Will the Westboro Baptist Church please go away!!

The Westboro Baptist Church from somewhere in Kansas continues to keep its name in the news headlines, even though everyone would like for them to just go away.  This so-called church is led by the Rev. Fred Phelps.  This church has made a name for itself by protesting everything you can possibly think of, blaming the ills of society on the fact that God does not like homosexuality.  I am not sure how many people are in this church, but my personal feeling is that it is the Phelps family, and that is about it.  These people even tote their kids around and have them protest also.  To me, they are no better than the KKK, using a church as their cover.

Anyway, before I go further, I must say that I believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and this condemnation can be found in both the Old and New Testaments.  However, people are able to be saved out of this lifestyle.  This Easter season reminds us that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was for all the sins of all mankind, homosexuality included.  If you are a Christian, I do not believe that you can be homosexual.  God is not the author of confusion.  So if homosexuality is a sin, then He could not have made you into that lifestyle - it is a choice that one makes.

But I also believe that we are to reach out to those who do not know Christ.  By holding up signs that say "God Hates Fags" or "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", this church is not trying to help anyone know Christ.  Nor are they showing the same love that Jesus Christ showed to sinners.  Jesus died for all of the sins of all mankind - not just for certain sins and certain sinners.  If Jesus Christ showed this kind of love for sinners when He definitely did not need to do so, then why won't these people show that same sort of love for the lost?  Mankind rejected Jesus Christ, yet He still gave His life for us.  In showing them love, we do not accept their sinful behavior.  Rather, we show a genuine interest in their lost soul and the fact that they need to accept Christ as their Savior.

Getting back to the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), they have made the news here in Central PA.  They were sued by a man by the name of Albert Snyder, who lost a son in the war in Iraq.  The church decided that they would protest the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder.  Mr. Snyder sued the church over this, and won.  However, an Appeals Court ruled that Mr. Snyder must pay the legal bills for the WBC, which amount to a little over $16,000, money he does not have.  Many people, including Bill O'Reilly, are helping him with this bill.  The case is now going to the Supreme Court.  (I am not sure where the WBC gets their money to travel and protest, as they seem to only have 1 family in their church - the Phelps family.)

Here are some of my questions:

• What does the WBC plan to accomplish?
• Why do these people think that they are too good to share the Gospel with those who need it?
• Do think that they are now God, deciding who should hear the Gospel and who should not?
• Does God abhor homosexuality?  Yes.
• However, does God wish for all sinners to come to a saving knowledge of Him and spend an eternity in heaven?  Yes, He does.
• How did this church's vision for the lost become so distorted and perverted?
• How can they be so full of hatred that they fail to see that what Jesus did for them, he also did for those that this church vehemently opposes and wishes death upon?
• How can these people teach their children this kind of hatred?
• Where do they get their funding?

The Great Commission tells us to go out and teach all people and all nations.  The last time I checked, it did not say teach everyone but gay people.  We are to teach ALL nations.  By refusing to participate in this Biblical admonition, this church is just as guilty and just as sinful as those they condemn.  They have a tremendous opportunity to reach out and tell others about the Gospel.  Instead, they choose to turn their back on the Great Commission and make themselves God, condemning others to an eternity in hell without telling them how they can be saved.

While I was in college, one of the major things that Dr. Bob Jones III tried to drill into us is that "The most sobering reality in the world today is that people are dying and going to hell today."  The fact that people are dying in their sin is not something we should find joy in.  It is something that should burden us.  It should cause us to want to reach out to them even more than what we may already be doing.

The WBC is shameful and appalling.  Because they show no concerns for the souls of others, I must ask myself if they are truly saved.  Do they truly know Christ?  I doubt it,  because if they did, they would not be acting this way.

The Death of Democracy?

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on a 2000+ page bill (that no one in that body could have read, much less understand) and have bestowed upon the American public 'Health Care Reform.'  This bill had nothing to do with granting health care to millions of uninsured Americans.  This bill had nothing to do with reform.  This bill had everything to do with the Democrats trying to buy their way into the hearts and minds of the American public.  This bill had everything to do with the government trying to get a little more control over the every day lives of Americans.  This bill had everything to do with a President in search of a legacy.  This passing of this bill shines a bright light on Congress and why the American public has contempt for them.

Congress showed just how dirty they really are.  There was a lot of vote buying that was going on, some of which we know about, much of which we will find out at a later time.  If I would try to influence votes in this way, it would be bribery.  If the Speaker of the House or the President does the same thing, then we call it politics.  It seems that there were several Congressman that initially took a stand against the bill, but when push came to shove, and a nice offer was dangling in front of them, they forsook any shred of principle that they had and they sold their vote.  We find others that may have voted against the bill, not because they believed in the cause, but rather because their political career depended on it.  We may not know for sure, but at least they took a stand.

