By: Amy Lutz

Recently Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius announced a "grassroots" initiative urging women to blog about Obamacare. "Many uninsured Americans know little about how the law will affect them," said Sebelius. She couldn't be more right. Unfortunately for all Americans (women included), the "facts" (Or FACT as @BarackObama would put it) aren't all that accurate, given that they're filtered through the administration that passed the law in the first place. So, I urge real grassroots activists to fight back. The battleground is here and the time is now. We can not longer wait until the law goes into full-effect before we really work against it. The time is now.

Want to join #WomenAgainstObamacare? Take the following steps:

1.) Tweet under the hashtag #WomenAgainstObamacare the reasons why you're against the law. Here are a few suggestions
  • Aren't we taxed enough already? Obamacare adds more than $500 billion in new taxes. 
  • Obamacare raises insurance costs for young people, dramatically. 
  • You like your plan? Do you want to keep it? Too bad. 
  • Obamacare means fewer doctors
  • The law inevitably leads to layoffs
  • And there's MUCH MORE. Remember to educate yourself on the law.
2.) BLOG about it. Are you a woman against Obamacare? Then draft up a post and tweet it!

3.) Is your Representative or Senator dragging their feet when it comes to fighting Obamacare? Then contact them! The more constituents they hear from, the better. Dana Loesch provides a great list here.

Remember, you have to be the change you want to see in the world. Tired of the Democrats treating women like shills for their party (even though they can boast members like Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner)? Then do something about it. If you're a woman against Obamacare, then

By: Amy Lutz

The birthers are coming! The birthers are coming! And here I was thinking they had faded away like crocs and silly bands. Apparently I was wrong. Recently, claims that the President was not born in the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief have been brought to the forefront yet again. “Birtherism” was seemingly put to rest in 2011 when the President released a “Certificate of Live Birth” showing that he was in fact born in Hawaii in 1961. Unfortunately, that was not enough for the small number of people still waving the birther flag. Recent events have done nothing but refuel the movement.

The seemingly unquenchable fire of birtherism was reignited this month when Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett petitioned Hawaii to verify the certificate released by the White House in 2011. Breitbart.com released a 1991 booklet from the President’s literary agent which stated that Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” In addition, a 2004 AP story was recently discovered which referred to the “Kenyan-born Obama.” That whirlwind of birther fuel was certainly enough to rally the movement. Yet, these claims still stand upon shaky ground.Please read more at The College Conservative

Where in the World is President Obama?
By: Amy Lutz

Well, depending on the time of year, he could be just about anywhere. And our Commander in Chief isn’t shy about flaunting his frequent excursions either. Last week in Colombia, President Obama said, “Part of my job is to scout out where I may want to bring Michelle back later for vacation.” I wish that was just a joke. However, considering this president’s history of global trips, I doubt he was being facetious.

As of March 1st, the Obamas have taken 16 vacations and the President himself has hit the golf course over 90 times. Supposedly, President Obama’s most expensive trip occurred last December when he took his family to Hawaii for a Christmastime celebration. It is estimated that the entire trip cost roughly $4 million. And who footed a good chunk of the bill? That’s right, us. The Obamas’ expenditures on their seemingly monthly vacations fall heavily on the average taxpayer. Thinking about how much Michelle Obama’s 2010 trip to Spain cost makes me shudder. Taking a trip halfway across the world with “40 of your closest friends” can’t be that expensive, right? Ha, I think not.

Some on the left have remarked that both President George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan spent even more time on vacation during their first terms in office. However, it is not merely the frequency of President Obama’s trips that counts, it’s the lavishness and cost that truly matter. Presidents Bush and Reagan spent most of their vacation days at their respective ranches, often hosting several cabinet members. The Obamas, primarily Michelle, have darted all around the country (and the world for that matter), enjoying the “finer things in life.” New York City, Vail, South Africa, and Martha’s Vineyard have all hosted the First Family at one time or another. Even when they stay in the White House, the lavish parties do not disappear. For example, in 2009, the Obamas hosted a Halloween party at the White House complete with a dramatic Alice in Wonderland theme. Oh, and Johnny Depp, Tim Burton, and Chewbacca all made an appearance. And in other news, the economy is worse than ever.

