 90's, then you will also love his administration.

He went on to say, "What the party gains in strength, it loses in a Republican scapegoat that previously justified inaction. On huge issues -- whether re-regulating Wall Street, reforming trade, solving the healthcare emergency, or ending the Iraq war -- America envisages enormous progress in the months ahead, and Democrats will have no one to blame for failure but themselves."

Well I partially agree with him on this. With a dominant control of Congress and the White House, they can no longer blame Bush and republicans for the country's problems. Let's not forget that the deregulation of Fannie and Freddie's business practices and overregulation of the local bank's ability to deny people loans that could never pay them back was due to the democrats like Barney Franks and Chris Dodd and community organizations like ACORN not the GOP.

As for universal healthcare, it failed the first time that it was brought up by Hillary Clinton in the early 90's. The unpopularity and failure of Hillary Care and Bill's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy led to the Republicans getting control of Congress in 1994. In fact, President Clinton, who is naturally more of a centrist than other democrats, told one of his aides at the time, Dick Morris, that by the end of his second year, he didn't recognize himself anymore.

Mark Green of the Huffington Post continued with the same themes, but he expounded a bit more on social issues. He said, "Polling shows increasing majorities who are pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-expanded healthcare and anti-Iraq war, anti-big business."

No one is anti-environment, but there is also a huge majority that want responsible drilling and nuclear energy which neither are democratic issues.

Abortion is such a controversial issue that even most of those that are "pro-choice" don't agree with it for themselves personally. Even though South Dakota and Colorado denied the heavy restrictions on abortions, many believe it was not because they disagree with the restrictions, but it was because of the people's reservations of being the state that directly challenges Roe V. Wade. They don't want the national spotlight on their respective state.

People have said that they want healthcare reform not government-run healthcare. Earlier this year, Rasmussen did a poll about healthcare, only 29% of people believed in a single-payer system. Forty-six percent of those polled believe that the quality of healthcare would go down, and forty-two percent believe that cost would go up with more government control.

Most are against the Iraq War in hindsight, but most of those that are against it now were for it before the war started. Also, people aren't against big business but against excessive greed and bad management.

I will agree with him that the democrats have had a much better grassroots efforts in getting people to go out and vote for their candidates. However, that doesn't mean that there are more democrats than republicans. They have just been better at getting their voters out over the past two cycles.

Two recent polls dispute their claim that this country is now center-left. The first is a poll by the American Issue Project which polls 300 people each in four of the battleground states: Colorado, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. In the poll 58.6% of people said that the republicans either lost their way or were incompetent. Only 23.7% said that they disagree with the GOP's stances on the issues, and just 9.6% said that they were too conservative. In a Rasmussen poll from earlier in the week, 37% thought that a candidate being conservative was good, and only 22% said it was bad. In comparison, 36% said being liberal was bad, and only 19% said it was good. These polls obviously show that this country as a whole still leans more to the conservative side than liberal.

The democrats have been able to steal the advantage on issues of typical republican strength like cutting taxes and keeping government spending under control. How have they been able to do this? The republicans shot themselves in the foot by doubling the federal deficit and championing earmarks. About seventy-two percent agree with the statement: "The Republican Party used to stand for keeping government spending under control, but not anymore." Over 75% say that they agree with this: "When the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994, they promised to reform government and clean up corruption in Washington, but they failed to live up to that promise."

This sounds more like a referendum on the loss of core conservative values by republicans more than a mandate on the more progressive policies. By the way that Obama has been talking, he knows it. If Obama has any hope of getting a second term, he must keep his campaign promises to be post-partisan and in the middle like Clinton. If he let's the loony liberals pull him to the left, he will feel Jimmy Carter's pain in 2012.

Friday, November 7, 2008

Reaction to Obama Shows Racism Dying But Not Dead

The election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the US and leader of the free world has brought out the truth that racism is still out there. Around the world and in this country, it has become a greatly reduced problem over the years, but the idiots still remain.

The prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, implied that Russia's President Medvedev would have an easy time dealing with Obama because "He's young, handsome, and even tanned." When confronted by those upset by the comment, he called them "imbeciles without any sense of humor". I don't think that anyone is laughing but him.

Austrian TV anchor, Klaus Emmerich, called Americans racist, and "it must be going very badly for them that they so convincingly... Send a black man, and a very good-looking woman into the White House." In a Murtha-like moment, he clarified his statement by saying that "blacks aren't as politically civilized" and that Obama has a "devil-like talent to present his rhetoric so effectively."

A Moscow real estate agent told Fox News that Obama's race could be an issue when dealing with the East. She said that he won't be able to play a leading role in the eastern hemisphere.

The fact that he was elected shows that the racism is not as prevalent in this country as it used to be. We have come a long way in a relatively short time, but there are some examples of such lunacy.

In a suburb of Newark, New Jersey, a homemade Obama sign was stolen and returned the next night attached to a burning cross on the front lawn of one family tuesday night. According to Gary Grewal, the homeowner, his 8-year-old daughter saw it and has been afraid to sleep in her room since that night. Why must we have to explain hate to an eight-year-old?

