FJM Blog

By Ken Blackwell

There is a missing element in all the media attention to the Mark Sanford scandal: How did the South Carolina governor fulfill his public duties? When he told his staff he might take a hike on the Appalachian Trail, it seems he willfully misled them. He was, in fact, not only out of the state, but out of the country. And he did not leave his Lt. Governor in charge.

To see how serious this dereliction of duty was, we have only to ask ourselves: What if the tragic collision on Washington’s Metro had taken place on Amtrak in South Carolina instead? What would the governor’s staff have known about his whereabouts and when would they have known it? Gov. Sanford was absent without leave for a full five days. This is a serious offense.

This is not to say that no governor or high state or federal official can leave the country while in office. President Theodore Roosevelt first showed that that was possible when he visited the construction site of the Panama Canal. His cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, also slipped away from prying reporters to leave Washington—but FDR was attending the vitally important Atlantic Charter Conference with Prime Minister Churchill.

A high public official may leave the office—or even the country—provided that he or she has established the necessary communications links or has taken steps to leave the constitutionally responsible next-in-line in charge. President Reagan named Vice President George H.W. Bush as Acting President—temporarily—while he underwent surgery for colon cancer.

None of this was done by Gov. Sanford. By virtue of his office, the governor is the commander-in-chief of the South Carolina National Guard. Even an 18-year old recruit in that force—or in the Marine Corps Training Center at Parris Island, South Carolina—learns the Fifth General Order: “To quit my post only when properly relieved.”

Gov. Sanford is not the first public official to be caught in marital infidelity, unfortunately. Nor is he likely to be the last. Early in our history, Treasury Sec. Alexander Hamilton was confronted by a committee of Congress. Led by Hamilton’s bitter foe, Sen. James Monroe of Virginia, the committee demanded explanations of Hamilton’s conduct. It appeared to them that he was using public funds to speculate on the stock exchange.

As painful as it was to admit, Hamilton persuaded the senators that he had been paying blackmail to Maria Reynolds and her worthless husband to hush up an illicit affair the secretary had had. He proved he was paying out of his own pocket. He had not misused public monies. Nor had he violated his oath of office.

This, unfortunately, is not something Gov. Sanford can say. Rather than go through a long and tedious accounting of what he did with whom, where he used state money and where he didn’t, it would be far better for Gov. Sanford to resign now.

We already know that he was absent without leave. We don’t tolerate it in our military. Why should we tolerate it from our public officials?

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

By Deneen Borelli

Remember the iconic portraits of Barack Obama during the presidential campaign?  How about the Egyptian storekeeper selling plaques calling Obama the “New Tutankhamon of the World” during his recent Middle East visit?

Despite these messianic assertions, Obama’s behavior implies a lack of genuine spiritual devotion.  It seems religious institutions now are a means to enhance his reputation.

Under the tutelage of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s long-time pastor, he most likely learned by example how even a professed servant of the Lord can twist his vocation to promote politics over faith.

Wright’s sermons strayed from God, love and mercy.  His “black liberation theology” - a murky concoction of faith and radical hatred, political rhetoric and victimization - sometimes supplanted traditional sermonizing.

Obama followed Wright for about 20 years.  Wright appeared to be Obama’s spiritual advisor and mentor.  The title of Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope came from a Wright sermon.  Yet, during the presidential primaries, when Wright’s vitriol made headlines, Obama declared ignorance and quickly distanced himself from the man and his church.

In an instant, Obama’s religious bedrock was split, crushed and swept away.

This seemed to be the tipping point in Obama’s relationship with religion.

Obama is still quick to invoke Christ’s name, however, and does so with more vigor than his predecessors.  Despite this, his interests in doing so are questioned.  Family Research Council president Tony Perkins told Politico: “I think it’s a veneer, a façade that covers over a lot of policies that are anti-Christian.”

For example, a speech at Georgetown University raised controversy due to White House demands on the Catholic institution.  Prior to Obama’s arrival, school officials were asked to cover prominent Christian symbols.  A Georgetown official told CNSNews that “The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they’ve done for other policy speeches…”

While basking in Georgetown’s prestige, Obama’s needs minimized the faith of the school’s founders.