Perhaps what bothers me most about the First Family’s choice of vacations and expenditures is the hypocrisy of it all. I’d be naïve to think that President Obama didn’t deserve to take a trip or swing a golf club every once in a while. And yes, I’ll concede that taxpayers have a duty to pay for the Secret Service (excluding some of their activities, of course), Air Force One, etc. President Obama certainly has one of the most stressful jobs in the world. Sometimes, he just deserves a break. Can you imagine what our country would look like if the President didn’t take time for himself? However, here’s what I can’t stand. Before and after the President returns from his lavish excursions, he lectures us about how we all need to “pay our fair share” and how the “rich are not paying enough.” Our nation is on a perpetual downward spiral. Is this really the best time to rub shoulders with Jack Sparrow or traipse across the smooth sands of Hawaii? I think not. In politics, perception is everything and it’s not looking good for the President. Right now, it’s hard to see past the blatant hypocrisy. Through the goggles of collective public perception, President Obama is a man who likes to enjoy luxury and then turns around and lectures other wealthy members of society for doing the same thing. Do me a favor, Mr. President. Next time you want to talk about the rich not paying their “fair share,” take a look at the mirror. Perhaps it’s time for a reality check.


Since When is Religion a Pre-Existing Condition?
By: Amy Lutz

While surfing through The University News online last week, I stumbled upon an opinion piece titled “Catholic Church Receives Federal Funds but Refuses Laws.” The piece is based upon the Federal Government’s recent contraception mandate and the subsequent outcry from various religious organizations, primarily the Catholic Church. At first glance, the article appears to be well researched and air tight. However, as I delved into the author’s argument even more, I found it to be simplistic and idealistic. He argues that the Catholic Church does not have a place to argue with the mandate because they receive federal funds in the form of Medicare and Medicaid payments. If only it were that simple. However, all government funds come with strings attached and refusing to accept the funds makes business difficult, if not impossible. Catholic hospitals are now faced with a classic Catch 22 situation.

If we accept the author’s premise, Catholic Hospitals will be placed in an impossible situation. If they choose their conscience and refuse federal funds (which I doubt is very feasible anyway), their health care services will either go downhill rapidly, skyrocket in price, or both. In any case, it will be the patients who are hurt the most. Should the hospitals choose to comply with the mandate, they will be forced to go against their religious beliefs. Isn’t this what the separation of church and state is for? It is not the Catholics who are wrong, it’s (somewhat unsurprisingly) the federal government. Since when is ok for the government to force, or at least strongly push, a religious institution to disregard their own doctrine? Perhaps I could see the logic in an argument supporting the mandate of life saving care for a child whose parents disagree with invasive surgery on religious grounds, but this is a different case. What we have here is not a case of “life-saving treatment.” We’re talking about contraception for crying out loud!

Despite Obama’s supposed “exemption,” Catholic and other religious hospitals are still stuck in a difficult situation. Under the revised mandate, faith-based organizations will not be directly forced to provide contraceptives to patients. Instead, the institutions’ insurance providers will have to provide birth control free of charge. However, this means that the faith-based organizations will still have to subsidize the insurance companies to ensure that free birth control is available. According to Tony Perkins, the Family Research Council President, “However, it won’t be free, because the insurance companies will increase the premium and administrative costs to the employer.” Higher administrative costs means higher costs for patients. Because 1 in 6 patients in the United States are treated in a Catholic hospital, this mandate has potential to do quite a bit of far-reaching damage. Also, higher hospital costs make it difficult for hospital administration to pay employees; thus, layoffs are likely (Note: Catholic hospitals employ 530,673 full time and 235,221 part time employees). And I thought that the President was actually attempting to combat unemployment. Silly me.

I doubt that President Obama expected the intensity of the outcry against this mandate when he announced it earlier this year, but it is far from undeserved. This overt attack on personal conscience and religious liberty is insulting at best. The government needs to get out of our churches and protect the rights of conscience, not trample them. 
The Politics of Respect
By: Amy Lutz
A recent editorial in the Los Vegas Sun- entitled “Respect Missing in GOP Campaign”- elaborated upon the increasing “disrespect” that Obama supporters feel is directed at the President by the GOP candidates. This commentary echoed sentiment expressed in an opinion piece published in The Washington Post on September 1st of this year.  The article points out how the President is fighting for respect from not just his opponents but also from his constituents. The left is quick to point out the “disrespect” they see inherent in criticism directed at the President, but they rarely investigate why this lack of respect is so pervasive.  In reality, respect is not something given when unmerited.  Unfortunately, for President Obama and his followers, he has done little to earn respect the office deserves.

The widespread lack of regard in which President Obama is held, may be due in part to his own attitude toward Americans at home.  Last year, the President claimed that votes are driven by “fear and frustration” because “we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared.”  Is it any surprise that Americans are afraid; our foundational principles are under assault and the Constitution based upon them, is in danger of being neutralized. Yet, the implication that we’re not “thinking clearly” is insulting.  Most people want to be treated like rational, capable human beings.  Obama’s condescension is palpable. Evidently he perceives that the problem is with us, not with him.

