ObamaCare will force millions of Americans onto a new government-run plan which will ultimately lead to rationing and less access to care. However, Obama and his allies are spinning the truth any way they can to hide the truth.

In recent weeks, the White House and its allies have dramatically increased their publicity campaigns for their plans to reform health care which would essentially destroy the private insurance industry, leaving Americans with a single-payer, government-run system reliant on rationing care in order to contain costs such as what is currently found in Canada and Great Britain. The New York Times released the results of a poll that claims to have found that 57% of respondents were willing to pay increased taxes in order to guarantee universal healthcare. The same poll showed only 37% was opposed to the idea. However, as Bill O’Reilly pointed out in a recent Human Events article, when reading to the bottom of the article, one finds that of those questioned, 48% voted for B. Hussein Obama, 25% voted for McCain and 19% did not vote. The Times polled almost 2 Obama voters per every McCain voter despite the fact that Obama actually received 53% of the popular vote with 46% voting for McCain. This shows how drastically the Times skewed their poll towards Obama voters who would definitely be more likely to support the president’s health care agenda. This poll questioned almost 2 Obama voters for every single McCain voter. That’s much higher than the actual election results that were just a little over a 1 to 1 ratio, meaning that the Times’ poll contained answers from almost twice as many Obama supporters than are normally found in nation.

In is all-day infomercial on ABC, Obama referred to this poll as proof of the overwhelming support for his health care plan. He also pointed to another recent poll from a different member of the Obama-friendly media that showed similar numbers of Americans willing to pay higher taxes to provide health benefits to the nation’s uninsured. However, the president conveniently failed to mention the other findings of this poll when respondents were asked if they would support Obama’s health care plans if it meant their health care would be changed. An overwhelming 85% of people polled said that they would not. No matter what spin Obama keeps putting on the ultimate consequences of his plan, one thing is for certain and that is the fact that his plans to create a government health care option will force anywhere from tens to hundreds of millions of Americans off of their current private insurance plans and onto the newly-created government option. (To be technically correct, the “public option” really won’t be much of an “option” if it becomes the only choice of insurer for millions of Americans.)

There are very serious questions that the president has a responsibility to answer before proceeding with his plans to hijack the nation’s health care system. The most pressing issue is to stop spinning the findings even arrived through the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that millions of Americans will be forced off of their current insurance plans onto a government plan. As recent as last week, Obama repeatedly stated very bluntly that anyone satisfied with their current insurance plan and doctors will be able to keep them. However, after study after study has emerged showing the dishonesty in this guarantee, the president has revised his message to, “No one will force you to change your plan.” His promises end after being pressed to verify that the creation of the government plan won’t force Americans to lose their current private insurance after the public plan crowds-out the private insurers. Once again, Obama is great with the general bumper sticker slogans but miserably fails to provide any specifics about how his “change” will ultimately affect average Americans. It seems everyone will just have to hope for anything but the change that we believe is coming.

This article was first published on InsideSTL.com on June 22, 2009. Please visit www.insidestl.com every Monday to read my latest articles there and participate in the comment forums.

New Black Panther Party members intimidated voters last November on Obama's behalf. Obama's Justice Department dropped the civil suit against them and refused to pursue criminal charges.

Shortly after taking office, Obama’s Justice Department (DOJ) dropped charges against three members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) videotaped last November outside of a Philadelphia polling place in full jack-booted paramilitary apparel, with one holding a police-style nightstick intimidating anyone not voting for Obama. The men told one voter, “Prepare to be ruled by the black man, cracker.” Obama’s DOJ appointees dropped the charges against the men even though the court had already issued a default judgment against them. Two were completely exonerated and the man wielding the nightstick was ordered not to brandish a weapon in front of a polling place until November 13, 2010. (Come November 14, 2010, it’s back to business as usual!) A New York attorney from the civil rights era called this incident the “most blatant display of voter intimidation” he had ever seen. The administration was never asked to explain why they dismissed a case that had already been won. Obama has now targeted an inspector general for embarrassing two of his political allies to the same absence of protests.

