The policies of this administration have, and will continue to do nothing in the way of advancing freedom and liberty.  In fact, they will only make it more difficult for people to attain it and put into jeopardy countries who are currently protecting it.  However, it may make the world more peaceful …relatively.  Of course, there is peace in North Korea and Cuba, but not freedom or government by consent.

No doubt the President has many supporters of these policies.  Sadly, their thinking is fatally flawed (literally).  On a lesser scale, they blame guns not criminals.  I wonder if they realize that negotiation with oppressive regimes is only effective when backed by the sword.  Take away our swords (nukes) or willingness to use them, and the negotiation is over; we are at the mercy of our foe’s benevolence.  Twentieth century history is replete with examples of mass murder and genocide when we choose to advance these naive policies.

Our President and his fellow statists in Congress have met this economic downturn with Keynesian, big government interventions. From a stimulus, which had to take or borrow money from one group of taxpayers and give it to another, to a health care law that this week bore the fruit of a public hearing for companies who have dared to calculate the cost differential between maintaining certain benefits or paying a fine (tax); the federal government is using its full power (defined and implied) to regulate, intimidate and control businesses. These events are not anomalies: The extension of unemployment benefits, the take-over of student loans and the demonization of any would be competitor to government have all sent the message: If you dare to compete with the Federal Government you will be punished. These actions have, and continue to destroy investment, innovation and subsequently job creation. A recent LA Times piece detailed the recessions of Reagan and Obama. The key difference: The current (Obama’s) recession job losses are actually just below those of President Reagan’s. However, it is in the measure of job creation where Reagan’s record dwarfs Obama’s anemic results.

All the talk of GDP growth and green jobs is just hot air. Without an environment where productivity through free enterprise is incentivized; you end up with consistent double digit unemployment and government picking the chosen few who are able to succeed.

As I cling to my religion and gun/s, my President does not think America’s constitution needs to be restored. In fact, he believes America needs to be remade.  This is not an unusual aspiration.  Since the 1980’s “change” has become a ubiquitous theme in political campaigns.  However, this time, we have a man who is dedicated to deconstruct the United States economically, defensively, and culturally in the desire to better it.   His policies concerning taxes, regulation, engagement (foreign policy), marriage and life have evidenced the commander in chief to be a man who interprets history, economics and the Constitution through a lens of a Marx or Chomsky rather than a Washington, Jefferson or Reagan. This is not to say the President is evil, but it is to say that he is wrong.

It is shameful that folks in the fourth estate (press) have not only embraced the agenda (they are entitled to their opinion) but have refused to allow it to be challenged consistently in the arena of ideas.  As Americans we should welcome ideological challenges, whether conservative or liberal; as journalists, they should insist on it.  Courage is not a virtue of one ideological group, but why do the purveyors of liberalism/socialism shy away from a true challenge where there is a debate; not a pep rally?

Like the issue of free trade, it is the seen; not the unseen where the narrative is established: if without government people will die whether economically or literally. Republicans have agreed to play (surrender) in this statist’s arena hence social security, Medicare and most recently Medicare part D. Even in the current debate, we are debating the Doc Fix. In both parties it has become apostasy to suggest ending Medicare or privatizing social security. Just ask Paul Ryan or check out www.nothingbuttruth.com video of Ryan attempting to bring a dose of economic reality to the debate Saturday. While admirable, Ryan’s plan doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hades for the same reason a candidate who wanted to remake America was elected President: Americans no longer care about what the Constitution says; most don’t even know what it is (in content).

Our media certainly has forgotten it except when it comes to defending terrorists, pornography or secular humanism. The Supreme Court, ostensibly the final check on the executive and legislative branches, has become so politicized that the most recently approved nominee was an advocate of judicial activism, which for any nominee should immediately be disqualification. Not so today, it is just a speed bump in the process that has become farcical.

The founders certainly warned against the current state of union. Thank fully, in their brilliance, they allowed the people to remedy federal government, power grabs with elections and penning of the Tenth amendment. Elections, although elections are not immediate, are effective. And we are already seeing states mobilizing. So, there is still hope for change (repeal) and restoration. I wonder if we will be vigilant or have we too surrendered?

Before I address the war further, I must first state unequivocally: The United Military has, and continues to be the finest fighting force in the history of the world.  I am so honored and blessed to be your commander in chief.  Every morning Americans wake under the freedom you provide, and every night we sleep in security because of your defense, THANK YOU.

Today America finds itself on multiple fronts in the current war on terror. What some have called the endless war, this conflict is unlike the World Wars and Cold War in many ways. However, wars share commonalities: they have an enemy, and end in victory or defeat.   Approaching a decade after 9-11 we have yet to clearly define our enemy despite the fact that the enemy continues to murder and terrorize the free world.  Just who is this enemy?