Please read the rest of the post at What Would the Founders Think?http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/the-politics-of-respect 

Jobs: Obama's 4-Letter Word
By: Amy Lutz

As Joe Biden likes to say, one of the biggest issues facing the US today is a three letter word: jobs, J-O-B-S, jobs. Wait…alright, so we all know that jobs is a four letter word, but for the Obama administration, that phrase applies in more ways than one. “Jobs” is a word commonly referenced by the President and his advisors, but this four letter word reflects perhaps more negatively on the administration than one of the more common, four letter curses in our vocabulary. Barack Obama’s record on job creation is shaky at best, and even saying that is pushing it. Since the left’s hope-and-change-promising Messiah has taken office, the economy has taken a turn for the worst and more and more people are losing their jobs and livelihoods. This fact; however, does not stop the Obama administration from claiming success in the face of a possible double dip recession.

When Barack Obama, whom I like to dub the “Job Destroyer in Chief,” took office, his platform was stimulus, stimulus, stimulus. The left believed, and still does, that waywardly tossing money at a sinking economy like our own will magically solve everything. Common sense and the facts tell a different story. In a report released by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors on July 1st, hand-picked Obama economists detailed the weak, if not damaging, impact that the Obama stimulus had on the American economy. The report, released on a Friday so as to bury its findings in the lull of a three-day weekend, claimed that the stimulus package “added or saved” about 2.4 million jobs. Here’s the kicker: those 2.4 million jobs cost $666 billion (I doubt that number is a coincidence), or $278,000 per job, and all at the taxpayers’ expense. Don’t forget that many of the jobs created by the stimulus were also temporary census jobs that only “stimulated” the economy for a few brief weeks before leaving thousands of people unemployed once again. Also, there’s significant data indicating that the stimulus actually did more harm than good. Six months before the report was filed in July, the stimulus had reportedly created or saved 2.7 million jobs. By the time July 1st rolled around, 300,000 of those jobs had disappeared. The unemployment data throughout Obama’s term in office reflects his lack of job creation and failure of the stimulus package. The President promised that if we just passed the stimulus bill (like the health care bill, so we could find out what was in it), unemployment would not rise above 8%. When Barack Obama took the reins, unemployment was 7.6%. Now? 9.1% and rising. The national debt also reflects the fiscal irresponsibility of Washington during Obama’s tenure. Our debt was $9.9 trillion when the President entered office, and currently stands at $14.5 trillion. I’m confused as to where 2008’s “hope and change” fits into our dreary economic landscape in 2011. Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign contains more of a “let’s hope something changes” platform than one that actually creates a workable plan for economic recovery.

As rumors that yet another stimulus package might be headed our way heat up, the Obama administration has shifted gears and attributed job creation to something they know a bit too much about: food stamps. Yep, that’s right, apparently food stamps are providing employment to thousands of people all around the country. Well, that is according to the Obama administration, and we all know their record on economic accuracy. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack stated recently: “But I should point out that when you talk about the snap program or the food stamp program, you have to recognize that it’s also an economic stimulus. Every dollar of snap benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity.” Vilsack claimed that as people use food stamps to buy groceries, more people are needed to stock, shelve, package, process, and ship the foodstuffs accrued from food stamp users. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney continued with this logic while stating that not just food stamps but unemployment insurance as well help stimulate our fractured economy. After mocking a Wall Street Journal reporter for asking how unemployment insurance creates jobs, Carney replied: “It is one of the most direct ways to infuse money into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren’t earning a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get.  They're not going to save it; they're going to spend it.” The White House Press Secretary concluded by saying that there “are few other ways that can more directly put money into the economy than providing unemployment insurance.” Alright, so let me get this straight. We increase the size of government-run programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance so that the people using these funds will stimulate the economy by spending them in the free market. Sounds reasonable…well it would if the funds that supply food stamps and unemployment insurance came out of thin air. These programs are funded by taxpayers who are already sore from holding up our bloated bureaucracy on their shoulders. So taxpayers fund government run programs, which according to the Obama administration creates jobs. Then; however, taxpayers are still left with the tab from funding the programs in the first place and in more debt than ever. Here’s a better plan: I agree with the President that an increase in spending in the free market creates economic prosperity, but why does this increase in spending have to come from the government? Why don’t we just decrease the tax burden on every American, increase individuals’ disposable income, and let the principles of capitalism do the rest? Unfortunately for us, the Obama administration does not adhere to common sense economics and continually increases our regulations and taxations, creating an even bigger, unnecessarily complicated economic fiasco.