The President and the Speaker of the House are touting this as a win for democracy.  I do not understand how they can say this.  Democracy is based on majority rules.  The majority of the American public was (and still is) against this bill.  Democratic principles would say that this bill should not have passed.  However, the Democrats (kind of an ironic name for them at this time) passed it anyway, even though Americans did not want it.  Their philosophy was that once the Americans find out what is in the bill, they will then be for it.  I am glad that they know what I want more than I know what I want.  Also, they passed this bill at this time because they think that the American public is stupid, that we will forget that this happened and that their re-election in November would not be harmed by this bill.  However, I have a feeling that the American people will not forget this anytime soon.  In fact, it was Pelosi that said they should vote for it, even though they may lose their office come November.  Arrogance?  You bet it is.

I do not have the time to write down all of the things that I find wrong with this bill.  However, I will share with you some of the major points that really disturb me.  Actually, if this kind of action continues, it should scare us that we let Congress get away with this kind of chicanery.

1. Nancy Pelosi says that health care is now a right - it is no longer a privilege.  I have read the U.S. Constitution, and I could not find where health care was granted to us as a right.  I have read many of our Founding Fathers' writings and they never listed health care as a right.  In fact, James Madison wrote that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government."  Government's duty is not to provide health care, but rather to remove the barriers that exist in getting good quality health care.  This is not an emotional issue, which the Democrats want it to be.  It has everything to do with our Constitution and how some in our government want nothing to do with it.
2. The Democrats continued the talking point that the Republicans had nothing to offer on the health care front.  This is nothing more than a lie, and they know it.  The Republicans wanted the government to remove barriers to health care, such as tort reform and portability of insurance.  They did not seek control.  They wanted to fix the problem, not make it exponentially worse.
3. The Democrats also accused their opponents of using talking points and not engaging in substantive debate.  The strange thing is that I have never heard the Democrats engaging in any kind of substantive debate on health care.  The only thing they ever did was use talking points and fabricated letters from non-existing constituents concerning supposed lack of health care.  This was debated in the media for months, but the debate on the House floor lasted for but a few hours.   And this short of a debate on a bill that would change 1/6th of the American economy?  On a bill that was over 2000 pages?  Deliberative democracy?  I don't think so.
4. Abortion is not health care.  I am not sure why it was even part of the bill.  Anyway, the alleged 'pro-life' Democrats voted for a bill that contains abortion as one of its provisions.  The President says that he will sign an executive order removing this provision, but an executive order can be revoked by the President at any time.  So what good is this?  And if health care is now a right, what about life?  Life is a right granted to us by the Constitution.  Unlike health care, it is actually in the Constitution.  So the Democrats want to take away the Constitutional right of an unborn child to live and replace it with something else?  That ground that is shaking is not an earthquake - it is the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.
5. The Democrats and liberal media can complain all day that this was not a bi-partisan bill.  The only bi-partisanship on this whole issue was the opposition.
6. The process is broken.  In the days leading up to this vote, we did not know if the Democrats were going to try to use a maneuver called 'deem and pass.'  In essence, they would vote on the reconciliation bill, and by doing so, it would be assumed that the underlying Senate health care bill would pass.  Many people on both sides found this too egregious, so they voted this down.  Still, the bill was over 2000 pages, and no one had a chance to read or understand the whole thing.  It was not posted on the internet long enough for people to read and understand it.  And they promised transparency and ethics?  I'd like to know what happened.
7. The insurance companies are not the enemy.   Could they do more when it comes to helping with pre-existing conditions and cost containment?  Yes, they could.  But let us keep in mind that insurance companies must remain profitable in order to remain in business and offer insurance.  Instead of beating up the insurance companies, perhaps the federal government should benchmark the insurance companies to find out how to manage costs and be profitable.
8. In the past, children were covered until they were done with their education.  Now, they will be covered until they are 26 yrs. old.  This is a huge problem.  These young adults need to go out and get jobs and get their own insurance, not stay at home and mooch from their parents.  This is yet another attempt by liberals to make people more dependent on government and remove the motivation to go out and be productive.
9. People will now be mandated to carry health insurance.  There are some who are out of work and cannot afford insurance.  I feel bad for them, but this is not the job of the government to provide this service.  There are some who choose not to carry health insurance - not because they cannot afford it, but because they view it as a bad investment of their money.  We should be worried when the government tells us we have to do something.  This is only a foot in the door.  The liberals definitely believe that this bill does not go far enough.  Pay attention, because there will be more on the way.
10. This health care provides the IRS with the money to hire an additional 16000+ workers.  Now, why would the IRS need to have this many additional workers?  The IRS will be in charge of enforcing mandatory insurance coverage.  Scary?  You bet it is.
11. Why do people think that the government can manage health care?  Social Security is going broke.  Welfare is out of control.  Health care for veterans is not in a good state.  The federal government is constantly failing at managing not only health care related programs, but they fail continually at managing all programs.  The answer is not government control.  The real answer is for the government to get out of the way, not to put up more roadblocks.
12. If we add more than 30 million people to a government-sponsored insurance plan, and we do nothing to increase the number of doctors, what is that going to do to the system?  It will be that much more difficult to get in to see the doctor (especially if some stop practicing medicine like they said they would do).  It will then lead to limited doctor's office visits, which will then lead to rationing, which is already a major problem in countries that have socialized medicine.  It is nothing more than the law of supply-and-demand at work.  If the supply of something remains constant, and the demand increases, then the cost will increase, and we will end up having a shortage of the service that people desire.  This will be one of the unintended consequence of this reform.
13. This kind of congressional action now paves the way for more 'social  reforms' that the liberals cherish, especially immigration reform.  If the Democrats have no problem bending and breaking rules for health care, they will do the same, and possibly more, for immigration reform.  After all, they may need the illegal immigrant community to vote for them in order to remain in office in November.
14. Elections have consequences.  In 2008, people voted for change.  The Republicans were spending more than the country had, and conservatives were unhappy with them.  The liberals already didn't like the Republicans  And the people who voted for the change are now seeing what change really means.  In 2010, we will see change again.  But that change is only as good as the people that we elect and the character and tenacity that they carry with them into office.