In Staten Island, New York, Ali Kamara, 17-year-old black teen, was assaulted by four white men with baseball bats chanting "Obama". Ali was on his way home after the election on tuesday night.

In Austin, Texas, the University of Texas lineman Buck Burnette got canned by Coach Mack Brown for writing "hunters gather up, we have a n***** in whitehouse" on his facebook page. (Note to self: What's written on facebook doesn't ever stay on facebook.) Duh!

Martin Luther King, Jr. would be very proud of the progress that this country has made, but he would also say that we still have some work to do. There has been a lot said from various black leaders that a new page has been turned in the civil right movement.

According to Rev. Eugene Rivers of Boston, "Racism is no longer the primary obstacle to black progress. With the election of a black man whose middle name is Hussein, the rhetoric of white racism is off the table...The old school is over." "Old school" is the worldview proclaimed by civil rights activists like Jesse Jackson that asks for people to denounce inequality and blame white racism for all of the problems of black people.

Kevin Patterson, a community activist, says, "The notion that black people need to employ racially polarizing stances is now extinct. There are more effective ways to get things done for our communities than being accusatory."

This election has been talked about in barbershops all across the country. "I think the mentality will change," said Timmigo Burnett, 47, owner of Phase II Barber Shop in Spartanburg, S Carolina. "Seeing a black man make it that far is the ultimate. (Young people) see hope. That's going to help us as mentors." The buzz around other barbershops has been that this is a signal to young black people everywhere that they don't have any excuse when it comes to whether they succeed or not anymore. They also say that young people cannot blame their fathers leaving when they were babies. Obama met his father only once in his life, and he became the President of America. Dan Quailes, owner of a barbershop in Pharr, Texas, said that young people can now "reach for the stars".

I'm not saying there aren't more minorities incarcerated than non-whites. Also, the gap of the average income and education is major, but the gap can be bridged. Rev. Mark Scott based out of Boston said it best. "You can't say it's because of racism. You can't just say, 'Pull your pants up.' You have to ask, 'What work are we going to do to close the gaps?' "

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Congratulations President-Elect Barack Obama

I just want to congratulate Obama. This is truly a historical moment. The election of our first black president is a great moment in our nation's history and our lifetime. It was a hard fought campaign. We may have differences ideologically, but I greatly admire him.

I will be taking a week off from the blog to give the other side some time to enjoy their victory. I will be back to fight for my views and the views of the silent majority.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

My Love Affair With Barack Obama

From the beginning of the year, I have been looking at who I believe that would be the best for this country.

During the primaries earlier in the year, my top democrat was Barack Obama. I was no different than the rest of America. I fell in love with him. His John F Kennedy good looks, warm smile, and calm demeanor intrigued me. His eloquence, his post-racial and post-partisianship rhetoric made me fall in love. It was as if I was a teenage girl swayed by the star high school quarterback's cheesy lines into "giving it up". Eventually, the power of his words wore off. After a brief and passionate relationship, I woke up one day realizing that he was not the man I thought he was.

What made me see the truth? It wasn't one thing in particular. One by one the qualities that made me fall in love with him started eroding away. His actions were speaking louder that his rhetoric.

His claim of being post-racial came under fire starting with his attack on Pres. Bill Clinton and his 20-year relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

How can he be "post-racial" when he throws around the race card like an ace in the hole? It has become a strategy to make the opposition, whether it be Hillary ot McCain, overly cautious and reluctant to say anything negative about Obama in fear of being called racist by the Obama campaign. In the case of McCain, Obama started crying racism before McCain could even bring up the subject. He repeatedly told people that the GOP candidate would try to scare voters by saying that "he has a funny name", "he doesn't look like the other people on the dollar bills", "and by the he's black".

What can I say about Rev. Wright that hasn't already been said? I could understand if Obama was there for only a few months and didn't know the true nature of man at first, but he stayed there 20 yrs. You don't stay in the pew of a church for two decades when you don't share at least most of their beliefs. Most people would never come back to a church after the head preacher said "G D America" or called this country we love the "US of the KKK".

It wasn't as if he was only there on Easter and Christmas. According to what he told Bill O'Reilly, he went to the church about twice a month. That is about 500 times he attended the church, if what he said is accurate. I highly doubt that he never heard such things. The law of probability says that over 500 sundays he would had to have heard that kind of sermon several times. He wants us to assume that he dodged that racial mine field for over 20 years of going to that church, and he never heard anything like Wright's belief that the US government put AIDS into the low income areas to kill off blacks.

Let's say that for the sake of argument, he didn't hear these kind of comments on one of those hundreds of sundays that he was there. They sell tapes of his previous sermons in the lobby just like any other church. He would have had to have never saw anything racially divisive in one of those tapes. We would also have to assume that he doesn't talk to any of the other fellow parishioners about the church and any of Wright's previous sermons. Did anyone ever tell him about what he missed when he wasn't there? That is a lot of assuming. You know what is said that happens when you assume a lot. It makes an ass out of you and me.