Although all signs point to a double dip recession, Barack Obama is full steam ahead with his Keynesian, big government principles of overtaxing the rich and over-bloating the welfare system. Even respected business tycoon Warren Buffet has bought into the twisted logic, stating, “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress.” Well, Mr. Buffet, if you are so concerned about not being taxed enough, why don’t you just write a blank check to the government? I’m sure they could always use a few extra dollars to spend on interactive dance software or analyses of exotic ants (yes, unfortunately, those are real stimulus projects). Tell me, when in history have tax and spend (and spend and spend) policies worked in the long run? The only proven method of economic success and recovery throughout history has been low taxes, small government, and fiscal discipline. Just ask Calvin Coolidge or Ronald Reagan. And don’t forget Rick Perry. Like Al Gore likes to say of the global warming argument, “the debate is over.” History has proven time and time again that conservative economic principles are the most efficient. All the government needs to do is to let the free market breathe. How can the economy prosper when Uncle Sam has his hands tight around its neck?  Liberal administrations like the one currently in power have no trust in the American people and our nation’s proven principles of liberty and economic freedom. However, the American people are the true source of economic success. Prosperity rests on the shoulders of the small business owner setting up shop for the first time; the businessman who might just have the next great idea; or the innovator who could change the world with a new product or service. These entrepreneurs hold up our capitalistic system and when they are free to pursue risk and reward, the burden is light and prosperous. However, as is depicted in the novel Atlas Shrugged, when American business owners are weighed down by twisted regulation and suffocating taxes, our economy lags and little is produced. If that load continues to grow heavier on the backs of our entrepreneurs, it will soon become too overwhelming and our once prosperous system will come crashing down without a net to halt its descent.

America’s Red Chrysler Pacifica: The Debt Ceiling and an Ever Increasing Deficit 
By: Amy Lutz
So it is well past August 2nd, and the United States government appears to still be functioning (if you can call it that). Washington has yet to go up in flames (emphasis on the yet) as was predicted by President Obama and his fellow politicians on the hill, right and left. This new sense of manufactured hope made famous by our current Commander in Chief is mostly due to the passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and subsequent increase in the debt ceiling. Moderate and establishment congressmen from both sides are celebrating the passage of the act as a sign of progress towards reducing the federal deficit, but many on the conservative right say not so fast. Although the media is portraying this bill as a Tea Party victory, staunch conservatives in the House and Senate fear this bill is more of a band-aid as opposed to a permanent solution.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 is set to raise the debt ceiling to $2.4 trillion in exchange for an equal amount of deficit reduction over the next ten years. The debt limit was immediately increased by $400 billion and President Obama was granted the right to raise the limit by $500 billion dollars initially followed by another increase of $1.2-1.5 trillion. The latter two expansions are subject to a congressional motion of disapproval. The Act creates the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (aptly referred to as the “Super Committee”), a collaboration of 12 Congressmen equally divided between both houses and both parties in Congress. The Super Committee will have the responsibility of determining where the $1.5 trillion worth of spending reductions will be distributed. If Congress cannot come up with a deficit reduction bill equal to at least $1.2 trillion by November 23rd, the debt ceiling may still be raised but the increase would be in exchange for automatic spending cuts distributed evenly between security and non-security spending. Lastly, Congress must vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment by the end of 2011, but it is not required to pass.

Now that the bill has been discussed, passed and signed, it’s all smooth sailing from now on, right? I think not. In actuality, although the bill could have been drastically worse, I do not believe it goes far enough to solve our nation’s financial crisis. Here’s how I see it: I recently bought a Red Chrysler Pacifica and took out a loan to pay for it. Every month, I pay a set amount of money for my car and in a few years, I will have reimbursed the bank in full, plus interest. The logical thing for anyone in my situation to do is to simply pay the payment every month until my car is paid off and avoid spending frivolously so I have enough money saved up to keep on track with my car payments. Unfortunately, that is not how the United States Government would see it. Analogously, if I were the US Government, I would borrow thousands of dollars from my parents and spend it on chrome embellishments for my car, several pairs of fuzzy dice, and thousands of new car smelling air fresheners all while avoiding my car payments for several months. When the bank finally comes to collect for my overdue payments, I would promise my parents that instead of spending $5000 per month, I would only spend $4500 and continue to drive myself into debt, albeit at a slightly slower pace. Then, when I inevitably find that I can no longer control my debt, I would simply request more money from my parents and leave them with the tab from my irresponsible fiscal behavior, just like the American people will eventually be left with the responsibility of paying for the government’s out of control spending.