During his work overseeing AmeriCorps, inspector general Gerald Walpin discovered that Sacramento, Calif. Mayor and Obama political supporter, Kevin Johnson, had misused much of the $800,000 of AmeriCorps grant money awarded to the St. HOPE Academy of Sacramento. The grants were intended for redevelopment of several school buildings, tutoring students, and establishing theater and arts programs. Walpin discovered that Johnson had instead illegally used the money to influence school board elections, pad staff members’ salaries, and send AmeriCorps members on personal errands such as washing his car. Walpin suspended Johnson from receiving any further federal funds and ordered him to pay back the misused federal tax dollars. However, after Johnson was elected mayor of Sacramento, the suspension barred him from accessing any stimulus money. Lawrence Brown, a US Attorney’s Office prosecutor who took over after the Bush-appointed Attorney left, decided not to pursue any criminal charges against Johnson and attempted to have Walpin lift the suspension. Walpin refused. The Wall Street Journal stated that after Walpin’s refusal, Brown cut off all contact with him and worked directly with the board in charge of AmeriCorps to clear Johnson and water down Johnson’s financial obligations from the settlement.

Across the country in New York, Walpin uncovered inefficiencies in a grant program conducted by the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) whose primary entity is AmeriCorps. Walpin’s finding angered CNCS chairman, Alan Solomont. The Washington Times describes Solomont as “a longtime top Democratic donor who bundled more than $800,000 combined for the Obama presidential campaign and Inauguration.” The program Walpin was investigating was the organization’s largest, receiving $80 million in federal funding. Needless to say, with his largest program threatened, Solomont wasn’t pleased and he let Obama know it. What happens when an independent regulator stands between Obama and his lackeys? Someone has to go and it wasn’t going to be any of Obama’s friends. Campaign promises of a new era of government transparency and accountability suddenly became obsolete. 

Walpin is being fired and slandered by the administration for embarrassing two of Obama's political allies.

About two weeks ago, Walpin, received a call from Obama’s special counsel, Norman Eisen, demanding that he either resign within the hour or else be fired. The only reason given from Eisen was that Obama “thought it was time for [Walpin] to move on.” The administration insisted that it was merely a “coincidence” that Walpin had conducted two investigations that embarrassed and angered two of Obama’s important political allies and threatened an organization crucial to Obama’s radical plans for “change.”

In the past, AmeriCorps has funneled money to groups like ACORN and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Both organizations play a major role in promoting Obama’s agenda. For example, SEIU and ACORN coordinated the protests over the AIG bonuses while remaining silent when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid larger amounts to their executives. The nurses union declaring support for Obama’s universal health care plan, the AFSCME Nurses Association, is an ACORN group. This union represents only 1.6 percent of America’s licensed nurses but is often quoted by the administration as approval from “medical professionals.” Democrats have refused to investigate ACORN while increasing funds available to them and even awarding them a role in the 2010 census. (That’s right. A group currently charged in 14 states for voter registration fraud is going to be trusted to gather data that determines representation in the House, Electoral College votes, and federal resource allocation.) These are incestuous organizations whose leaders frequently overlap. After dismissing Walpin, AmeriCorps can receive a “sympathetic” inspector general which would allow the Obama administration to allocate money for any dubious cause under the radar. Adding to the White House’s influence of AmeriCorps and CNCS, Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, recently stepped down from her White House position in order to become a “senior advisor” for CNCS. American Spectator stated that White House sources have confirmed that Norris and Obama have already discussed how AmeriCorps could fit into the First Lady’s volunteerism projects. A White House staffer explained, “We have a very clear agenda and a lot of plans for that organization; we wouldn’t be giving it the resources that we are if we didn’t.” Those “resources” are up to $6 billion in taxpayer dollars. The White House doesn’t need an independent inspector general intruding on these plans. A Senate Republican aide stated, “You look at what the CNCS is funding over there: a ‘Social Investment Fund,’ which over the next five years is going to hand out almost half a billion dollars to young people to start up community activist organizations. Who the hell is going to be monitoring that kind of underwriting?” Obama’s lapdogs will become the “watchdogs.”