The list could go on-and-on.  Anyway, this bill does nothing to further democracy.  It actually stifles and inhibits growth.  As an electorate, we must hold our representatives accountable for not standing up to the leadership and ignoring the very people who put them into office.  We must tell them that this behavior is not acceptable, and that because of their actions, we will send them home, never to serve in office again.

Missions Conference 2010

I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to attend the Annual Missions Conference at Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA.  This will be a tremendous opportunity to here from missionaries who are working in countries around the world.  They will have exciting things to tell us about their ministry and how God is providing for them and working through them.

If you would like a list of speakers and events for the Missions Conference (as well as directions), please click here.

I look forward to seeing you there.

Does disagreement with the President constitute racism?

This seems like an odd question to ask. After all, can't we disagree on issues without being labeled as some sort of societal misfit?  If I disagree with my wife (which does happen on occasion), does that make me some sort of male chauvinist or wife-beater? No. It just means we disagree on something. So why can't I disagree with someone who is a different race than what I happen to be? After all, I am an adult, able to form my own opinions, and I am not so shallow as to base my thoughts, feelings, and opinions on race.

However, as I read yesterday's Harrisburg Patriot News, my attention was drawn to an editorial written by a registered nurse by the name of Elizabeth A.K. Williams. Basically, what she is saying is that people are opposed to President Obama simply because he is a minority. In her words, "Halting anything and everything proposed by President Obama, is in major part, based on race and borders on being a crime against all American citizens." Excuse me, but under President Bush, it was our right to disagree with our leaders. Now, we are not allowed to?  I thought the ability to disagree with our elected leaders was the hallmark of our democracy?  I guess that only applies when Republicans are in charge.

As if this statement was not outrageous enough, she goes on to say: "Oppression of President Obama, along with other minorities, continues as an accepted practice in our society. It’s called institutionalized racism." If I disagree with the President, how am I oppressing him? It is the government that oppresses the citizens, not the citizens who oppress the government.

She then goes on to say: "With that said, I will now be accused of playing the race card. I do not accept that accusation, but rather pass it on to a large segment of our society whose hatred for minorities is being provoked by right-wing radio and TV show hosts." So let me get this straight - she accuses those who disagree with the President of doing so because they are racist, without ever providing any facts that might even come close to proving her point, yet she says she is not playing the race card.  I would love to know, then, what it means to play the race card.  And then, as all liberals do, they blame talk radio and network news (most likely, she is referring to Fox News).

She then goes on to insult the local talk radio station because they put talk show hosts on the air that foment racism towards minorities (her words, not mine).  Without naming any talk show in particular, she is talking about Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.  Most likely, she has never listened to any of these men (and in the interest of full disclosure, the only one I listen to with any regularity is Limbaugh - the other 2 get on my nerves).  However, I have never heard any of them say anything racist about Obama (or anyone, for that matter).  Their disagreements with the President are all based on policy, not on Obama as a person.  Sure, words are taken out of context and insults are hurled at them, but they have no validity.  Let's remember that Democrats insulted George Bush for 8 years on a personal level.  They were extremely cruel in some of their personal attacks.  Yet conservatives keep the debate on a policy level and they are somehow extremely mean and racist.  Go figure.