If it was not made clear by the above analogy, this debt ceiling bill does little to solve our spending problem in Washington. We need drastic cuts, not small spending reductions, and certainly not tax hikes (or “revenue increases” as they are now called). In addition, the concept of a “Super Committee” is not the most comforting. Although its powers are limited, the committee will be given increased power over both houses of Congress and is immune to amendments or a filibuster. I thought we were trying to decrease the government’s power, not enhance it. As far as a Balanced Budget Amendment goes, I’m fully in support of the concept. Unfortunately, the Budget Control Act does little to assure that the states will have the opportunity of making this amendment a reality. It simply calls for a vote and does not base the increase in the debt ceiling on the passage of a balanced budget amendment. We do not need a hollow promise of a discussion, we need action. We need a balanced budget amendment. If states are able to function with a balanced budget, the federal government should continue in the same vein.

Although the White House secretly told executives from top banks that a credit default would not be possible, in the public arena, many politicians warned of an impending economic Armageddon if the debt ceiling was not raised. Now that the Budget Control Act has been passed, it seems like the opposite has occurred. Immediately after President Obama signed the Act, the market dropped 265.87 points (2.19%) and fell below 12,000. A few days later, we received another shock to our economy when S&P downgraded our credit rating from AAA to AA+. I hope that increased interest rates were what President Obama wanted for his 50th birthday, because that’s exactly what this country has to look forward to.

In summary, things are not looking very bright for this nation economically and when the Budget Control Act inevitably fails to stabilize our government, this administration and others will need someone to blame. Luckily, the media has that covered. Immediately after the bill became law, newspapers and media outlets heralded it as a “Tea Party victory.” Unfortunately for MSNBC and the New York Times, the facts tell a slightly different story. Many of the congressmen who voted against the bill are staunch conservatives and members of the Tea Party Caucus. The lengthy list of dissenters includes Michele Bachmann, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint, and Jason Chaffetz. Even Republicans who voted for the bill such as Allen West and Paul Ryan admit that it is “far from perfect” and is nothing more than the best deal they could have gotten under the circumstances. According to a recent Gallup poll, among Democrats, 58% approve of the bill and 28% disapprove. Among Republicans, 25% approve and 64% disapprove. So much for a Tea Party Victory I suppose. In fact, although the Budget Control Act does include spending reductions, it seems to cater more to the whims of the left than the right. It is no more than a band-aid for our ever increasing deficit and spending problems in Washington and it’s not enough. We are going to need drastic, painful cuts if we are to ever regain stability and our AAA credit rating. Just like I need to curb my spending to keep track of my car payments, the US Government must become fiscally disciplined and begin to attack the monstrous deficit head on while avoiding tax hikes and preventing taxpayers from paying for Washington’s mistakes.

By: Amy Lutz

Though it should not be a surprise, once again, our leftist media has targeted Sarah Palin with a barrage of vindictive commentary (just to clarify to the overly-sensitive liberals reading this, by using the word “target,” I don’t mean to be violent). This time, commentators on poorly rated networks such as CNN and MSNBC have taken issue with Palin’s account of Paul Revere’s ride in 1775. It appears that this is the first occasion leftist commentators such as Chris Matthews have cared about historical accuracy, but I digress. During a recent trip to Boston, Sarah Palin said the following of that night in 1775: “He who warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms,” said Palin, “by ringing those bells, and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.” The left went crazy, attacking Palin’s intelligence, integrity, character, and just about everything they could think of. They attacked here assertion that Revere had “warned the British,” stating that this was simply not true. As usual, the assaults were vicious and unfair. The always eloquent and accurate Chris Matthews said of Palin’s statement: “Oh, God. That speaks for her credentials more than anything else. I remember Steve Schmidt said after meeting her and listening to her saying she doesn't know anything.” After the firestorm erupted, Palin clarified her statement to Chris Wallace on Fox: “Part of Paul Revere’s ride — and it wasn’t just one ride — he was a courier, he was a messenger. Part of his ride was to warn the British that we’re already there. That, hey, you’re not going to succeed.” Despite this addition, the left has yet to let up their attacks. Many commentators are still vindictively commenting on Palin’s statement and its accuracy even though it is not fully inaccurate. And since when do we trust liberals when it comes to history? One of their best weapons is the perversion of historical fact to fit their own agendas.