In 2008, Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act which requires the president to give Congress 30 days notice and a full explanation when firing any inspector general. The purpose was to establish independence of the offices of inspectors general. The bill was cosponsored by then-junior senator from Illinois, B. Hussein Obama. In firing Walpin, Obama blatantly disregarded the legislation he cosponsored. Only after the firing came under question, the White House has claimed Walpin, who will turn 78 this year, had succumbed to senility and was incoherent when answering questions and handling official business. Take the time to read Walpin’s interviews with Byron York in the Washington Examiner or the transcript of his appearance on Lou Dobbs last Friday night and decide whether Obama’s accusation holds water. The administration has succeeded in making the Black Panthers’ case appear insignificant. Is this really the “change” that Obama’s supporters believed in last November?

Just as Orwell wrote in Animal Farm, "Some animals are more equal than others." This is playing out in Obama's key proposals.

 As the debate unfolds over how to fund Obama’s plans to hijack America’s health care industry, it’s hard not to recall the last rule that was left painted on the side of the barn by the end of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, which was “All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.” Currently, one of the methods being considered to fund the president’s health care “reforms” which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost over $1.6 trillion (that’s trillion with a ‘t’) over the next decade is to tax all health benefits that exceed the value of the current government plans. This is perhaps one of the most hypocritical proposals that have been made thus far considering that B. Hussein Obama criticized John McCain’s health care proposals that included taxing employee health care benefits during the campaign. Obama focused on this aspect of McCain’s plan and repeatedly issued very sharp attacks. During one campaign speech, when referencing the idea, Obama plainly stated, “I don’t think that’s right.” Apparently, he didn’t think it was right at the time because his position at the time was politically convenient to his campaign. However, just like almost every other campaign promise from tax cuts for 95% of Americans to running the transparent administration in history, Obama and the Democrats are tossing any campaign rhetoric aside when crafting this bill. As several Obama supporters have noted since he took office, candidates don’t literally mean what they say on the campaign trail. They have to say things they don’t mean in order to get elected, everyone should except this and move on. Despite anything common voters may think about this course of action, it seems as if taxing Americans’ employer-provided health care benefits is basically guaranteed to be included in any Democrat health care bill. There is a group, however, that will be exempted from this new tax; union members will not have to pay benefits awarded during collective bargaining agreements. Yes, indeed, “All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.”

On Friday, Bloomberg News published an article detailing the tax proposal which included statements from union officials about the need to protect their employees from new taxes. Gerald Shea, an AFL-CIO lobbying official explained, “Once a collective bargaining agreement is set, employer’s budgets are set, workers’ expectations are set. It doesn’t make sense to go back in the middle of the contract and change it.” Shea fails to realize that every employee participates in a bargaining process when agreeing to compensation and benefits with their employer. Just because these workers don’t pay union dues that benefit the Democrat election machine, though, their expectations aren’t as important to protect as the union employees that played a crucial role in supporting Obama’s campaign last year. Anna Barger, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) explained that union workers often accept lower wages in return for increased benefits. She said that “taxes shouldn’t be taken from the backs of workers who have bargained away wages and other things for their benefits over the years.” There are two very large problems with Barger’s assertion. First, she should be asked to name one industry where the non-union employees earn more than the union employees. Just to save her the time and effort, there isn’t one. For example, the unionized American auto manufacturers pay almost twice as much in wages and benefits than their non-unionized counterparts. Guess which group currently works for companies that don’t require federal bailouts and special government protection in order to operate. Here’s a hint, it’s not anyone affiliated with Ford, Chrysler, or GM. The other fallacy in Barger’s statement is similar to that of Shea, every employee negotiates their wages and benefits when accepting a position. Just as unionized employees, these workers also have their expectations set. Why, then, are non-unionized workers who have less job security and make less than their unionized counterparts considered safe targets to bear the increased tax burdens? The answer is simple, these American workers don’t belong to organizations which contribute millions upon millions of dollars to Democrat elections year in and year out.