Obama also chose not to actively participate in the annual National Day of Prayer.  He issued an official proclamation but skipped all public observances - the first president in nearly a generation to do so.

Most notable was Obama’s commencement speech and honorary doctorate from Notre Dame - another Catholic university.  Hundreds of thousands of people signed a petition protesting the invitation. The local bishop and another honoree boycotted.

While Obama’s supporters called this an opportunity for a dialogue on Obama’s liberal views and the contrary moral and religious beliefs of others, Obama was given the upper hand due to the honorary doctorate.  In his short tenure, Obama reversed a ban on funding and promoting abortions overseas with taxpayer money, promised to sign legislation to overturn virtually all domestic abortion restrictions and ended a ban on embryonic stem cell research despite evidence this controversial practice holds no advantage over using adult stem cells.

Is it a dialogue that Obama sought, or the inferred approval of his policies by Catholic leaders?  He gave no concessions during the speech.

Since Inauguration Day, Obama only attended Sunday church services on Easter.  Like getting a puppy, getting a new church was something Obama said he would do after the election.  Some, however, believe his Easter sojourn to the church across the street from the White House was done more to save face than observe faith.

All this implies a devotion to the piety of political opportunity, where religion simply offers a colorful stage for media attention.  That’s why it’s not surprising that Obama’s most direct religious statement as President might have been his declaration that “we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”

#  #  #

Deneen Borelli is a fellow for the Project 21 black leadership network.  Comments may be sent to DBorelli@nationalcenter.org.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

By  Armstrong Williams

The salacious details surrounding the admitted affairs of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and Nevada Senator John Ensign may have fallen from the front pages of Washington newspapers, but the impact the twisted trysts have wrought will linger in this country for years to come.  I’m not referring to the marriage counseling, potential federal investigations, or even Sen. Ensign’s and Gov. Sanford’s political futures.  While important to the respective parties, they pale in comparison to a larger epidemic now taking form – a culture of sexual arrogance.

There is a growing class in Washington today seemingly numb to the notion that fidelity to one’s spouse is a virtue – a trait that should be both honored and practiced on a consistent and regular basis, not just when the cameras are rolling.  In their eyes, the Capital City is the personification of a ubiquitous, colorless gray area – a situational ethics zone where righteous indignation is viewed as a skill to be practiced only on the floors of the House and Senate.  In this zone, they have ascended to political nirvana, absolving them of their actions, for they know not what they do.  They are “the untouchables.”

Should we have pity for these men?  Will their constituents and grand ole party rally to their side?  They knowingly committed these adulterous acts.  It says less about their predilections and more about their own selfishness.  Did they not know they would be caught?  How can you plan to run for president and the intense scrutiny that follows, only to cheat on your most loyal of teammates?

Sanford and Ensign (or Spitzer and Edwards, it doesn’t matter) will say they weren’t thinking clearly.  They want us to accept that minor hiccup and help them move on.

The office they hold dare not be tie d to their actions.  Redemption (and reelection) is only an apology away.  If one of “the untouchables” is too proud to even publicly seek forgiveness, then they have an alternative – wait it out.  Former President Bill Clinton was head charlatan of this practice.  Unspoken liberties with a White House intern?  Deny. Deny. Deny.  Let time be your friend.

Elected officials are even stealing pages from Hollywood’s playbook.  We now have members of Congress ducking into rehab facilities to get away from it all.  Responsibility for their actions is left to be explained by a 25 year-old staffer, while voters are all expected to understand the demands of the office.  If only elected officials would understand those same demands before committing their affairs.

The media exacerbates the problem, blurring the lines between right and wrong.  Just hours following Gov. Sanford’s admission, a Washington Post reporter blogged, “Compared to Sanford, Ensign’s=2 0crime was so pedestrian: he had an extramarital affair…” Such casualness cheapens the moment, and indirectly enables those in elected office to slip quickly under the lens of public scrutiny if their apology is deemed contrite enough by reporters.