Well, let’s set the record straight. Although, I will admit, Sarah Palin has made her fair share of gaffes in the past, I would not classify her Paul Revere comment as one of them. Let me explain. Before Revere’s famous ride, he organized the “powder alarms” which were designed to warn communities that the British were planning on stealing gunpowder in order to disarm the Americans. This alarm system included the “bells and warning shots” Palin referenced. In order to eliminate the alarms, the British attempted to quarantine Boston. As an alteration to the system in the face of the quarantine, the lanterns hung in the Old North Church on the night of Revere’s ride were meant to activate the powder alarms and warn Americans that “The British were coming.” That same night, Revere set out to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock of the advancing British troops, but was captured on the way there. In a letter written by Revere himself, he recounted being questioned by a British officer: "He asked me if I was an express. I answered in the affirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and added, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up." That sure sounds like a warning to the British to me, and written in Revere’s own words nonetheless. Just like Bill Clinton said, “It’s the economy, stupid,” hey liberal media, “It’s the truth, stupid.” This story might be obscure and unknown to most (including MSNBC anchors), but Sarah Palin appeared to have been fully aware of its truth. Unfortunately, even in the face of Palin’s apparent vindication, the left continues to mercilessly attack her credibility, and the credibility of most right-leaning politicians for that matter. This harsh treatment has revolved around the former vice presidential candidate ever since her emergence onto the political scene. Just think back to January on the day of the horrific shooting in Tucson. Many left-leaning commentators and politicians were quick to blame Palin (and other conservatives) for the attack because she had “targeted” Kathy Lee Gifford’s district as one that could be taken by Republicans in the midterm elections. Well, just so the left knows, the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner was declared schizophrenic (not surprisingly), meaning that his actions were the result of an insane mind, not a political map. I’m still waiting for the apologies to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and all blamed conservatives.

Now, compare Palin’s media treatment to that of the Unquestioned Messiah, Barack Obama. The President has had his fair share of gaffes, perhaps even more than Palin, but they are rarely even mentioned by our leftist media. One of the most offensive comments he has made occurred when he was speaking on the Tonight Show about his “bowling prowess:” “No, no. I have been practicing...I bowled a 129. It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something.” Excuse me? The President made a blatant joke about the Special Olympics, which showcases the handicapped, and the media ignored it. Granted the President did apologize for the comment, but the leftist media did not barrage him with criticisms like they are currently directing at Sarah Palin. Another favorite Obama gaffe of mine occurred when he was speaking of a natural disaster in my home state: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed.”  For the President’s information, that tornado only had 12 casualties. I’m pretty sure I would have heard if ten thousand of my fellow Kansans died. On another occasion, the President tried to make a point about health care using a mail analogy, but in the end just created a self-defeating argument: “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems.” If I’m reading that correctly, Obama stated the two private businesses, UPS and FedEx, are more successful than a government-run program: the Post Office. And he calls himself a big-government liberal! Yet again, what did the media have to say about the comment? Nothing. Perhaps the most famous, and most comical, Obamaism occurred when the President overestimated exactly how many states made up our Union: “I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go.” Now, we conservatives have all had a good laugh over the comment, and rightfully so, but few of us actually think that the President believes that there are 57 states. I’m the first to admit that it was a simple mistake and does not at all reflect on Obama’s intelligence. In fact, although I disagree with just about every decision the President has made, I acknowledge that he is a very well educated man. Chris Matthews gave a great display of liberal hypocrisy this past April when having a discussion with Michael Steele. When Steele brought up the “57 state” comment, Matthews called it a “misstatement” and brushed it off. Comparing Matthews’ comments on Palin’s Paul Revere statement and Obama’s gaffe shows exactly how biased our media is. In fact, for conservatives, it’s a double standard.