So, if I am a racist for disagreeing with the President, was Gov. Ed Rendell a racist for running against Lynn Swann for Governor of PA?  Were the white people of PA racist for voting against Swann?  Where was Ms. Williams when the pasty, white Senators in New England, as well as our current Vice President, were opposing Justice Clarence Thomas?  Where was Ms. Williams in defending Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell for serving in President Bush's Cabinet?  Why didn't she speak out when Jesse Jackson said that President Obama was not black enough?  And, which of the national parties actually has a minority leading the party?  That would be the Republican Party.  The Democrats had the opportunity, but selected a rather pasty white guy from Vermont, instead.  Apparently, it only suits her to bring out the race card at certain points in time.  And of course, she only needs to make the accusation, because that is all that matters.  She does not need to actually give any evidence.

I do not doubt that there are a few people in this country who do not like the President because of his skin color.  I would be naive to think otherwise.  However, the vast majority of those who disagree with the President are very concerned citizens who do not like the direction that this country is headed.  We want fiscal restraint.  We want to get rid of the government entitlements.  We want to get rid of the socialism that is creeping into our lives.  We are tired of being called names or being labeled because we disagree.  We are not the ones who are dwelling on the President's skin color.  It is his supporters who are constantly talking of his race.  Those who are against him draw attention to his policies.  And that is the difference between the two groups.  The supporters are concerned about symbolism, while those who are standing up against him are concerned about substance.

The Health Care Summit - Does it really matter?

I am sure we all have our own separate views on the necessity of health care reform - how we go about it, what needs to be reformed, should the government be involved, should it be the priority, etc.  So, in order to show the American people that he truly wishes for a bipartisan bill, the President has called a summit of Republicans and Democrats, Senators and Representatives, to try to devise a bill that everyone can agree with.

First, almost everyone can see through this charade.  The President is trying to regain political capital, which he has lost over the past several months.  The President, widely seen as a failing leader, needs to garner any momentum that he can muster in order to help his party have any chance of staying in power come the mid-term elections in November.  Besides, the administration has already developed a bill.  They are just trying to get everyone to agree with them now.

Second, the Democrats will not accept any Republican changes.  They want nothing to do with tort reform (after all, the lawyer community is one of their biggest supporters).  They want nothing to do with insurance portability and increased competition (that process is too democratic for the Democrats, which is slightly amusing and ironic at the same time).  They only want Republicans to sign on to this bill so that the Republicans can share in the blame when this passes and the American people reject it.  After all, the Democrats could have passed this already without any Republicans.  They could not get members of their own party to support some of the measures in the bill.

Third, why do we need a bipartisan bill?  What is so magical about bipartisanship?  Our elected officials should be more interested in doing what is right for America, not what is best for them and their cronies.  They should focus on bills that pass the muster of Constitutionality, not on bills that effectively attempt to re-write the Constitution.  When you get right down to the basics, constituents on both sides do not want bipartisanship.  We vote on people, not based on how well they compromise, but rather based on the issues that they stand for.  I do not want someone I voted for who is currently serving in office to go back on a campaign promise and do something he said he would not do, just so he could be bipartisan.  There is no character in that.  Character is standing up for what you believe in, regardless of the political climate.  Bipartisanship is a sign of weakness, a coward's way out of a tough decision.

Fourth, the Senate is proposing the use of reconciliation to pass health care.  This is a controversial maneuver, where only 51 votes are needed to end debate and to bring a bill up for a vote.  The only time, according to Senate rules, that this is used is in the budget process, since money needs to be appropriated in order to keep the government running.  Normally, 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture, which basically means to end debate and to send the bill for a final vote.  When the final vote is cast, they only need 51 votes for passage (but the media does not clarify this - they allow the American people to think that the bill will pass only if 60 Senators vote for it).

If I can hearken back only a few years, the Republicans threatened to use this maneuver in approving judges that were nominated to the federal bench.  However, McCain and his band of merry men (14 of them, in fact) did not want this to happen, because the reconciliation rule in the Senate was much more revered than even the Constitution.