When SEIU is involved, ACORN is also usually close by. Currently they are uniting to help Obama push through his health care plan.

 It is also worth noting that the SEUI works hand-in-hand with the very corrupt Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN). ACORN and SEUI have been adamant supporters of just about every policy proposed by Obama and have collaborated to create public spectacles, such as the protests at AIG executives’ homes over their bonuses which were specifically protected in the “stimulus” package through an amendment by Democrat Senator Chris Dodd. Dodd claims he only inserted it at the behest of the Obama administration. However, after the AIG spectacle, the protestors were silent as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid out larger amounts in executive bonuses. The nurses union which is heavily quoted by the administration as “professional” support of his health care plans is actually an offshoot of ACORN that only represents 1.6% of the nation’s nurses. These organizations are beyond corrupt, yet they are present any time that the president needs to generate some quotes or events in support of his lame-brained plans to spend unprecedented amounts of American taxpayer money and expand the control of the federal government to frightening levels.

The Bloomberg article then quotes Sandra Carter who is a retired Pacific Bell Telephone worker and member of the Communication Workers of America union stated, “I can’t afford the taxes I pay now. Why should I get taxed on a benefit that keeps me a functioning person?” We should all be asking Ms. Carter; why should any of us have to pay additional taxes if you aren’t willing to chip in your “fair share?”

The current proposal would tax any employer-funded health care benefits that are more valuable than the plan currently offered to federal employees. According to Bloomberg, this tax would affect about 40% of Americans. Montana Democrat Representative Max Baucus claims that he is targeting “gold-plated” health care benefits of corporate executives such as the plan valued at $40,543 received by Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs. However, the plan would also raise taxes on workers such as employees of Zappos.com where workers earning $11 an hour receive health benefits valued at $7,500, which is considerably less than the federal workers’ health plans valued at $4,200 for individuals and $7,500 for families. The current tax proposal would leave Zappos.com employees with an additional $3,300 tax bill even though they are only making $11 an hour, or roughly $23,000 per year.

The Zappos.com example shows how the Democrat cronyism works. If Zappos.com employees were to unionize, they would no doubt see increases in their salaries. However, the company would not be able to afford all of them at the higher wage levels so many would risk losing their jobs. While these employees have obviously “bargained away wages and other things for better benefits,” to quote SEIU’s Barger, because they don’t pay dues to a labor organization that ends up financing Democrat politicians campaigns, the Zappos.com employees’ expectations of salary and benefits aren’t worth protecting. Therefore, higher paid union workers will be sheltered from paying the same tax that everyone else will be exposed to because their union dues have bought them protection from the Democrats’ extortion racket. This is the “change we can believe in”?

This health care bill is shaping up to be one of the worst ideas ever considered by the federal government in modern times. While constantly claiming that everyone needs to be willing to chip in “their fair share” in order to take care of others, Democrats consistently exempt their largest constituents from bearing the same burdens that will be placed on every other American. The insinuation that union workers’ wages are somehow worked harder for and therefore should be given special protections is insulting to every American worker that doesn’t belong to a union and often receives lower wages than their union colleagues. This is cronyism at its worst as the administration is proving that they certainly agree that “Some animals are more equal than others.”

Democrat Rep. John Conyers' wife, Monica Conyers, President Pro Tem of Detroit's City Council, pleaded guilty to accepting bribes.