Every time a conservative opens their mouth anymore, they are annihilated by the media. Yet, when liberal politicians make a mistake, it’s silent. Most of the media is so in the bag for the Obama administration and the liberal establishment that they cannot present an accurate account of the news. This is why liberals like to attack FoxNews for being “too conservatively biased.” Yes, Fox has conservative commentators like Bill O’Reilly hired to give his opinion on the news, but the network really appears to be to the right because it’s surrounded by the liberal media. It’s only conservative by comparison. The liberal media, unlike Fox, often spends most of its time tearing down conservatives, especially Sarah Palin. Liberal “journalists” spend so much time trying to discredit Palin, frankly, because she’s a threat. She does not fit into the “rich white male” stereotype that they have imposed on the conservative movement. She’s a conservative woman who is truly unpredictable (seriously, Sarah, are you running or not?). Liberals can’t seem to force her into a box and that frustrates them. So they attack her with every weapon in their arsenal. The same goes for “untraditional” politicians such as Allen West and Michelle Bachmann. The media’s treatment of the President; however, is definitely a horse of a different color. For most of them, Barack Obama is untouchable, so much so that he’s reached “Messiah” and “Savior” status to many liberals. He can do no wrong. In fact, he even gives Chris Matthews a “thrill up his leg.” Well, liberal media, if you need a savior, take him and see how far that gets you. Conservatives, on the other hand, will rely on the American ideal. We don’t need a savior to make progress. We believe in the American dream that liberals have tried to convince us is dead. To move forward, we do not need an Unquestionable Messiah to lead us or a biased media to tell us what to think. Conservatives will “question with boldness” in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson. All we need to succeed is the self-reliance, entrepreneurship, and innovation that made the United States of America the exceptional nation it is today.  

By: Amy Lutz
During his campaign, then candidate Barack Obama promised the end of “politics as usual,” and wanted to end the “politics of the past.” Almost two years into his term, states are literally boycotting one another, the voice of the American people is barely more than a whisper in the turbulent storm of Washington politics, and bipartisanship has simply become a myth. This culture of dissent and harsh disagreement has brought out the extremes on both sides of the aisle. Unlike on our southern border, there is an impassable wall separating Republican and Democratic politicians, and that barrier has begun to creep into the private sector. Seemingly, Obama did actually maintain one of his campaign promises. He was successful in ending the “politics of the past” that he viewed as detrimental to the legislative process. To the chagrin of the American people, the “politics of the present” are much more turbulent and staunchly partisan than ever. 

According to Ronald Reagan, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.’” Once again, The Gipper has been proven right. Like all big-government progressives, Barack Obama campaigned on the promise of solving a laundry list of issues through the government, failed miserably, and made the original problems much, much worse. There’s health care, illegal immigration, congressional partisanship, and energy just to name a few. In each case, Barack Obama’s response has done nothing more than exacerbate the already volatile situation in Washington. Most politicians will sell their soul to at least say that they are going to please everyone, but something has changed. Since the Obama administration has taken power, no longer are most politicians even cognizant of their constituents. Most of this is due to President Obama and the Democrats’ perpetual decisions to enact legislation or make comments that alienate a majority of Americans. This phenomenon is plainly evidenced in the administration’s handling of health care, the Arizona illegal immigration law, and simple partisan debates themselves. Therefore, the political establishment is almost fully detached from the American people, and if we are not wise in November, the Obama Express is going to take us far down a track that will create and unrecognizable America. 

After the stimulus packages, TARP, auto bailout, and cash for clunkers, President Obama and the Democratic supermajority put their foot on the gas and rammed Health Care reform down the throats of the American people. A broad piece of legislation that took over 1/6 of the economy was passed even though only 33% of Americans were (and are) favorable towards Universal Health Care. Too make matters worse, 34 Democrats and every single Republican voted against the bill. What happened to bipartisanship, Mr. President? After all, wasn’t it you that said we could not pass such sweeping legislation without a broad consensus? During the campaign, candidate Barack Obama said: 
“And what I believe that means is we've got to break out of what I call, sort of, the 50-plus-one pattern of presidential politics. Which is, you have nasty primaries where everybody's disheartened. Then you divide the country 45 percent on one side, 45 percent on the other, 10 percent in the middle -- all of them apparently live in Florida and Ohio -- and battle it out. And maybe you eke out a victory of 50-plus-one, but you can't govern. I mean, you get Air Force One, there are a lot of nice perks to being president, but you can't deliver on health care. We're not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-one strategy.” Barack Obama was trying to make the point that Hillary Clinton would have been a “50 plus-one” president, and that he, Obama, would not. Considering that the Democrats had to pull out a reconciliation bill in order to pass heath care reform, I am having a hard time seeing how Obama is not a “50-plus-one” president. Now that health care has been passed, in Obama’s own words, can he “still govern?” Obama also made a point to note during Bush’s presidency: “What I worry about would be that you essentially have still two chambers, the House and the Senate, but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the Founders intended. You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating it is, to make sure that there's a broad consensus before the country moves forward.”