Anyway, the Republicans should have used reconciliation at that point, as their role in approving judges was on an advise and consent basis.  In other words, it is the President's job to nominate the judges, and the Senate's job to say yea or nay.  The Democrats at that time were adamantly against it, from Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton to Sen. Biden to Sen. Kerry, and most every Democrat Senator.  They said that the Senate needs to remain the deliberative body and that rules should not be eased in order to ram things through for approval.  They said that the Senate is not there to 'rubber stamp' what the President wants.  A few years ago, debate was important.  It needed to happen.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot.  They want to pass this bill so bad that they can taste it.  They seem to conveniently forget the stand on reconciliation that they took only 2 or 3 years ago. Now it is OK to use this maneuver.  Alexis de Tocqueville termed this the 'Tyranny of the Majority.'  In other words, if a majority party is in power, they can pass anything they want, breaking any rules they want, and force their will on anyone and everyone.

This is the problem with our elected officials today.  They do what they want, when they want to, without a care for those they represent.  We are finally starting to see a backlash.  A recent poll shows that Congress has a 10% approval rating, and we know why.  They do not listen to the people that they represent.  Many entrenched Democrats (including Harry Reid), and some Republicans, will be losing their offices in November because the American voting public has had enough.  And if they keep up these shenanigans, even more will be out office come election time.  And that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Why are the liberals and media elites scared of Sarah Palin?

I have been trying to figure out for some time why there is such hatred for Sarah Palin. This hatred comes from liberals, media elites, political know-nothings, and even from some inside the Republican party. The ironic thing here is that the same people that hate Sarah Palin are the same people who are telling us that partisanship is killing the country and that we should seek to find compromise.

Anyway, as I have tried to figure out this disdain and hatred, I kept coming up with the same answer - they are afraid of her. I know this does not seem to make sense at first, but after much deliberation in my own mind, this is the only conclusion that I could come to.

First, she is an attractive and successful woman, who is happily married with 5 children. She has not had an abortion, nor does she speak out for women's liberation groups. These are not characteristics that liberals admire in women. Also, I think liberals are jealous about her attractive nature. After all, who do they have on their side - Hillary Clinton and Barbara Streisand?

Second, she holds views that are popular amongst many Americans. The reason she connected with many Republicans and conservatives is that we share her views on many issues. She is sincere in her beliefs, and she does not change her views based on the political climate of the day. She holds the opinion that the government is not the answer to all of our problems, and this is something that resonates with many Americans of all different political persuasions.

Third, she says that she is a Christian. Granted, I can only go by what she says, because I do not know for sure. But she claims to be a Christian, and I will take her at her word. According to liberals, Christians need to discard their beliefs at the door and that their beliefs should have no impact on the decisions that are made legislatively. Sarah Palin is not going to do that, and this irritates the haters.

Fourth, she is popular, while the popularity of liberals is waning. This annoys the haters beyond measure. She is popular because her views resonate with the American people, while the liberals' views do not connect with the people. We are headed in the wrong direction, people know it, and Sarah Palin is not afraid to point that out. She is also not afraid to speak out against Republicans when they do something stupid (which is why some RINO's do not like her).

Fifth, she is not a Washington insider. Many liberals and media elite are upset that an outsider can come into the political scene and have this much of an impact. To them, there is no room for outsiders.

The haters continue to attack her, no matter what she does. They attacked her for making a speech with 4 or 5 different items written on the palm of her hand. Essentially, she had those topics written on her hand because those are the issues she wanted to speak about. And what do the haters do - they mock her. The President's press secretary mocked it. Liberal media elites mocked it. Yet, all she needed to make a speech was to make a list of the items she wanted to speak about and the passion with which to speak. She did not need a teleprompter (a la President Obama). She did not need a written speech. All she needed was a list of topics, and she was able to give an extemporaneous speech, and she did it passionately and eloquently. Should she have used an index card instead of her hand? Possibly. But if this is all that the haters can come up with, then they ought to be ashamed and embarrassed.

Liberals also insist that she is dumb, that she has no idea of how to be 'Presidential' (this from the same people that applaud our current President for being a big bully who lacks decorum). They underestimate her. 'We the people' are tired of these liberals and elites telling us what to think about people. We have enough information at our fingertips and are more than capable of making intelligent decisions on our own. Moreover, those of us who have an admiration for Palin are labeled is idiots or morons. This is another mark against the liberals. Rather than respect the opinions of a divergent viewpoint or have a debate on the merits, they resort to name-calling.

Because of all of this, I believe that it is a fear of Sarah Palin that causes these people to hate her. They are afraid that she will become popular and possibly win an election, and then their power over people will continue to diminish. If they did not fear her, then they would not ridicule her or mock her or continue to publish stories that try to bring her down. They would leave her alone, and she would just go away.

As for me, I do not know if she will run for President in 2012, and if she does, I do not know if I will vote for her. But I will give her consideration before I place my vote. Perhaps, many of these haters should stop hating and give her a chance to be heard.