While the case involved Congressman Conyers in no way, it’s interesting to note the ethics of his wife when considering some of Rep. Conyers’ recent decisions in the US House. Conyers, some may recall, was the Congressman who initially called for an investigation into the allegations of criminal activity in ACORN by eight former ACORN employees, now known as the ACORN Eight. The calls for congressional investigations followed testimony the ACORN Eight accusing ACORN of actions such as illegally using federal tax dollars for partisan political activities, being provided a list of Obama campaign donors who had maxed-out their donations in order for ACORN to solicit them for more donations to help Obama’s presidential campaign, and explaining the organizations “Muscle for Money” program where ACORN would shake down corporations in exchange for payments. Conyers halted the testimonies and ordered a full investigation only to reverse his position just a short time later. Since then, the only further evidence concerning ACORN that has surfaced has only served to inspire more questions. There hasn’t been any development which would lead anyone to dismiss ACORN’s illicit activities.

The main aspect of the issue surrounding Rep. Conyers’ wife is that this is obviously a family that is vulnerable to influence peddlers. Monica Conyers sold out the city of Detroit for bribes of a few thousand dollars. Considering ACORN’s massive influence with groups that supply Democrat politicians with large donations, voter registration initiatives, and serve as hit men to promote Democrat policies, this should raise the eyebrows of everyone concerned with ACORN’s influence of the nation’s politicians who also question how Rep. Conyers could have suddenly called off the investigations which he had so cavalierly ordered. ACORN wouldn’t have to resort to blatantly illegal tactics to prove useful to Conyers’ reelection bid coming in 2010. Instead, they would just have to offer their services in exchange for Conyers to look the other way concerning the allegations made by the ACORN Eight.

It doesn’t take much imagination to realize that if Conyers were a Republican whose wife was caught accepting bribes, the entire media and Democrat Party would constantly be questioning his integrity and seeking to place any previous decisions under a microscope to see whether this corruption was a family tradition. However, as we’ve all witnessed since the beginning of the Democrats’ control of Congress and the White House, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil has become the name of the game.

Pelosi and the Democrats are pushing a "green energy" bill that will destroy American economy. Once again, no legislator was given time to read entire bill.

The House of Representatives is preparing to pass yet another huge, wasteful, bill that will damage the US economy in unprecedented ways without even giving the legislators voting on it the opportunity to thoroughly read and understand it. The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill is over 1,300 pages long and the last 300 page amendment was added after 3:00 AM the morning before the House was scheduled to vote on it. After seeing the disaster that was the economic stimulus bill which was rushed through by Democrats before a single legislator had read the entire bill, the Democrats are seeking to double-down on this disturbing trend. February’s “stimulus bill” spent close to $1 trillion on programs that had nothing to do with economic recovery. Congress was told by the administration that without the stimulus, unemployment would rise to over 8 percent. However, the stimulus package was supposed to stem the rising flood of unemployed Americans to less than 8 percent. A few months later, unemployment has risen well beyond 9% and is certain to rise above 10% throughout 2009 and even higher in 2010. However, while average Americans didn’t receive any assistance, AIG executives were guaranteed multi-million bonuses through an amendment to the stimulus and billions of dollars are being provided to corrupt groups favored by Democrats such as ACORN. As late as Friday afternoon as Democrats were preparing for a vote on the cap-and-trade bill, House Republicans were informed that they wouldn’t even have access to the entire bill because there wasn’t a copy on the floor.

This bill will devastate the nation’s economy. The average American family can expect their energy bills to “necessarily skyrocket” as Obama explained before the election when discussing his cap-and-trade aspirations. Gasoline prices will rise above last year’s damaging prices of more than $4.00 per gallon and companies will be forced to drastically raise prices for all products in order to remain solvent under the government’s plan for an unprecedented tax increase. The Waxman-Markey bill expands government power over just about every aspect of average American’s lives and is guaranteed to kill millions of jobs in the process. Spain, which already has a similar program, has unemployment over 18% and rising and they have found that for every “green” job created, 2.2 jobs are lost elsewhere in the economy.