The President’s analysis is correct, but his application is not. The Founders intended for bipartisan consensus, not a consensus of Democrats. Republicans and conservative Democrats are being ignored and criticized right and left in Washington. Is this the change we could believe in? The “politics of the past” that Obama campaigned to change have been replaced by this “majoritarian absolute power.” Starting with health care, President Obama has gone against the will of the people time and time again, thus creating the volatile “politics of the present” that we see today.

President Obama’s most polarizing decision that has sparked the most outrage is perhaps his decision to stand against the Arizona immigration law, SB 1070. Without even reading the law, Obama claimed that it would cause people to be “harassed” by the police when “taking their kids out to get ice cream,” in other words, it would allow for racial profiling. Not only is the law written specifically to prevent that from happening, it’s also supported by 60% of the American population. Many people feel that it does not go far enough. Yet, the President and his supporters continue to criticize the law with baseless accusations. The longer the President takes such a position, the more support he loses. The DOJ is even suing Arizona for the law based upon the fact that is opens the door to racial profiling, even though 56% of Americans oppose such a lawsuit. The President’s remarks as well as the potential lawsuit have caused more actual violence than any other issue, even health care. Countless “pro-immigrant” rallies have been held around the country, some of which have become dangerous. Twenty four people were arrested after clashing with the police in Chicago and three people were beaten by protesters in San Francisco. Rocks and bottles have been thrown at police. What makes matters worse is the fact that the Federal government is doing almost nothing to stop the violence or disagreement, actually, it can be said that they could be accelerating it. The Department of Education and the U.S. Border Control have both cancelled events in Arizona due to the controversy. The entire city of Los Angeles has started a boycott against the state of Arizona. Is it possible that Los Angeles would be boycotting Arizona if the liberal establishment and the President were not making such a fuss over SB 1070? Of course not, considering that the laws on the California border are very similar to those that will soon be enacted in Arizona. This controversy has become “politics as usual” times ten. 

Outside of any specific issues, President Obama has not held back in causing fierce political disagreement by publically chastising Republicans and his opposition multiple times. In his most recent State of the Union Address Obama stated, “What frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day… a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of- I’m speaking to both parties now”. This message seems to be a call for increased bipartisanship, but in actuality, it appears to be a direct reference to the Republicans in Congress, which does nothing but create more partisanship. Although Obama says that he is speaking to “both parties,” it can be assumed that he is speaking to Republicans with the addition of the latter portion because of the Republican Party’s across-the-board opposition to the health care reform bill. At the time of his speech, the only party that seemed to be “obstructing” a bill in his mind was the Republican Party. The Democrats’ supermajority allowed them to pass bills with little or no Republican support. In this one instance, the rhetoric weaved by a “great rhetorician” such as Barack Obama actually failed to deliver the message desired. In a more recent example, President Obama blasted Republicans in his weekly radio address for voting against ending debate on the new “jobs bill” (aka Stimulus), saying that he was disappointed to see “dreary and familiar politics get in the way of our ability to move forward on a series of critical issues that have a direct impact on people's lives." I would like to first point out that this vote was bipartisan…in the dissent. All of the Republicans AND some Democrats voted to continue debate. President Obama has not seemed to grasp the fact that people can actually have legitimate reasons to oppose measures that he supports. It is the president himself who has not broken away from the “politics as usual.” The fierce partisanship that President Obama apparently supports fuels the “politics of the present.” 

As we near the midterm elections, the political landscape of the United States is tumultuous at best, most of which can be attributed to the administration’s handling of each “crisis” they face. I truly believe that Obama sees himself as a one-term President, considering that he has done nothing to cool tempers and increase bipartisanship in Washington. Time and time again, the President has taken the position that alienates the greatest number of Americans for every issue, from health care to illegal immigration. Real bipartisanship does not seem to be in the cards for the President, despite his promise to end the “politics as usual.” The “politics as usual” that were evident during the Bush administration and his predecessors were filled with disagreement, but Washington was on more of a “Partisan Light” track as opposed to the current single-party rule we see today. President Obama has done the opposite of what his supporters voted for him to do. He promised “hope and change” and gave us hopelessness and unwanted change. The question is, why? Why has the president fueled the volatile partisanship time and time again? I suppose Rahm Emanuel can answer that one based upon his quote: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Since the Obama administration has taken power, they have seized even more control with each successive “crisis.” The supposed health care “crisis” gave us health care reform, illegal immigration gave us boycotts and rumors of amnesty, and the BP oil spill gave us a drilling moratorium that will prove to destroy the oil industry if it stands. Utilizing a “good crisis” seems to be this administration’s priority, and as such, the “politics of the past” that Obama sought to end have only been replaced by a political landscape that is more bitter than ever.