President Obama vs. The Supreme Court

I did not watch the State of the Union speech last night. I had several other priorities. First, I was at church, where I am taking a Theology class (it is a 9-week course on the Trinity). Then, once we got home, we had to get the kids ready and sent to bed. After that, I watched the 2nd half of NCIS: Los Angeles, as I had fallen asleep Tuesday evening before the end of the show. Then, the season premiere of Psych was on. So I did have many other important priorities to attend to.

As I watched the news this morning to find out some of the more interesting things that the President said, I found out that he is not happy with the Supreme Court decision from last week that allows businesses and unions to spend as much money on political advertising as they deem appropriate, provided they do not give it to a candidate. I think I can understand why he does not like this decision - it does nothing to help him.

Yes, this is all about him and his chances of being re-elected in 2012. It also has some relationship to the mid-term elections later this year, but ultimately, to the President, it is all about him. If he does not have a Democrat Congress to help him out, then he will definitely have trouble enacting his agenda.

Since most businesses tend to lean Republican, the thought is that most of the benefit will be directed toward Republican candidates. While this is probably true, we cannot be certain that it will indeed happen this way. However, Democrats will benefit from this decision, as unions will now enjoy the same privileges that corporations will have when it comes to political advertising. And the unions are probably at least 90% Democrat in their endorsements (if not closer to 100%).

The President sees this decision as a threat to him because he had the advantage when it came to the media coverage (as the media is very pro-Obama and pro-progressive), as well as 501(c)3 contributions and endorsements. No longer, now, will he be able to have this advantage. The way I see it, this decision by the Supreme Court levels the playing field, it does not give the Republicans an advantage.

Also, this decision can act as an economic stimulus. How could that possibly be? Well, corporations will advertise and endorse candidates who they think will benefit them. They will go out to marketing firms and spend money on these advertisements, meaning greater income for the ad firms. Then, companies will need to purchase ad time on television, which benefits the cable companies and the networks (ad time is not free). The free flow of money for goods and services will benefit tremendously under this, but the President definitely does not want that to happen.

President Obama states that companies will now be buying elections (it is funny how he only mentions the corporations in his speeches - this Supreme Court decision benefits the unions in the same way). I am not sure about you, but I have never decided to vote for a candidate because of an advertisement. I am not that shallow. In fact, I do not know anyone who has made up his/her mind about a candidate based on an advertisement. I could care less which companies spend money on ads - I will continue to choose the candidate who I believe holds to the same values and principles that I have.

The cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true" when President Obama started insulting and attacking the Supreme Court. The President obviously has no idea about constitutional law and why the Supreme Court made the decision it did. Now, the media is going to rail on Justice Alito, instead of taking Obama to task about attacking the Supreme Court.

Liberals attacked conservatives for years about simply questioning activist decisions by the Supreme Court, and the judicial system as a whole. Now, the President attacks the Supreme Court like no one has since FDR. Since Obama now knows that the people do not want his agenda and that our elected representatives want to be re-elected, then he must have the courts on his side to enact laws, because legislation is not going to be enacted.

We have separation of powers in this country, for a reason. The founders knew that one branch could not become more powerful than the others. Now, the President wants to intimidate one of the other branches of government to govern as he wants them to. This man is small, weak, partisan, and mean. I understand that he is the President. I may not like that, but I must accept that. But he needs to start acting like a President. Instead, he is acting like a playground bully.

A re-birth of conservatism?

The people of Massachusetts have finally awakened from their lengthy slumber. On Tuesday, Scott Brown was elected by the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to finish the Senatorial term of the now-deceased Ted Kennedy. This is quite a remarkable occurrence.

Ted Kennedy held this seat for 46 years. He was first elected in 1962, and the people of Massachusetts continued to send him back to the Senate every 6 years. He was a liberal stalwart in the Senate. Yet the people of Massachusetts chose to send a Republican to the Senate to take his place. In fact, his home town of Hyannis Port voted for Brown.

Kennedy was a spokesperson for many liberal ideas, including health care. Scott Brown spoke out against national health care in his campaign. It is almost a slap in the face to Ted Kennedy that the person taking his place campaigned against the main piece of legislation that he fought for over the last few years of his life. Also, it is worth noting that the people of Massachusetts, who have health care from the state, voted Brown into office. Are they now saying that they do not like (or want) government run insurance?