Prominent Democrats also have several conflicts of interest concerning this bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has $50,000 to $100,000 invested in green energy companies just as the bill’s cosponsor, Rep. Markey. Prominent Democrat and global warming loon, Al Gore’s venture capital firm is currently designing software for corporations to use to track their carbon credits. Gore also owns one of the largest carbon credit firms which is the newest form of indulgences where people can send money to his company to “offset” their carbon footprint. It would definitely seem that Gore, Pelosi, and Markey will profit handsomely off of this legislation. President Obama also has ties to a group in Chicago who would run the carbon exchange where American corporations would buy and sell their carbon credits which will basically be a new form of derivatives. Also supporting the bill are large companies such as GE, Goldman Sachs, and several large energy companies who stand to make fortunes off of the new derivatives market that would be established by the government. All Americans should be especially concerned given that Enron was among the first companies to promote the creation of a credit exchange. This bill is nothing but a huge payoff for friends of Democrats and a massive unconstitutional expansion of government power all at the expense of average American families who will be devastated by this plan.

Even more appalling is that the bill won’t have the slightest effect on the supposed “global warming” problem. Climate experts have stated that the average temperature will decrease by, maybe, .02 degrees by 2050, if we are lucky. Through the usual politicking that takes place required to foist fraudulent bills upon the American people, Democrats have given away over 85% of the carbon credits which will be allocated to businesses. Therefore, any of the supposed benefits of the bill are null and void. There will be absolutely no change in global temperatures, no new energy solutions are available to fill the gap created by removing fossil fuels from the economy which will mean that Americans will have to pay more for less energy, and the government will be granted reprehensible amounts of power of the American people. In a fledgling economy, it is almost criminal to place such a massive tax increase on every American during a deep recession. This is a severe injustice being committed on the American people by the officials elected to represent them.

If this bill passes the House, everyone needs to make a concerted effort to convince their senators to vote against it. Call your senators early and often to demand that they vote against passing this awful bill. Inform them that you will be thinking about this legislation when you head to the polls.

Gov. Sanford just gave the Obama freaks the diversion they've been looking for to put the spotlight back on a Republican.

So it’s turned out that Republican South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has admitted that his unusual disappearance was the result of an extra-marital affair with a woman from Argentina. His timing of this moronic move couldn’t have been worse. Liberals have been searching for anything that would put the spotlight on a Republican and away from Obama and the Democrats’ abysmal failures and incompetence.

As Democrats will surely feign outrage over this sleazy event, there are a few questions that are relevant. If Sanford weren’t a Republican, would this story have to be run for months as an unconfirmed rumor in a grocery store tabloid such as was the case for former Democrat vice presidential candidate from 2004 and presidential candidate last year John Edwards? Perhaps if Sanford weren’t a member of the GOP, would we be worried about the character of the woman like the press was during the Clinton affairs with women his advisers smeared as “trailer trash”? I don’t think we need to even wonder about Elliot Spitzer’s ability to evade prosecution for his long-time patronage of prostitutes.

Don’t be confused, Sanford is a sleaze ball who just ruined his career along with hurting his wife and children because of a stupid, selfish action. However, beware of the feigned moral outrage that we’ll have to watch and read about from every member of the Obama-friendly media. It’s going to be hard and heavy, especially as Obama keeps stumbling through every action he attempts to take on.

Iran has a long history of brutality against its own people. Incidents such as this picture of men being hung simply for being homosexual are commonplace.

President Obama’s press conference Tuesday illustrated why he will never rise above “politician” to the rank of “leader.” When confronted by a reporter about his refusal twice during the press conference to explain specific actions that the US would take against Iran, Obama explained the reason for his indecisiveness on a course of action by saying, “We don’t know how this is going to play out yet.” Essentially, President Obama is voting “present” on this situation just as he did so many times during his time in the Illinois State Senate when divisive issues came before him. However, Obama is no longer a junior senator in the Illinois or US Senate any longer, he’s moved up to the big time into a position that demands quick thinking, action, and a specific strategy. This course of action has already led the nation down a road to financial insolvency from passing the duty of writing the “stimulus bill” to congressional Democrats who took the opportunity to fulfill their fanciful spending ambitions while placing economic stimulus aside. This mistake cost the nation close to $1 trillion and, as the CBO stated in their analysis, will impede long-term US GDP growth. While the previous wishy-washy positions taken by the president have cost American taxpayers trillions in tax dollars, his failure to act towards Iran is costing innocent Iranians their lives and helping lend credibility to a regime steadily committed to acquiring nuclear weapons to use against the United States or our allies such as Israel. Iran has even killed American soldiers as they send support to insurgents hell-bent on spilling the blood of America’s service men and women in Iraq. As blood continues to flow in the streets of Tehran, the world looks for a true leader guiding the actions of the nation which has become the beacon for promoting freedom and liberty around the globe. Merely sitting on the sidelines because, as Obama said, “we don’t know how this is going to play out” for fear of angering the murderous regime is not an action befitting America or her Commander-in-Chief.

While speaking in front of the Berlin Wall, President Reagan placed even more pressure on the USSR to embrace freedom.

Leading is hard and true leadership requires courage and moral tenacity. B. Hussein Obama seems to be lacking both of these traits. The world is a dangerous place and as the world has witnessed an innocent lady bleed to death on the street in Iran after being shot for no reason by the Iranian authorities, there is no room for moral relativism. Great leaders throughout history have recognized this and acted accordingly. After taking office, Reagan assumed his leadership responsibilities through referring to the USSR as an “evil empire” to the horror of American politicians from both parties. At the time, the Soviet Union was even more dangerous than Iran. It was an empire which was well beyond “developing” nuclear weapons. Several times between WWII until the end of the Cold War, the USSR came close to using their nuclear arsenals to attack the American mainland. For decades, US presidents tried in vain to placate the Soviet communists in an effort to contain the communist regime. During these same decades, the threat posed to the United States steadily increased. It took the firm, unwavering leadership of the morally resolute Reagan to finally end the threat posed by Soviet communists. The politicians worked to placate the USSR because they didn’t know how it “was going to play out.” Conversely, Reagan led strongly and resolutely. When he said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” many thought he was agitating. Just a few years later, the Berlin Wall came down. Reagan completed what politicians had been trying to achieve for almost half a decade. This is the time for Obama to stand up to the podium as a leader of America and show that we stand firmly behind oppressed people fighting the brutality of the Iranian regime and all other oppressive governments in the world. While we cannot fight every brutal despot at the same time, letting these world leaders know that the US has put them on notice will make a difference to everyone fighting against these evil forces. Shortly after George W. Bush showed his resolve to fight terror sponsoring states, Libya quickly decided to take a friendlier stance in an effort to avoid any American actions against them. When martial law was declared in Poland, Reagan’s support of the resistance forces gave comfort to any Polish people fighting against their oppressors. This is Obama’s opportunity to restore America to the “shining city on the hill” for anyone fighting brutal government rulers to look to for support.

In just five months in office, President Obama’s economic policies have placed the nation’s AAA debt rating in jeopardy. By not acting swiftly and decisively with Iran, he is now threatening a similar downgrade of America’s standing as the largest force for liberty in the world that all other free societies look to when facing repressive, dangerous regimes. The dollar’s future may be in question right now, however, the “full faith and credit” of the powerful effect of American economic sanctions and military actions are in no danger of being downgraded any time soon; that is unless Obama cuts the power to that “shining city on the hill.” He has proven that he is a gifted politician. Now it’s time to see if Obama is capable of leading.

Obama's out-of-control spending means that the promise of tax cuts for 95% of Americans was never possible.

In an interview with Neil Cavuto on Monday June 22, CEO of Swiss America, Craig Smith, explained that Obama’s plans are going to massively raise the tax bills for many more families than he promised during the election. Smith believes that the spending will require increased taxes on anyone making $50,000 a year, far below the original $250,000 income promise that convinced millions of voters to favor him last November. Montana Democrat Max Baucus who is currently working to prepare the health care reform to be considered in Congress has already admitted that the plan will require significant tax increases on many Americans under the magical upper 5% of wage earners promised during the campaign. Two of the four solutions drafted by Baucus include increasing taxes on individuals making $100,000 a year and taxing health benefits with values exceeding $6,182 for individuals and $15,700 for family benefits. This is especially egregious considering that Obama constantly skewered McCain’s health care proposals that would tax health care benefits. During the campaign, Obama stated that he didn’t “think that was right.” However, after winning the election, campaign promises don’t seem to hold much weight in the Obama administration.

While average Americans will see their benefits taxed, employees included in the unions which donated millions to Obama’s campaign victory won’t be affected by the tax increase. Any union contract before 2013 will be grandfathered into a clause that exempts them from the new taxes. Even after 2013, benefits will continue to enjoy exempt status as long as the original packages are only updated and not completely discarded. As we’ve seen throughout the five months of Obama’s presidency, donations to Obama’s campaign were dollars well spent.

As the economy continues to crumble, America’s enemies are increasing their arsenals, and the administration has involved itself in several scandals and abuses of power, it’s apparent that Obama’s campaign promises were just words intended to dupe voters into placing him in power. After not living up to a single campaign promise, B. Hussein Obama needs to be prepared to not let the door hit him on the way out in 2012. Democrats who are currently assisting in Obama’s deceptions should prepare to have their offices packed and ready to move after November of 2010. Obama’s critics during the election were right when they pointed out that his massive spending plans would lead to drastic tax increases. Americans don’t like to be fooled. Now we just hope the nation survives long enough to allow voters to correct the mistakes of 2008.

President Obama signed a bill today which will place the FDA in charge of regulating tobacco products. This move has the potential to negatively impact every American regardless whether or not they smoke. Obama and the Democrats are working to institute their universal health care plans to solve the “health care crisis” they constantly refer to. One of the main aspects of the health care problems is the rising costs of medical care. Diverting the FDA’s resources and time to regulating tobacco products will only contribute to the higher medical costs through diverting their attention from their primary responsibility of approving new prescription medications. This move will no doubt increase the time required to approve new drugs which results in lost money from the drug companies through lowering the return on investment from their research and development investments.

Therefore, the move to place the FDA over tobacco regulations not only contributes to a larger nanny state, the move also has the very real potential to trigger the “law of unintended consequences”, effecting both smoking and nonsmoking Americans. While adding more delays to new drugs entering the market, this move has the potential to increase the costs of those drugs. Adding to the rising costs of health care will only fuel Democrats’ calls for even more government intervention and control of America’s health care, creating even more problems in the process that will surely result in more ill-conceived government solutions. It’s a vicious cycle that doesn’t end well.

Gerald Walpin may not be the only inspector general forced out by the Obama administration.

American Thinker reports today that Fred Wiederhold, inspector general for AMTRAK has suddenly decided to step down. Citing an article in the Boston Globe, AT said that AMTRAK officials confirmed that Wiederhold, who has overseen AMTRAK for the last 37 years, has stepped down to be replaced by acting Inspector General, Larraine A. Green. No details have been given on Wiederholder’s decision.

This is the third inspector general to be replaced in the last three weeks. AmeriCorps IG, Gerald Walpin, was ordered to resign within an hour or be fired by the Obama administration two weeks ago and the IG of the Internatinoal Trade Commission was told her contract would not be renewed. Considering the circumstances surrounding Walpin’s firing, it’s very alarming that there seems to be a concerted effort to replace IG’s who may not be willing to sacrifice their independence in favor the Obama’s agenda.

If George W. Bush were still in office, every news source in the nation would be crying foul and seeking investigations. However, with B. Hussein Obama calling the shots, all of this is just considered business as usual.