Spare me the thinly-veiled suggestions that one party is now morally superior to the other.  And please don’t roll out the tired accusations of hypocrisy.  Pundits moonlighting as psychologists have applied that to so many behaviors we’ve emptied the term of any meaning, not to mention the shame that should accompany it.   

For some reason, there are too many out there who are willing to forgive and forget within a blind of an eye, letting the actions of our national leaders aimlessly stagger with the wind, with no steadfast direction. The argument has been made that just because leaders of our free country have hypnotically walked into adultery that this doesn’t necessarily make them a bad politician; and, it should be up to the people to value their political efficacy. Aren’t the two one in the same? Shouldn’t a leader of our free country set an example to live by?

These revelations speak singularly to elected officials’ own personal judgment.  Make no mistake, they are as irreverent of property, human or otherwise, as they are disrespectful of the time-honored oath to do right by one’s spouse, for better or worse.  That’s why marriage is so important to the average American.  It is the embodiment of true partnership.  And it represents a partnership these elected officials seek when they ask someone to vote for them.  How could Mark Sanford forget that, despite his mistress’s hypnotic tan lines??

The book of Romans taught the early Christians that each individual is divinely blessed with different gifts.  As he lists through examples of those gifts, the apostle Paul dwells on leadership in this way: “If your gift is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement0if it is to lead, do it diligently…” [emphasis added].  Every action of our elected leaders demands careful consideration.  They must be deliberate.  They are held to a higher standard.  Those in authority knew that when they took the job, and they must never forget the enormity of that commitment.

That’s why the decisions these individuals make in their private lives is subject to public scrutiny.  If one’s judgment is lacking in his own private affairs, and the callous decisions he makes regarding his own wife, then why would constituents believe that same individual is capable of making thoughtful decisions with their collective wives, moms and daughters?  There can be no equivocation on this matter.  Fidelity to one’s spouse is tantamount to his pledge, his very commitment to the body politic.  Governor Sanford and Sen. Ensign must acknowledge that their actions yield consequences.  Many are demanding that they step down and set the example that there can be substantial consequences for marital infidelity and blatantly lying to your most trusted and loyal staff members.  Should the public demand this and expect nothing less?

www.armstrongwilliams.com

“The Armstrong Williams Show” is broadcast daily on XM Satellite Power 169 from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

Wallace For Illinois

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – July 1, 2009

Contact:  Dr. Eric Wallace Candidate for US Senate, Illinois (708) 675-9669

CHICAGO - With an increasing pool of Democrats scrambling to jockey position to unseat the now scandal-ridden Roland Burris; many feel the time is ripe for a Republican to take back this historical seat. Dr. Eric Wallace is one of those Republicans.

Publisher of Freedom’s Journal Magazine and author of Integrity of Faith; Eric M. Wallace believes Illinois’ US Senate seat, once held by Everett Dirksen (R), rightly belongs in Republican hands. “The Republican Party has a better civil rights record than the Democrats. When President Johnson needed help passing the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1965 he called on Dirksen to gather Republican support to overcome racist Democratic Senators objections. How ironic Senators Mosley Braun, Obama and Burris have occupied his Senate seat,” Wallace said at his official announcement during a Republican meeting in Cordova IL.

Before a crowd of nearly 200 hundred Wallace declared, “I believe Illinoisans are tired of being ruled by the democrat machine. Chicago has become the training ground for how to do politics here in Illinois. If you don’t agree with their politics (or policies) they either bully you until you give in–or simply find a way to go around you. I call this the ‘Chicago way’”. He goes on to say “people are looking for candidates with principle”, stating his campaign will run on a new standard called the “LIFT Principles”. L.I.F.T is an acronym for Limited Government, Individual freedom and responsibility, Free enterprise and Tradition family values. Wallace says “these fundamental principles are the foundation for good government…which set the standard for how policy is crafted and politics are conducted.”