Anyway, there are a multitude of reasons that the Democrats lost this seat. 1) They took it for granted. Who would ever expect a Republican (much less one who is sort of conservative) to win in Massachusetts? 2) The Democrats chose a candidate that was not that remarkable and did not run a good campaign. She almost seemed not to care, as though she was going to win by default (see #1). 3) Democrats like to govern by polls, but still have no idea what the public sentiment actually is. They continued to push health care even though the majority of Americans do not want it. 4) Because of this, Democrats think that people do not really know what they want. The party insists on telling us that they know what we want.

But more than this, Democrats do not realize that when liberalism is up against conservatism in an election, conservatism will win. Whether it was Reagan, or Gingrich (The Contract With America), or George W. Bush (in 2000), conservatism wins when it faces liberalism. McCain's campaign was doing nothing against the Obama machine in 2008 until Sarah Palin got on board. Unfortunately, there were Republicans in the establishment that did not want Palin, because she was too conservative, so they tried to undercut her. They wanted the Republican party to be more moderate, to be more like Democrats and gain independent voters.

So, look what happened to the Republican Party: they became the minority party. People are not going to vote for Democrat-lite. Why bother voting to change parties in power when no real change will happen? It makes no sense. Conservatives did not show up to vote or they voted 3rd party because of the moderates that were nominated to represent the Republican party. Many of the Democrats in the house won because they were riding Obama's coattails, not necessarily because they were remarkable candidates. All people wanted was change - they did not care what it looked like.

Now, after a year in office, people are starting to see that Obama is not what he was built up to be. He made promises that he could not keep. In many cases, he lied. Unemployment is up. People are being taxed. The deficit is growing. Government is taking over businesses. And people are tired of all of this. They got their change, but it is not the type of change they wanted. And they are now suffering from buyer's remorse.

So, is the pendulum now swinging to the conservative side? In my opinion, it is too early to know for sure. But this election, along with the governor's race in New Jersey, are a good indicator that voter's sentiments seem to be in the middle of a paradigm shift right now.

We do know that when true conservatism is on the ballot, that it can, and usually does, win. People still do believe in conservative principles. However, I do caution conservative leaders to take nothing for granted. That is how the Democrats lost the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. Conservatives cannot put the message on cruise control. They need to keep the foot on the accelerator and push their conservative agenda to the American people.

The Top Conservatives in America

For those who know me, I am a Republican. But I am not just a Republican, I am a conservative Republican. Conservative is the key word. There are many Republicans in this country, but only a portion of them are conservative. Anyway, I came across a list last week of the 100 most influential conservative voices in America today. I found it fascinating that this list is from the UK Telegraph. I am not sure why the Brits feel the need to make this list, but I do find this list amusing, given some of the names that they put on the list.

Here is this list (along with some of my thoughts):