The enemy is network of terrorist organizations, who in the early 1990’s decided to lay aside their inter conflicts and unite against America, Israel and other democracies.  They are jihadists. Their vision is to subjugate the entire world under a Caliphate. The religious doctrine they use to justify this war is found in the doctrine of Islam. They have taken Islam from a religion to an ideology, radical Islamism. Currently we witness elements of  this ideology in countries like Iran and parts of Somalia and Sudan among others.  Before 911, it was in the Taliban ruled Afghanistan with this ideology.

Notice, these are all majority Muslim populated countries, which is why this radical ideology must be publicly addressed, challenged and unambiguously rejected within the Islamic community as well as the world. For the victims of jihadists know no one color, gender or creed.  Black or white, male or female, Muslim, Christian or Jew, they have, and continue to be attacked. They are attacked because they don’t share the jihadist vision; they desire to be free.  This war is not between Muslims and America, nor is it a war between Christianity and Islam; it is a war between jihadists and the free world.  There is an enemy and it has allies. These allies manifest themselves in silence, obfuscation and willful blindness; they are leaders who don’t understand the difference between engagement and surrender. However well intentioned, these leaders make the mistake of either signing treaties with jihadists, or reaching out for moderate jihadists.  In the past, the governments of Pakistan and Yemen have tried this approach with Taliban and Al Queda.  The result was more aggression from a stronger, more organized enemy. You must be clear when confronting evil; clarity is power.

President Reagan understood the power of clarity when he declared the Soviet Union the evil empire.  That declaration provided a choice to the world: you are either on the side of freedom or tyranny (side of good or evil, respectively). Ten days after the September 11^th attack, President Bush offered the same basic choice with: “either you are with us or with the terrorists.” Today I call for Americans as well as the world to make this decision, and thereby confront this ideology. The decision is not about supporting one particular nation.   This is about supporting people who desire to be free. Be they in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan, we will support them by funding NGOs, recognizing and aiding political dissidents and oppressed groups, and yes, at times military force.   As the Salafists and Khomeini-ists unite in their desire to subjugate and murder, the democratic world unites in defending and spreading freedom to all of those who desire it.

We can, and will defeat this evil scourge, just as we have done in the past.  Once again, America embraces this challenge and will, along with our allies, put this ideology where it belongs in the dustbin of history right alongside Nazism and Communism. Regimes that currently support this enemy, your days are numbered. And to the citizens living under this tyranny,  America and the free world stand with you, and we ask you to stand with us!  We realize the defeat of this evil foe will not end the eternal struggle between good and evil. However, it will again demonstrate that evil will not go unchallenged and when it manifests; it is defeated. Thank you and God bless America, and all those who both desire and defend freedom.

*This was written before the Christmas day attempted terrorist attack; I will be publishing an article Monday regarding the 2009 terrorist attacks (Arkansas, Ft. Hood etc.)

Nearly a decade ago America bore witness to the deadliest attack since Pearl Harbor.  Planes high-jacked by Jihadists flew into the twin towers and Pentagon.  Another was headed for the White House, but crashed into a Pennsylvania field due to the heroic efforts of a group of passengers who had realized their plane had been turned into a weapon of the enemy.  Following the attacks, we recognized that we were now at war with an enemy that had been at war with us for the past 20 years.  President Bush put us on a war footing. After eight years, and continued fighting on two major war fronts, the American soldier has defended America honorably while bringing freedom to those who have not known it.

Freedom is a gift from God.  The desire to be free lies in the heart of every man, but as the cliché goes:  freedom is not free.  Thomas Jefferson said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.  When a marine falls in the sands of Iraq or the mountains of Afghanistan, we must all honor their sacrifice by asking:  What are they dying for?  Is it to bring freedom to a chaotic world which finds its theological foundation in a doctrine that has, and continues to be, used to subjugate and murder? Is it to conquer, and rule over resource laden fiefdoms and travel routes in order to build an empire? Is it to distract a domestic population with an outside threat as to distract its own citizens from the corruption of the state?  No, it is none of these familiar canards.  Their sacrifice is about one thing; protecting America.

So just what are we protecting? Is it a piece of land or a majestic government building?  I suggest that it is neither ground nor physical structure. Rather, the outlined system of rights found in our Declaration and Constitution. These divinely inspired documents clearly outline a limited government where the state is not the dispenser of rights regarding life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It is merely an organizing structure in which citizens express these Gods given rights. Today, we find these rights under assault, not only from jihadist’s attacks, but from statism.  However well intentioned this statism is, it threatens current and future generations with oppression from a growing government that, with every bailout, stimulus or new regulation, enslaves its citizens.  This enslavement does not manifest in the form of physical chains, but reliance upon the state.  The state is no longer the protector of rights; it is the personal manager of freedom.   How can we prevent this current trend from becoming a permanent reality?  We must not only address the question of what we need to do, but also, how we got here.

Just as on 9-11 we saw the physical destruction of Jihadism, in the fall of 2008, we felt the economic destruction of government manipulation.  When a government manipulates the economic system in order to engineer a politically advantageous outcome; they will end up with crisis.  Whether it is to increase home ownership or to ensure retirement security, the seed of destruction is planted. Today’s crisis is not a failure of government to regulate; it is the government’s use of regulation and power (perceived and actual).  The result of this insidious meddling is evidenced: a weak currency, a government owned banking system and debt hemorrhaging from unfunded entitlement programs and so-called stimulus.  These interventions have produced the worst economic environment since the Great Depression.  It will worsen unless we take immediate action.

That action does not involve a centrally planned green economy, a redistribution of wealth or a takeover of the health care system.  These socialist policies violate common sense, basic economics, and most importantly, the constitution.  The answer to our crisis is not found in government programs to combat greed, which, besides being a constant in our fallen nature, also is not mutually exclusive to those outside of Washington.  The answer is in the recognition, transition and restoration of our rights.  Through personalizing entitlements, simplifying the tax code, and creating an environment friendly to business because it allows them to succeed and yes, at times, fail, we will stabilize our economic system.   The foundation of this proposal is freedom.  Freedom from government Ponzi schemes, taxes on success and influence (through picking winners and losers) and regulatory agencies.  The bottom line, the tax code and government coffers are not to be disproportionately enforced, and/or distributed.

I believe that we can and will survive this crisis by simply adhering to our founding principles. In America, we believe in freedom. From markets to speech, we embrace this fundamental concept.  By its nature government growth takes that freedom.  Be it campaign finance or health care reform, environmental or media regulation, or judicial activism; they all depart from the constitution.  Each step America takes away from it, the more enslaved we become.  We do not need hope and change; we need restoration.  Again, fundamental principles do not have an expiration date, but societies that violate them do.

The stimulus will continue to be a debacle.  In the name of saving ourselves from another great depression, our government passed (unread) legislation that has added trillion dollars of debt to our economy in order to save jobs and stabilize banks.  Since the government can only redistribute money; it cannot create wealth.  We have the equivalent of taking a bucket of water from the deep end and pouring it in the shallow end expecting the water to rise.  This approach is obviously asinine, but remarkably, Nobel Prize winners have endorsed it.  What is good about this? People started to question in the form of tea parties.

The cap and trade bill has passed the House and currently has overcome one hurdle in the Senate.  The entire legislation is based on the concept of manmade global warming (now climate change).  This, at best is a dubious theory, and at worst, a complete fraud.  The bill would not only burden Americans with onerous taxes, but turn the government into more of a kingmaker than it already is with subsidies as well.  What is good about this? Americans and business leaders have rallied in opposition with arguments that have debunked consensus theories based on flawed climate models (and junk science), employed basic economic reasoning and highlighted the Constitution’s limits on the federal government.

So, give thanks for the left taking off the figurative mask of their agenda. They forgot President Obama did not win on a message of higher taxes and government opaqueness; tax cut for 95% of the American people and transparency. The reality is that America is a center right country.  No matter how much leftists distort the historical impact of FDR and LBJ (New Deal and Great Society, respectively) economic policies; America is not buying the lie of big government.  Washington’s constitutional and economic ignorance is only trumped by their arrogance.  Their supporters in the MSM (old media) have also been discredited by the biggest threat to a left wing, liberal economic ideology, competition.  Fox News, the internet and conservative talk radio have provided balance to the debate.  The attempts to marginalize opposition with the characterization of a swastika-carrying, unruly mob have been exposed as an agenda driven slander.

Yes, I am thankful, but perhaps not for the actual legislation, but rather the response from the American people.  Nebulous, airy slogans of hope and change have been tossed aside for the substantive calls to restore the Constitution, free markets and the rule of law.  I am hopeful, because apathy has yielded to informed passion.  Now, vigilance is the key to make sure that the “change” we have is one that returns government back to its proper role.

Nobody likes to be criticized when they are trying to help.  When we make mistakes, we wouldn’t them put on a replay loop for the world to see.  True leaders possess a thick skin as well as a vision that can inspire their supporters, give pause to their critics and engage those who are undecided.   Think of leaders who have changed the world for the better:  Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and Ronald Reagan. They had the courage of their convictions and could take on their critics without subscribing to censorship.  In fact, their critics became their greatest allies.  The louder their critics would shout, the more they would expose the intellectual bankruptcy of their ideas/policies.  Why would you attempt to silence organizations that cover or criticize you, especially when you hold the power of the bully pulpit?  This brings to President Obama’s strategy to attack Fox News and conservative talk radio.

The concept of silencing your critics, perceived or otherwise, would be honorable if it were done through vigorous debate in the arena of ideas.  It is in this area where a leader confronts ideological opposition with statements like:

• Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
• I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
• General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

These are the statements which embody platforms that truly give pause to critics as well as engage those on the fence. While these are highlighted excerpts of great American speeches, and not mundane policy matters, the fundamental precept does not change:  if your ideas (policies) are creditable, they will not only withstand criticism; they will benefit from it. So, why would President Obama attempt to silence those who analyze his policies?

When the head of state attempts to silence his critics, it is precisely because their ideas cannot stand up to examination. President Obama should end on this pathetic media strategy and evaluate why his policies are rejected when scrutinized. Unfortunately, his attempt to influence the Fox News organization seems to be working, but I will detail that in another piece.

A business is an organization designed to make a profit; success is realized through economic efficiency.  In contrast, government is an organization, where elected officials are tasked with regulation; success is not measured in efficacy or efficiency, but on re-election.  So, businesses compete for customers.  Elected officials compete for votes.  Businesses have an incentive to please the customer and crush competition. Elected officials have an incentive to vote their constituency a piece of the treasury, and thereby, tie their re-election to the goodies they deliver to voters.  Similarly, both organizations desire a monopoly, and both organizations will only serve to perpetuate their own success. So, the question is not about the motives of the organization, but rather, the rules that govern these organizations.  Since government does not create wealth (only redistributes it), they are purely based on having people rely on them for their livelihood.  Whether they can achieve this goals through employing voters, or just paying them; there is no incentive for them to provide a better product/service.  Couple this, with the fact that when they do compete; they are the player as well as the referee. Their incentive is not meeting the customer’s needs; it is about controlling the market.  In sharp contrast, a business cannot survive without providing the best service or product for their customers. Their incentive is to please the customer, and since they don’t make the rules; they cannot control the market.  Business cannot survive if they don’t serve the customer. The choice is clear.

So, why does government continue to engage in this debate? The only way is for them to win is to demonize profit; the foundation of business.  The government wants us to get stuck on stupid by engaging in class warfare and perpetuating the illogical, populist characterization of: Main Street Vs Wall Street. The truth is Wall Street is investing for Main Street; one cannot exist without the other. The truth is neither one of the organizations are altruistic. However, they are governed by different rules. These rules provide the answer to the central question to which organization will serve us better?

The answer: the enemies of competition are monopolies.  Businesses have to compete, governments monopolize.  Again, the choice is clear.

Those hits are taking their toll on our President’s administration, so they have decided to discredit talk radio, most of which is conservative because liberalism doesn’t do too well with two way communication, but I digress. They are attempting to discredit the medium of talk radio by going after Beck individually. This is not fair in many different aspects: Talk show hosts don’t all share the same viewpoints and certainly have different personalities. When you insult the hosts, you insult their audience; not a real good strategery. Most importantly, BECK HAS BEEN RIGHT!!! Not only does my President seem weak; his approach comes off as, for lack of a better word, stupid. Of course, I know that he is very bright, and I’m not saying that I am the sharpest tool in the shed, but this is like trying to win a boxing match by using your face to wear out your opponent fists; you are going to lose, and it’s gonna get ugly!

It already has, in response to the Dunn (and Gibbs) show, Beck played a tape of a Dunn speech where she states that Mao is one of her two favorite political philosophers…I’m not kidding, and neither was Glenn. What’s next, are they going to find out that my President attended a racist church for 20 years before he was elected? You see, the more they go after Beck, the more they will remind America that the man, we elected President is a radical leftist naïf whose chief of staff operates more like a mafia don than an elected official (please no fish on my Honda, Rahm). Whether you agree or disagree with Beck’s viewpoints, he is good for this country because he has had the audacity to ask questions about our leader. Maybe, if they weren’t so hard, the President would answer them, not attempt to silence the person who asks.

For the record: I don’t listen to Glen Beck, or other political talk show hosts, no host should; you will inadvertently become the Carlos Mencia of talk radio.

Rush was the first target of this type of campaign, but our President at least had enough sense to learn he could not take down the great one (Jesse and Al obviously haven’t). Yes, Rush is the King, and we all owe our careers to his innovation; he saved radio.

Finally, as I said, I’m sure I differ on many of Glenn Beck’s viewpoints. However, I have had the opportunity to meet him a few times and he is the real deal; a class act and someone I admire.