Wallace, a PhD in biblical studies, hammered home his points regarding “standing on principle” with biblical illustrations stating that “as people of faith glean biblical principles to shape their beliefs from their founding document-the bible, that it only seems logical for good government to glean principles from its founding document–the constitution”. In closing, he appealed to the audience to stand with his campaign in “Lifting the Standard; Rebuilding Illinois’ Future”. “I ask for your support as together we work for principled government in Illinois and in Washington” Wallace said as he received a standing ovation.

Wallace is the founder of Wallace Multimedia Group, co-chairman of the Cook county GOP, and former candidate for Illinois state senate in 2006.

For more information, see www.wallaceforillinois.com

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

By Ken Blackwell

There has been some curious confusion, even among some conservatives, about whether Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be pro-abortion. Judge Sotomayor is President Obama’s pick to replace pro-abortion Justice David Souter.

There should be no confusion. If Ben Franklin were around today, he would have to amend his famous saying on death and taxes to say: “Nothing is certain except death, taxes, and that Judge Sotomayor is pro-abortion.”

Although most non-lawyers cannot name possible Supreme Court nominees, there is a long vetting process that begins years before nominations are made. There are groups of legal advocates, both liberal and conservative, that thoroughly vet judges over a period of years. Judges, like most people, have their friends and circles of supporters.

Judge Sotomayor has such a circle, as did Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, and others before them. These supporters, including U.S. senators, congressmen, law professors, and partners in top law firms, lobby and advise the White House on which judges are certain to uphold the president’s priorities. These supporters have known the judge in question for years, having private conversations on any number of issues, and come to a thorough knowledge of that judge the same way you could speak confidently about the beliefs and opinions of your best friends or close family members.

There is simply no chance that President Obama would ever take the risk of appointing a Supreme Court justice that would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. For political reasons, presidents never ask a nominee about cases directly. But the people who pushed Judge Sotomayor on the White House would have had to provide detailed assurances of where she stands on a number of hot-button issues, of which no issue is hotter than abortion. Only those potential nominees that are completely vetted and that everyone agrees is a safe pick are passed along to the president for a final decision.

Throughout her career, Judge Sotomayor has been a doctrinaire liberal. Liberals prefer the term “progressive,” because as the latest Gallup Poll shows, twice as many Americans identify themselves (40%) as conservatives as claim the liberal label (21%). This peek-a-boo progressivism served Barack Obama well last year. It kept him afloat in the polls, allowing him to cloak his Senate voting record—which was even more liberal than that of avowed Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

If you ask Americans what “liberal” means, they will tell you it means pro-choice on abortion. Liberal equals abortion. Consider this: Lawrence Lader was the liberal founder of NARAL. Lader wrote in Making the Revolution, his self-flattering memoir of pro-abortion activism, that “abortion is central to everything in life and how we want to live it.” No issue is more important to liberals.

Predictably, the Democratic Party has pledged its allegiance to the U.S. Supreme Court’s radical Roe v. Wade ruling. Roe overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states and forced abortion-on-demand upon the country.

There is no chance that any liberal appointee to the Supreme Court would deviate one millimeter from pro-abortion zealotry. The only justices who disappoint are those appointed by presidents who claimed to be choosing adherents of judicial restraint who would not try to become legislators in black robes. Blackmun, Stevens, Souter—all were named by presidents who thought their nominees would respect the Constitution.

Judge Sotomayor came out of her meetings with the Senate’s liberal lions—and lionesses—with smiles all around. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) enthused that Judge Sotomayor has a deep respect for—what else?—Supreme Court precedent. I half-expected Sen. Feinstein to wink at the camera and say Judge Sotomayor would even respect “Super Precedent,” the label that pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter (D(?)-Penn.) gave to Roe v. Wade.

When Sen. Feinstein and Judge Sotomayor were having their constitutional chat, rest assured they weren’t talking about the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott ruling or Plessy v. Ferguson. Those atrocious decisions are precedents, too.