1. Dick Cheney
2. Rush Limbaugh
3. Matt Drudge - Internet gossip guy - Don't know about this one, but he should not be ranked this high
4. Sarah Palin
5. Robert Gates - Defense Secretary - I have no idea how he made this list
6. Glenn Beck
7. Roger Ailes
8. David Petraeus
9. Paul Ryan - Wisconsin Congressman
10. Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota Governor
11. Mitt Romey
12. George W. Bush
13. John Roberts - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
14. Haley Barbour - Mississippi Governor and former head of the Republican Party
15. Eric Cantor - Virginia Congressman
16. John McCain - I cannot believe he is on this list, much less this high on the list. Where are his conservative credentials (in areas not associated with national defense)?
17. Mike Pence - Indiana Congressman
18. Bob McDonnell - Governor-elect of Virginia
19. Newt Gingrich - I don't think he should be this high on the list. He has strayed from true conservatism over the past couple of years.
20. Mike Huckabee - The Gomer Pyle of modern politics
21. Andrew Breitbart - Another internet news guy - He should be ranked above Drudge.
22. Bobby Jindal - Governor of Louisiana
23. Sean Hannity
24. Charles Krauthammer - Columnist and political commentator - He should be on the list, but this is too high of a ranking for him
25. David Brooks - NY Times columnist - He is the token Republican on the NY Times editorial staff. He is a Republican, not a conservative. He has no business being on this list.
26. Mark Levin - He should be rated much higher, especially after reading 2 of his books (Men in Black and Liberty and Tyranny) this past year.
27. Mitch McConnell - Senate Majority Leader
28. Laura Ingraham
29. Joe Lieberman - Conservative? Really? This is one reason the Brits are not a player on the world stage.
30. Antonin Scalia
31. John Boehner
32. Karl Rove
33. David Frum - Writer
34. Michael Steele
35. Edwin Feulner - President, Heritage Foundation
36. John Bolton - He should probably be higher up on this list
37. Tom Coburn - Oklahoma Senator
38. Rich Lowry - Editor, National Review Online
39. Mitch Daniels - Indiana Governor
40. John Thune - South Dakota Senator (and the guy who beat Tom Daschle)
41. Ron Paul - Texas Congressman - I do not believe he belongs on this list.
42. Michelle Malkin
43. George Will
44. Clarence Thomas
45. Grover Norquist - President, Americans for Tax Reform
46. Dick Morris - Strategist - I do not believe that Morris is a conservative. He is an excellent strategist with incredible insight and instincts, but not a conservative.
47. Michael Savage - This guy is an idiot.
48. Mary Matalin (the wife of James Carville, one of the most liberal idiots in the U.S.)
49. Richard Lugar - Indiana Senator - He is too friendly with liberals, including the current administration.
50. Carly Fiorina - Former head of HP and current contender for Barbara Boxer's senate seat - It is too early to tell on this one.
51. Rick Perry - Texas Governor
52. David Keene
53. Kevin McCarthy - California Congressman
54. Morton Blackwell
55. Arnold Schwarzenegger - Conservative? He threw out any and all conservatism a long time ago.
56. Alex Castellanos
57. Steve Schmidt
58. William Kristol
59. Rudy Giuliani - Conservative on national defense and fiscal areas, liberal on social issues.
60. Jon Voight - Actor
61. Jeff Flake - Arizona Congressman
62. Frank Luntz
63. Jim DeMint - South Carolina Senator
64. Chris Ruddy - Newsmax Founder and CEO
65. Erick Erickson
66. Victor Davis Hanson
67. Joe Scarborough - This guy is an insult to conservatives and Republicans. He has thrown us under the bus after joining MSNBC, and he tries to redefine conservatism in his book.
68. Paul Gigot
69. Olympia Snowe - This one is laughable. She is the most liberal Republican in the Senate. She is practically a Democrat vote.
70. Michael Barone - He has tremendous political insight. I do not think of him as a conservative, but rather a political wonk.
71. Dick Armey
72. Tucker Carlson
73. Judd Gregg - New Hampshire Senator
74. Ann Coulter
75. James Dobson
76. Jeb Bush
77. Joe Wilson - South Carolina Congressman, famous for the "You Lie!" comment (which, by the way, was right on target)
78. Meg Whitman - California gubernatorial candidate
79. Lou Dobbs - More of a populist than a conservative
80. Michelle Bachmann - Minnesota Congresswoman - She should probably be ranked higher, as she is one of the few Republicans who will actually stand up to the Democrat establishment.
81. Marco Rubio - Florida Senatorial candidate
82. Jack Keane
83. Lindsey Graham - South Carolina Senator - He has become very moderate, and he backs amnesty for illegal aliens. He should not be on this list.
84. Thomas Sowell
85. Bill O'Reilly - Like Lou Dobbs, he is a populist, not a conservative.
86. John Kasich - Ohio Gubernatorial candidate and former congressman
87. Eric Odom
88. Patriuck Ruffini
89. Fred Thompson
90. Tony Perkins
91. Peggy Noonan - She should not be on this list. Just because she was a speech writer for Reagan does not give her the credentials to be on this list.
92. Clifford May
93. Charlie Crist - Florida Governor - He is becoming too moderate in order to win Florida Governor race.
94. Jon Huntsman Jr.
95. Liz Cheney
96. R. Emmett Tyrrell
97. Mark Thiessen
98. Mike Murphy
99. Tom DeLay
100. Mark Sanford - South Carolina Governor - Really?

What should Harry Reid do?

By now, everyone is most likely familiar with some words spoken last year by Sen. Harry Reid concerning then-candidate Barack Obama. To paraphrase, Sen. Reid indicated that Obama was a light-skinned person who spoke with no 'negro dialect.' Many Republicans are calling for him to resign, while many Democrats are standing behind him.

First and foremost, I find the hypocrisy in this whole situation to be a sad commentary on today's political climate. The same people standing behind Harry Reid are the same people who wanted Trent Lott's head on a platter. They are the same people who accuse anyone who disagrees with the President on matters of policy as a racist. The only thing consistent about them is their inconsistency. They stand behind racist comments by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Bob Byrd, and Joe Biden. Where is their conscience? Why don't people see this hypocrisy?

Anyway, concerning Harry Reid, I think he is one of the most partisan, meanest, bitter people on earth. But given all that, I still do not want him to resign. I want the Democrats to hold up this guy as their leader. The more that the Democrats stand behind Reid and the longer he stays in office, the better off his opponent will be in trying to win the 2010 election for the seat that he currently holds. He is basically shooting himself in the foot the longer he stays in office.

To the Democrats, I say: Keep on doing what you are doing. That will only help to accelerate your way out of office.