Let's also look at his claim of being post-partisan. He votes for 97% of the time with the democratic leaders. He has not had any real experience with reaching across the aisle. He has a 100 rating from NARAL, the pro-abortion organization. He even voted against the born alive bill. This was the bill that would make abortion clinics try and keep babies alive that survived botched abortion attempts. According to the National Journal, Barack Obama was voted the most liberal senator of 2007. He is so far to the left that he is about to fall off the face of the earth. What happened to his ability to build bridges?

He was "the One". The one who would mend the wounds that separated us as a nation. He was the personification of the Martin Luther King's dream. He was the man that history has waited to come. He was the one to show the world that America has moved past our racist past. Obama was the man that transcended politics.

Everything that he claimed to be, post-racial and post-partisan, he wasn't. He broke my heart. I had faith in the "new kind of politician". I was going to be part of history. Instead, I found a man who would say or do anything to get elected. He would lie about his previous friendships and beliefs just to get my vote. Just like a fling with the good looking star quarterback, I would have regretted the morning after.

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Democrats Play Middle Class Limbo

Obama and the democrats are preparing for a luau on the White House lawn and Capital Hill. The party supplies are being bought. Sen Barack Obama brought the leis from his home in Hawaii. Michelle Obama is getting the hula skirts. Sen. Joe Biden is bringing those fashionable shirts. Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid are coming together to bring the pua'a pig (with lipstick) complete with an apple in her mouth.

There will be lattes and fine wine served. Celebs like Spike Lee, George Clooney, and Sean Penn will arrive in their limos. Ludacris, U2, and Madonna will be the entertainment for the evening. There will be a sign at the door asking entrants to be "patriotic" and pay the one million dollar cover charge. All proceeds will go to Planned Parenthood, ACORN, and the 40% of Americans that don't pay income taxes. It will be the party of the millennium.

The highlight of the night will be a rousing game of middle class limbo. First, the man of the hour, Obama will start. He clears it at the $250,000 mark. To just show how good he is, he goes again and clears it at $200,000. Biden is next. He clears it at $150,000. Surprisingly, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico clears it at $120,000. How low will they go? Will they get to their goal of $42,000? America is on pins and needles and holding onto their wallets while waiting for the results of the contest.


Over the past couple of weeks, Obama, his running mate, and one of his surrogates, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, have changed the definition of rich from its initial definition that was given at the Saddleback Forum all the way back in August. Are these just innocent slips of the tongue? Maybe. Are they freudian slips? Likely. Is it a carefully orchestrated decline in the definition to foreshadow what is really to come, if Obama is elected to the White House? Very possible.

Let's look at the spending promises of Obama. He wants to overhaul the health care system and provide government health care for those without insurance, noble but very expensive. The plan could conceivably cost billions. If you add the money that will be spent for the bailout and the tax "cuts" and a possible second stimulus package that is currently being to be talked about in Congress, there is no way he is going to be able to decrease the deficit much less balance the budget. Unless the Democrats plan on using the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines to hunt for the lost pirate treasure of Blackbeard off the coast of North Carolina, I have no idea where they're going to come up with the money for all the new spending that he proposes. There is a huge possibility that these "slips" are in fact closer to what the truth is in respect to the Obama tax plan.

Obama says that he won't lower the starting income for the tax raises. He claims that he will "cut government programs that don't work", but when he is asked to name an example of a program he will cut, he can't name one except military research. However, he can't take too much away from the Pentagon without getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two options should be off the table. It seems that his budget will be the same kind of out of control spending that has become commonplace in government especially over the past few years.

The only way it won't be the same is if he breaks his promise and raises taxes on more than just the stated $250,000 for individuals and $200,000 for families. He doesn't exactly have a good track record for honesty. Now, all politicians lie or embelish the truth a little, but all of his flip flops would make the Tazmanian Devil dizzy. His associations with left wing activists and organizations change according to what the media can prove. He backed out of his promise to take campaign financing as soon as he realized he could get more without it. Now, it seems he may be laying the ground work to pull a Clinton.

Pres. Bill Clinton also promised to give tax cuts to the middle class before he got elected in 1992. After Clinton got elected, he told the American people that he looked at the budget with his financial advisors, and he realized that could not just cut the taxes but had to raise them.

Let's, also, look at his senate voting record. Obama has voted to raise taxes on the middle class earlier this year. According to, Obama voted to let the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 expire. This made the taxes go up for people making just $41,500 for individuals and $83,000 for families. This was not the first time he voted to raise taxes on the middle class.

In June, Obama said that he would raise taxes for the top 5% of wage earners. According to Gerald Prante of, the actual bottom of the top 5% is slightly above $150,000 not $250,000. Which definition is Obama going to end up with after November 5th, if he is elected? Will it be $250,000, top 5%, or $42,000?

What will he do once he gets into office? Will he keep his promises that he made to the American people or follow Clinton's lead and raise taxes right when he gets in office? If he follows how he has voted in the past, he will no doubt raise them. If he cares about getting reelected in 2012, he will keep his promise.