As we go into the Senate confirmation hearings on Judge Sotomayor this summer, everyone should follow them closely. Judge Sotomayor could be on the Supreme Court for decades. If confirmed, she will doubtless line up with the Court’s liberal bloc with all the consistency of a metronome. Tick Tock.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

By Bishop Council Nedd II

Just before last year’s elections, I was dismayed to hear police speaking openly at a local restaurant about potential violence no matter who won the White House.

Where I live in Central Pennsylvania, racial tension exists beneath everyday civility. Thankfully, there and across America, the concerns of my local police never materialized.  America elected a black liberal to the presidency without feared “white rage” in “red states.”

While Obama handily and peacefully won in California, civil unrest occurred due to something else on the ballot - Proposition 8, which upheld traditional marriage.

Californians can legislate by voting on referendums.  Last November, many of those who voted for Obama also voted for Proposition 8 to amend the state’s constitution to reserve marriage for heterosexual couples.  It won with over 52 percent of the vote.

According the polling cited by the Washington Post, seven in 10 blacks voted for Proposition 8. Among Hispanics, 53 percent supported it.

Opponents of Proposition 8 were furious.  Unlike 2000, however, there were no complaints of voter suppression, people turned away at the polls or faulty voting machines casting doubt on the results.  The fact it passed was the sole reason for the outrage.

In a state where residents pride themselves on inclusiveness, tolerance and enlightenment, proponents of gay marriage decided the will of the people must be overruled.

Angry crowds marched.  Threats were made against supporters.  Efforts were made to find and punish those who funded the pro-Proposition 8 campaign.

The Mormon Church was particularly demonized, with Hollywood superstar Tom Hanks calling Mormons “un-American” for their support of Proposition 8.  Mormon churches and Mormon-owned businesses were targeted for vandalism and boycotts.

A legal appeal to overturn the results was promptly filed.  The California Supreme Court overwhelmingly backed Proposition 8, but let existing gay marriages remain legal.  A few days after that ruling, a federal lawsuit was filed.

All this because people voted for what they thought was in their own best interest.

My father, born in a very segregated South Carolina in 1925, was fond of saying, “meet the new boss, the same as the old boss.”  The behavior of these cultural terrorists in California, I am saddened to say, illustrates his point.

One needs only to Google a few words to reveal the venom of Proposition 8’s supposedly enlightened and tolerant opponents.  Searching terms such as “Proposition 8,” “terrorists” and the n-word shortly after Election Day, I read disturbing first-hand accounts of racial slurs.  I also read diatribes I might assume came from white supremacists rather than those claiming to be from a persecuted class.

While these people were likely delighted with overwhelming black support for Obama, their true feelings apparently slipped out when people they always took for granted voted their conscience.

Six states currently allow same-sex marriage.  But, in 30 states where it has been brought up for a public vote, traditional marriage prevails.  Most recently, the government of the predominantly black District of Columbia rejected a marriage referendum because it would allegedly violate anti-discrimination laws.

When the people can’t be trusted, take away their vote?

This minority-liberal schism, and the nasty liberal response, shows what happens when blacks leave the liberal plantation.  Contempt is not reserved just for Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas anymore.

While I’m no fan of excessive government intervention, authorities have investigated infractions not as egregious as this in the past.

A Justice Department investigation is unlikely, but it could fall under the purview of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.  The Commission investigated the 2000 election, and this seems to have more merit.

Imagine the surprise when those claiming to be the most tolerant are found to be the least willing to deal with change.  It would prove that what my father said in the past remains true today.

#  #  #

Project 21 member Council Nedd II, the bishop of the Chesapeake and the Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church, is the honorary chairman of In God We Trust (http://www.ingodwetrustusa .org) - a group formed to oppose anti-religious bigotry.  Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

Justices’ Ruling Throws Sotomayor Nomination into Serious Question

For Release: June 29, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org

With the U.S. Supreme Court dealing a stinging blow to race-based employment practices, members of the Project 21 black leadership network are praising the Ricci v. DeStefano decision as a step toward removing the racial trappings of a by-gone era and putting all Americans on equal footing.

“It was clear to this Court that barring people from promotion because of the color of their skin is wrong.  The only downside is that four justices still cling to an outmoded and discriminatory line of thought,” said Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie. “True equality allows people to rise and fall on their merits.  That’s what this decision protects.  How can one oppose such fairness?”

In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the lower court ruling, barring the use of race as the sole factor in promotions.  In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”

The decision also casts serious doubt on the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. She was a member of the appeals court panel that issued the one-paragraph opinion overturned today. Now, she must explain to senators how she could be so much at odds with her potential future colleagues.

“Justice is supposed to be blind, but the opinion she joined in the Ricci case - now overturned by the Supreme Court - shows Sonia Sotomayor believes justice should be based on ethnicity,” added Project 21’s Massie.  ”Her ruling in Ricci is an unambiguous example of her placing her feelings and personal prejudices above what the law dictates or allows.”

The Ricci case revolves around a 2003 promotions exam given to firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut.  After the tests were scored, only two Hispanics and no blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotion.  After black and Hispanic activists pushed to have the test results thrown out, the city’s Civil Service Commission effectively did so by deadlocking 2-2 on the decision to certify the exam.

After the results of the exam were set aside by the city, 20 New Haven firefighters - one Hispanic and 19 white - sued based on the claim of reverse discrimination.  The city was granted summary judgment at the district court level, and a panel of judges that included current U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor sided with the lower court in a eight-sentence opinion that called the previous opinion allowing the city to throw out the test scores based on race “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote of the question of empathy for those passed over: “But ’sympathy’ is not what petitioners have a right to demand.  What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law…  And that is what, until today’s decision, has been denied them.”

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.  For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21’s website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

By Herman Cain

Even though the congressional switchboard was shut down for a while last week due to calls from voters asking their representatives to vote no on the “American Clean Energy and Security Act (HR 2454)”, the House of Representatives narrowly passed it anyway.

When former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was asked last Saturday on Fox News why Congress ignored public feedback on this legislation, he said that they know they can get away with it and they don’t care.

Congress continues to insult the people of this country because members know that a majority of voters are clueless, another large group have very short memories on Election Day and those voters that are involved with trying to bring about real change in Washington, D.C. through their respective political parties are victims of poor party leadership.

As a result, members of Congress can get away with ignoring public feedback and broken political promises because the clueless and the forgetful keep sending most of the same members back to Congress over and over again.

Once again, no member of Congress read the 1,000-plus page “climate bill”, just as not one member of Congress read the $787 billion, 1,000-plus page “stimulus bill” that passed recently. Members of Congress received both bills less than 24 hours before Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats called for a vote on these massive expansions of the federal government.

They don’t care that they are spending, taxing and regulating this country into socialism and financial oblivion while continuing to claim the opposite. The president is asking for these fast-track expansions of government after promising “transparency” in government when he was running for president.

This is not transparency. This is irresponsible and insulting.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California), chairman of the committee that wrote the “climate bill”, had a speed reader read the “climate bill” to the members of his committee. This was in response to the criticism of not giving members of Congress time to read the “stimulus bill” before sending it to the floor of the House for a vote.

The Democrats don’t care that they are misleading the public with bogus claims of how this legislation is going to create jobs and help spur the economy, because they can’t credibly substantiate or explain their claims.

The president simply says “trust me”, the people who dispute his claims are wrong, but the administration cannot tells us how they got their numbers. The president also said the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent if the “stimulus bill” were to pass. It did. The current unemployment rate is 9.4 percent and climbing.

Health care reform is the next mega-expansion of government on the Democrats’ fast track agenda. While addressing the American Medical Association recently concerning a proposed government health insurance option, the president said “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

White House officials later responded that the president’s rhetoric should not be taken literally. I suppose we should not take his promise of “transparency” literally, nor his promise of a five-day waiting period before he signs legislation into law. He signed the “stimulus bill” in three days.

Broken political promises and ignoring public feedback is doubly insulting, but some of us will remember on Election Day. Trust us.

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »