Merry Christmas

Over the years that I matured, I vacillated back and forth with faith in the divine. As I wavered between full blown atheism, agnosticism and Catholicism, I tried to keep my mind open to the possibilities of what life was about; all the while trying to see the subtle details that we tend to overlook. I wanted, like anyone else, to know the truth, whatever it was.

My initial problems stemmed from my lack of inspiration in attending mass. I simply could not get excited about reading scriptures or discussing biblical lessons in CCD. When you're young, all you want is...well...whatever it is that you want at the time. Trying to take scripture and interpret it into my daily life just didn't make sense. I started going to church less and less.

Finally, I just stopped believing altogether.

When I was in college, I went to a fair with some of my friends, and on the way back to the parking lot, I encountered some Christians witnessing the Word to some people they met. They weren't making a lot of friends anytime fast, but people were mostly politely declining. Curiosity overcame me and I approached them. After I introduced myself, I gave them a brief history of what I knew and believed (and didn't believe). I asked the man who was the leader of the group about himself, mainly just wanting to know from him about how he came believe and have such a strong faith in some higher power he couldn't prove exists.

He was very frank in his answer. He was an abusive and unfaithful husband, a liar and a drinker. One day, he stopped and listened to a street preacher and realized there was another aspect of life he hadn't considered until that moment. Once he heard the Gospel and felt nothing but guilt and regret for his actions, he wanted to set his life right.

I asked him "If you knew the decisions you made in your life were wrong and hurting yourself and others, why not simply change because it's the right thing to do?"

He responded with a question. "Under what authority do you determine what is right and wrong?"

"My common sense, my opinion, my..."

"...and what happens when your opinion conflicts with others who's opinions differ?"

"We argue."

"Then how do you settle who is right when you reach an impasse?"

After thinking about it for a few seconds, I just said that we'd have to agree to disagree. He just sighed and said "That is the inevitable result of what happens when what is right and wrong is defined by individual choice. I stopped making my own choices of what was moral and embraced God's Word."

I never forgot that exchange, and for a while my mind was open to the possibility of God.

A few years after I graduated, I was introduced to a nice girl who my cousin set me up with. We enjoyed spending time together, and both of her parents liked me. But her sister, a manic/depressive who had become a born again Christian after she was introduced to Prozac, began to undermine our relationship by getting my girlfriend to attend her church. They slowly ate away at her self confidence and initiative, eventually convincing her that I was a bad influence because of my Catholic upbringing. It was the first time in my life where it ever occurred to me that Christians of other denominations would undermine someone because they were Catholic. Seeing as our collective systems were all centered around Christ, I just couldn't figure out what the big deal was. That incident gave me a profound sense of distrust of Born Again Christians; not because they were different, but because I saw deceit in their methods. It frustrated me because the passion and strength of their beliefs was something I respected, and separating that aspect of their faith from the experience I had was difficult, and it left me shaken and doubtful.

Later, I watched my cousin, who had married a Jewish woman, not only suffer the pain of losing her to Hodgkins Disease, but also suffer the indignity of being insulted and mistreated by her family because he was not really Jewish. It didn't matter that he never left her side and never wavered in his devotion, or that he converted before they married. He never fully recovered from it, and after a few years of failing health, he died in his late 30's. I watched the happy horseshit he went through and it chapped my ass royally that in the end of his life, it seemed that all the aggravation and sacrifice he went through in the desire to appease the religious expectations of others had amounted to nothing. That turned me off to religion in a huge way, and my mind closed up again.

Then something happened I didn't expect. While I was working for Merrill Lynch, I met a person who, of all things...made me give up atheism altogether. He was the epitome of all the things that I had been taught were wrong. He was chronically dishonest , with people he worked with and even with people he regarded as his friends. He was boorish, crass, snobbish, elitist and demonstrated a massive ego.

Through the normal course of our days at work, we got to know each other. Invariably, the subject of religion came up, and I was quite surprised at how seemingly interested he was in hearing my thoughts on the subject. After hearing me out, he shrugged and told me that I had been wasting my time trying to find answers or hem and haw over finding meaning in everyday events. As he saw it, life was a brief flash that ended, and then there was nothing. When I tried to use an example by pointing out the consequences of a business deal he related earlier where a customer had effectively been ripped off after not getting what he paid for, he said "So what? Shit happens, he'll get over it."

When I expressed my incredulity at his response, he told me I needed to avoid the trap of looking at things in black and white.

Now, it was at this moment that the conversation I had with the man at the fair back in college came back to me, and I suddenly realized something that made me feel very uneasy. If my co-worker's concept of morality was just as justified by his own point of view as my own, then what he believed could never be wrong. If life did not continue beyond this, and there were no ultimate consequences to our actions, then nothing, no matter how horrible, beautiful, loving or hateful could ever...EVER mean anything.

While I know that my co-worker was no more a representative of all atheists as the Westboro Baptist Church is to all Christians, it left me aghast that a person who was otherwise intelligent and educated with an MBA could feel justified in acting the way he did. Then it occurred to me that what I saw as decency or a desire to do the right thing was not common sense or shared by everyone. Anyone who has ever had children have seen that, left to their own devices, kids will act selfishly, bully, tease and prey on others that show weakness. Concepts such as compassion, morality, selflessness and generosity are not inborn traits, but lessons that need to be learned, enforced and taught by example. A religious upbringing had given me a moral compass and center that continued to serve me in a positive way, even when I was too immature to appreciate it.

My negative experiences and observations of the consequences resulting from the extremes of both zealotry and secular hedonism made me a better person. I learned that I didn't have to become a fire and brimstone preacher to accept the simple message of forgiveness and love taught by Christ, nor did I have to give up reason and critical thinking just because I rejected the vapidness or moral malaise of secular humanism. That balance has made me a happier, successful and more well-rounded individual.

So it is in that good spirit and happiness that I wish you all a very Merry Christmas, and God Bless us, everyone.

The Ghost of Fitzmas Past

With the inevitable arrest of Governor Blagojevich of Illinois, there is, of course, a lot of speculation regarding the extent of Barrack Obama's relationship and communications with this product of the idiocy of Illinois voters. It has also brought about the opportunity for another sad example of political disingenuousness to once again rear its ugly head: Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

In November of 2005, the political lexicon was treated to a new holiday: Fitzmas.

For those who need a reminder, Fitzmas was the embodiment of the irrational giddiness felt by liberal moonbats who sought to promote Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame affair into a claim that the President conspired to leak the identity of a former CIA employee in order to smear her husband, the former ambassador Joseph Wilson, because he later criticized the grounds for the Iraq war.

But it didn't work out as they planned. The President wasn't indicted. Dick Cheney wasn't indicted. Karl Rove wasn't indicted. The leaker, much to the dismay of moonbats far and wide, was an employee of Colin Powell by the name of Richard Armitage. What was even worse was that Patrick Fitzgerald found out that it was Armitage a mere two weeks into an investigation that took the better part of two years.

Two years.

And what did Fitzgerald have to show for it? A process crime brought about during an investigation that should have ended two weeks after it started.

The moment Patrick Fitzgerald found out that it was Richard Armitage who confessed to leaking Plame's identity only two weeks into the investigation, the matter should have ended on the spot. Instead, he ignored Armitage and ends up prosecuting Libby because he asserted that Libby was lying when he could not answer for sure about exact dates and the order in which conversations took place, where they took place or what the circumstances were that initiated those conversations. Hell, couple that with asking for specific details on matters that are months or even years old, and you could probably convict virtually every person alive for giving answers that are incorrect or contradict one another.

Now, also understand this: The entire time that the investigation went on beyond that point, we were all treated to all manners of conspiracy theories about how this all came down as an order from the President and Vice-President! It was Karl Rove who did it! They tried to out Plame as revenge!

Only none of that was true.

The entire time that the Bush Administration was being accused of all manner of treasonous acts in outing a supposedly "covert" agent, Patrick Fitzgerald, knowing full well that it was Armitage, questioned Libby, Rove and other Administration officials at length regarding the details of who they spoke to and when...questions meant to find the answer he already had.

The worst part about this entire fiasco was that after all was said and done, with Libby hung out to dry, Fitzgerald closed the case, brought no charges against anyone else, pranced away and left the entire central focus of the investigation unpunished and abandoned. After the trial was ended, we were all treated to the confused and angry exclamations on the part of jurors about how they wanted to know why they weren't going after Rove, or what about questions regarding the war in Iraq? Why wasn't the President and VP charged with anything? Then after convicting Libby, a number of jurors came out and felt that Libby deserved to be pardoned!

If neither the President, VP or Rove were specifically under investigation, and the jury was informed by Fitzgerald as to who they were focusing the investigation on, where would a supposedly impartial jury get the idea that someone else was going to be brought to court, or ever expect questions be asked beyond the scope of the trial? It's simple: That DC jury went into that courtroom with expectations that were fostered by every moonbat conspiracy theory that had been feeding the media with speculation and baseless accusations for over two years. How many of you remember people claiming inside information that Rove was to be indicted any minute and Libby was going to turn in Cheney, only it turned out that all of it was bogus?

Liberals whipped their base into a frenzy and used this case as a foothold to point towards the "culture of corruption" platform that they used as a campaign slogan all the way up to the 2006 elections. They used it as a character attack on countless occasions against both the President and VP, knowing full well that because it involved an active judicial case, they were not allowed to comment on anything. There is little doubt that between this event and the outing of Mark Foley, you have the very foundation upon which the 2006 elections turned.

So the result? Armitage walked, Fitzgerald did nothing about it and not one person who made false accusations about Rove, Cheney or the President concerning this case ever got called on it, but what does the truth matter so long as you win elections, right?

Fitzgerald supposedly set out to find the leaker, found out early into the investigation that it was Armitage, then proceeded to conduct the whole affair as if he hadn't found what he was looking for to begin with.

Fitzgerald should have been disbarred and brought to trial for abusing his role as a prosecutor, as he acted in no less of a dishonorable manner than that other ass-bite, Mike NiFong, the democrat party District Attorney who intentionally sought to promote false charges of rape against innocent students of Duke University to secure the black vote during a close election. Upon close inspection, the two are virtually no different in that both prosecutors had evidence early into their investigations that showed that the premise for their investigations was unfounded, yet they refused to act on that evidence. One gets disbarred and the other prances away without even charging the guilty person for the so-called crime he was charged with finding.

So...for any of you conservatives out there looking to promote this guy now out of sense of SchadenFreude simply because he is taking out yet another corrupt liberal democrat from Illinois, just remember: Patrick Fitzgerald proved before that he is just another political hack from the same corrupt Illinois/Chicago political machine as Blagojevich. Fitzgerald told newspapers to sit on the story for months prior to the presidential election and intentionally closed the investigation sooner in order to prevent felonies from being committed. His abrupt ending of the investigation limited the number of counts against Blagojevich to such an extent that he only needed to post bail at an amount of less than $5000. Fitzgerald's timing in this haste arrest and the mad dash being made to impeach Blagojevich is yet another example of partisan, political expediency in the name of saving yet another liberal Illinois democrat from potential embarrassment and scandal: Barrack Hussein Obama.

Republicans got off easy...

In the aftermath of a Presidential election, it's natural for the losing side to do some soul searching. No longer burdened with worrying about the election itself, people tend to open up and admit to themselves where the faults in their political party exist. That is indeed unfortunate, because while the lessons you learn in defeat are helpful in reassessing what you stand for and what you want to achieve, it also means not having the power to implement your policy and correct your mistakes.

For me, this election cycle was one that I watched with morbid fascination. I remember how I felt after the 2004 elections, reading a story about how shortly after President Bush won a second term, liberals were depressed, sullen and not even close to gaining back the House and Senate, let alone reclaiming the Whitehouse. Some felt so lost that a John Kerry supporter went to the former site of the World Trade Center and shot himself in the head in protest. I look back at the 2004 election and just can't help but marvel at how...in politics...nothing is set in stone. In less than four years, Republicans managed to lose the House, Senate, Presidency, a majority of Governorships and public confidence in their policies on National Defense, Taxes and Fiscal Discipline, the bedrock of conservatism itself.

Now, I knew that Republicans stood no chance at winning the Whitehouse when John McCain became our nominee. Once again, Republicans...in their unwillingness to admit that sometimes its OK to piss off liberals and not try to be their friends...allowed democrats and liberal independents to use the open primary system in lots of states to vote for non-conservative candidates. John McCain represents to me the exact type of person Republicans had to get rid off. President Bush had spent a majority of the second term of his Presidency acting like a liberal democrat, and here the Republicans had chosen the most liberal of the candidates we as Republicans had to choose from. Let's not kid ourselves, either, they were all liberals: Romney, Huckabee, Guliani, McCain...none of them were interested in promoting conservatism as a whole. McCain was such a bad candidate that he was trailing in the polls until he selected a running mate that actually spoke directly to the American people and acted like a conservative. Gov. Sarah Palin is everything McCain was not. She is young, attractive, focused, fun, a well-polished orator and was the only one who showed determination to win and draw huge crowds. For a short time, things looked a lot better for the Republicans, that is until the Subprime meltdown. That was the final nail in the our coffin.

To say what happened on November 4th was a disaster would be kind. The election of Barrack Hussein Obama was a complete refutation to Republicans and conservatives alike. It was nothing short of the most embarrassing, shameful and humiliating political experience that I have ever witnessed. We, as a political force, have simply been dismissed. I certainly can't blame voters for throwing Republicans off the bridge, because if someone came into my house and tore it up the way Republicans have dismantled the principles it once stood for, they'd be in the trunk of my car with a shovel headed for the Pine Barrons of New Jersey...

As bad as it all sounds, I can only think of one scenario that would have been worse: What if John McCain had won?

In an earlier article, I had outlined the dangers of Political Paralysis. In short, it is the combination of having a member of your party consistently go against its core principles in favor of appeasing your political enemies, refusing to be partisan and leaving supports in a state where they can neither defend themselves or support their candidate.

In my opinion, John McCain goes against Republicans so often because his experience with being tortured by the filthy Vietnamese animals who held him captive left him in a mental state that meant being at odds with your enemies causes pain. Cooperation, on the other hand - led to better treatment. So, when liberals at the NY Times routinely praised McCain and gave him special treatment because he attacked his own party and the President, he was ill equipped to have the mental strength to engage in a on-on-one partisan fist fight. Barrack Obama had so many political weaknesses and flaws that prior to Bill Clinton becoming President, he never would have been someone that an active politician would have been comfortable saying he knew, let alone become the nominee and winner of the Presidency. If I had been running, I would have called Obama on every weakness he had and made him look like the political joke he actually is. Win or lose, I would have said in no uncertain terms that Obama was a liar; a liar who in fact comes from a corrupt state that is exclusively run and controlled by corrupt liars. McCain did none of that, perhaps a half-hearted attempt at it in the end, but nothing significant. He demonstrated in the end that he didn't have the stomach or heart in victory, because doing so meant having to draw a line in the sand and paint your opponent for the fraud that he is.

If John McCain had won, we would be left once again in the position we have been in for the past 4 years. We would have to spend all of our resources on defense, clawing back at liberals who would paint McCain as a doddering old man and trashing the actions, words and family of Sarah Palin. We would have cringed and held our heads screaming every single time McCain "worked together with Democrats" and allowed our Party to be the wholesale sponsors of the sick, creeping doom of Socialism. He would, in effect, have been treated NO DIFFERENTLY and with LESS RESPECT than President Bush and would have to contend with a liberal electorate and press who would be more uncivil and more biased than they have been for the past few years, and that is difficult to comprehend.

Recently, on the political boards I attend, a liberal started asking Republicans what they thought about a certain issue, and when I responded that what Republicans think doesn't matter anymore because we do not have any more political power, he was uneasy to say the least. He wanted to argue in the same manner he had for years taking pot shots at Republicans for taking ANY stand on ANY issue, but when hit with the realization that liberals were now left in a position akin to a child standing alone in the park with his ball and nobody to throw it back to him, the idea of actually leading and being responsible for decisions and their consequences does not seem quite so easy.

When you have a lot to lose and watch helplessly for years as more and more of what you have is taken away despite your efforts, it is painful beyond words to lose in spite of your attempts to keep what you have. Once you have lost it all, however, there is a certain peace that comes to mind because once you have nothing, you are keenly aware of what you've lost, what is important to you and how you plan on getting it back. Republicans have to figure out if they are going to remain Democrat-Lite or grow a set of balls and stand for something worth voting for.

A sign of things to come?

The county I live in went to Barrack Obama. Up until the day of the election, there was not one day that went by where an Obama supporter wasn't dropping off campaign materials and wanting to discuss the issues. I was good natured about it, and I really liked watching them squirm when they realized they were talking to an unapologetic conservative. They always looked really uncomfortable, but I expect that from people who are so easily swayed by missives of "hope" and "change".

My area was littered with McCain and Obama yard signs everywhere. Public property, private property, roadside, curbsides...everywhere.

The day after the election, I had to drive back and forth across town multiple times, and it suddenly occurred to me that I could not see any McCain signs anywhere. Every single place I knew they were put out were gone. At first I figured that the people who had put them out were disapointed in the outcome and decided to get rid of them, but the odds that everyone had done so seemed a stretch. I was right to question the odds.

Then it happened to be that I looked in the local newspaper, and to my complete lack of surprise there was an article written about the wholesale theft of McCain signs that had occurred in the middle of the night. Overzealous Obama supporters - so gleeful that all their problems were going to be solved now that the Messiah had been reborn - took it upon themselves to scour every road and piece of property during the night and steal every McCain sign they could find.

Now, I'm old enough to accept defeat gracefully, and as much as I was disappointed that Obama had won, I had pretty much accepted McCain's inevitable loss after seeing his lousy performance in the second debate. It was the final product of the Perfect Storm: Unpopular President, economic woes and the souring of the Republican brand. It hurts to lose and nobody likes it.

The sign theft bothered me not because the miscreants went on private property and took things that didn't belong to them, or that it was a bunch of smug winners wanting to rub victory in the faces of McCain supporters. It's part of what it represents.

The people who did it embody the new mainstream face of the democrat party. These are not just people who have a different set of political beliefs, these are people who resent the fact that people like me and others who openly opposed the election of Barrack Obama exist. We're called racists. We're called Nazis. We're called homophobes, sexists, bigots, warmongers, religious wackos and gun freaks. It is not enough for them to accept that we oppose their liberal ideology for legitimate reasons. They consider the opposition to their political beliefs not as a difference in opinion, but as the embodiment of evil and hate. Those are convenient emotional responses to political opposition for them, because in their minds it frees them from all restraints and standards of moral conduct. After all, when battling evil, or defending one's self from hate, what can possibly be considered out of bounds?

The essence of liberalism's goal is the elimination of dissent, and in attempting to remove dissent, liberals will do whatever is deemed necessary. President Bush rose in popularity because he wore his humanity on his sleeve and reacted to the 9/11 attacks with grit and resolve, so liberalism's solution was to engage in the personal, nonstop, brutal, 24/7 no-holds-barred dehumanization of the President. Successful and popular talk radio programs that have promoted conservative values and beliefs were recently compared to pornography by Chuck Schumer, who said that the Fairness Doctrine needed to be reinstated in order for the government to regulate the content of speech in a free enterprise business. Scientists who express doubt about the existence of Global warning don't get grant money. Teachers who do not tow the liberal line are not granted tenure. Joe Lieberman, a lifelong democrat who dared to support the war, was kicked out of his party. Bob Casey, another lifelong democrat who had the audacity to be pro-life, was once barred from speaking at the Democratic National Convention specifically because he opposed abortion.

Barrack Obama is not a centrist. He is not another "New Democrat". Outside of him being the first black to be elected President, he is no different nor any less partisan than Bill Ayers, the Reverend Jerimiah Wright, his new chief of staff Rahm "F-Bomb" Emannuel or the people who could not stand seeing signs supporting McCain for one more minute.

It's Over.

Barrack Hussein Obama has been elected as our 44th President.

God help us all...

My Prediction

Our next President will be Barrack Hussein Obama, who will win with 48% of the vote. McCain will garner no less than 45% of the vote.

The Electoral College results will show Obama with a very narrow victory in PA, although NC and VA will remain in the red. OH and FL will turn blue this election cycle.

This will not be a Presidential blowout, but a victory for democrats nonetheless. Republicans lose 23 additional House seats and democrats will have a 58 seat majority to the Republican 39 seats.

McCain will concede defeat before 12:00am this evening.

An open letter to Barrack Obama from "Cory the Well Driller"

"Mr. Obama -"

"Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me "Cory the well driller". I am a 54 year old high school graduate. I didn't go to college like you, I was too ready to go "conquer the world" when I finished high school.

25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80's oil boom. I didn't get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawn shop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start as a result of privilege. They are the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly. From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn't afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10 year old, 1/2 ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck). A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time... $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D.. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all. I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas. 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2. 5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didn't work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills. Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.

2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig. This provided another 2 full time jobs for East Texans. Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me. For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business.

A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs. I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off. Customers immediately started coming out of the woodworks to buy the pumps, but there was a problem. I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps. With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going.

Yes, once again, I had everything hanging over the line in an effort to start another business. I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months). How many nights I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life I cannot tell you, but there were plenty. I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas. Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so I and an employee (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customers' pumps, practically from coast to coast. I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister). I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturers' product lines, and paying back credit cards. During all this time I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews. Also, the screen service business continued to grow. No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but that's ok, I didn't expect any, nor did I want any. I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.

Now, after manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distribute $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy. Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop. The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide. Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well. This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months. This should work out, but if it doesn't it will be because you, and the other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our country's' (and the world) economy with your meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages. You see, at the very time when I couldn't get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit or worse yet, bad credit. Even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets). While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans. It's funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country.

You see, Mr. Obama, I'm the guy you intend to raise taxes on. I'm the guy who has spent 25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead. I'm the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, and all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didn't want to take a risk, and would not demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself. I'm the guy you characterize as "the Americans who can afford it the most" that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution "to spread the wealth" to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything. You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture. I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political career. What's worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of themselves. Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominant liberal media, and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.

What is so terribly sad about this is this. America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self reliance, self motivation, self determination, self discipline, personal betterment, hard work, risk taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach of every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together. We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance. You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn't it, Mr. Obama? The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever expanding dependence on government. What's remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn't need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.

You see, I know because I've had them work for me before. Hundreds of them over these 25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time. People who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out. People who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more. People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture.

Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate. Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again. You see, I've seen what the average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce "politically motivated"), you averaged less than 1% annually. And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than ¼% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years. Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy, just as long as it is someone else's money you are giving to them. I won't say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you and Joe Biden. combined (don't you just hate Google?). Tell me again how you feel my pain.

In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country. You represent the culture of government dependence instead of self reliance; Entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement; Penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated; Political correctness instead of open mindedness and open debate. If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems. Like all of western Europe. All countries on the decline. All countries that, because of liberal socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.

God help us...

Cory Miller just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.

P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real American..."

www.cmillerdrilling.com

One can go to Mr. Miller's website and find out that Mr. Miller is indeed quite real. He drills; he works; he pays his bills; he provides for his family. He is what made America great, and very, very sadly we are losing that.

Calling a Spade a Spade

Since some people seem to insist on arguing that Republicans are hypocrites because John McCain's tax plan is supposedly just as "socialistic" as Barrack Obama's, I'm going to break it down in the clearest terms possible and explain why Republicans are not guilty of the ultimate sin liberals carp about constantly (a.k.a. hypocrisy), and why BHO is just another typical liberal stooge.

- When conservatives, or even pseudo-liberals like McCain enact a tax cut, they are reducing the amount of taxes that are withheld from income or capitol gains. That, in effect, means that the government takes less money from the people earning it, and they in turn keep more of what they earn to (gasp) do with as they please.

- When Obama says that 95% of the people are going to get a tax cut, he is being intellectually dishonest because more than 40% of people in the country do not pay income taxes since they either don't earn enough money or qualify for tax breaks. What Obama is talking about is taxing the people who have money - you know, the evil rich people who run all the businesses and investments that create the jobs people need to survive - and take their money and giving it to people who didn't earn it.

That is called Income Redistribution. It is one party, in this case Obama - arbitrarily deciding to take money he didn't earn to give it to other people who didn't earn it either, and in return prances around on TV telling the people who didn't earn the money that they should follow him.

Income Redistribution was the center of Karl Marx's attempt to create a classless society, and despite it's historically documented abject failure as a political philosophy, Barrack Hussein Obama, along with Joe Biden, Barney Frank, Nanzi Pelozi, Harry Reid and the rest of the liberal socialist spam-monkeys in the House and Senate embrace the outright theft of personal wealth in exchange for buying votes from the poor people they have made dependent on government support to survive.

You want to talk hypocrisy? Republicans are lambasted all the time for their dependence on rich voters for their support and gain power through the wealthy attaining more wealth. O.K., fine. Then what does it mean then when democrats in return depend on poor people for their votes and gain more power by poor people getting poorer?

When Republicans favor the rich getting richer and oppose stealing from them because they're rich, the worst anyone can accuse them of is not standing in the way of someone else attaining their piece of the American dream, which has no limitation. That is not hypocritical.

Democrats, on the other hand, prance around all over the place wanting to beat their chests and tell the world how compassionate they are, but the moment a poor person doesn't want to be poor anymore, or Republicans advance an agenda that will help prevent more poor people (such as them forcing a limit on welfare that made people get off their lazy asses and get jobs), democrats take a dump their collective skirts howling in protest, calling it cruel.

Democrats are the ultimate hypocrites because they derive their power at the expense of people who work for a living in exchange for fostering a larger number of people incapable of self-sufficiency to keep them dependent on democrats for survival. What democrats have done to the black community is nothing short of treating them like cattle, but democrats consider that compassion.

The Danger of Political Paralysis

Politics is, by nature, a very rough business. It doesn't matter how well spoken, genuine or patriotic a person is...if you run for and attain political office, you will make or continue to have enemies. Victory, and even a mandate - does not ever mean you do not have enemies.

When being criticized, you have several options. You can directly cite it and fight back, and refute the criticism till you have won the argument. Another is to have surrogates fight on your behalf and attempt to have the criticism refuted without personally engaging in a one-on-one battle. You can also deflect the criticism by attacking the credibility of the attacker. Another strategy is to let the person continue to speak because they're making an ass out of themselves, and wait till they are done to point out their mistakes. Lastly, you can choose to ignore it.

Former President Clinton never ignored criticism. To his credit, he ran all 8 years of his presidency as if he were in a perpetual, never-ending campaign. For all the criticism he received, both just and unjust, Bill Clinton never backed down from a fight, gave up or allowed his enemies to define who he was. Despite low personal approval ratings, he was able to maintain high job approval ratings. He was successful in being able to promote the morally relativistic idea that just because someone was a liar, a cheat and had no character, that didn't mean he couldn't be a good President. For his success alone in promoting this new standard, I will always regard him as the ultimate grandmaster of politics.

When you ignore criticism, you are taking a risk. You are weighing people's ability to see the truth about you despite the criticism verses the potential damage that can be caused by refuting it, as doing so can only bring it to more attention than it's worth.

President Bush has made not personally defending himself a hallmark of his Presidency. For reasons that he alone keeps to himself, President Bush has allowed even the most unhinged, radical and ultra-kook moonbat fringe of the media and blogosphere to falsely accuse him, his closest advisers and senior members of his administration of orchestrating 9/11, doctoring evidence for the Iraq war, Nazism, Fascism, Treason, Murder, War Profiteering and Election Fraud, just to name a few.

Most people are able to see through these and other accusations, consider the source, look at the person being accused and subsequently dismiss them as being ludicrous. Eventually, however, if accusations continue to be made and not answered, people are going to question the accused. The longer the accused stays silent while the accusations become more unhinged, the more the accused supporters are going to look for a reason for their defense and a refutation to the attacks they are defending on someone else's behalf.

President Bush has been wrong on certain issues. He was wrong in his attempts to appease liberals with huge increases of entitlement spending on education and drug benefits. He should have overwhelmed Iraq with a larger number of troops instead of a smaller, fixed number and never have given the terrorists a moments rest by declaring any type of victory. He should have showed video clips of all the democrats who cited the same intel he used back during the Clinton administration when Clinton launched missile attacks on Iraq on the day of Monica Lewinsky's deposition. He should have decreased spending on entitlement programs, campaigned against earmarks on the House and Senate and focused on securing the border with Mexico. He should have come out swinging against Nagin and Blanco and compared the 4 day response time of FEMA to Hurricane Katrina to Bill Clinton's FEMA response time of more than three weeks to Hurricane Floyd. Had he made better decisions regarding just these issues mentioned, the Republicans would still have the House and Senate, have a greater majority and democrats would still be like the Jews wandering through the desert for 40 years after worshiping the Golden Calf.

Erring on these issues, and not defending himself against the lunatic fringe…left President Bush in a state of political paralysis. He became unable to lead or govern because he was no longer capable of even mustering support among his disaffected base or utilizing the power of the bully pulpit. As a result, liberals had the power to define President Bush in a negative fashion, regardless of whatever his position was.

Consider the following breakdown of actual arguments made against the Bush Administration during the past few years:

- If the President cuts taxes then it's no good because the people who pay the most taxes reap the benefit the most, but if he doesn't he is ignoring the economic plight of poor people by not concerning himself with their tax burden.

- If the President has a diverse cabinet then he is guilty of pandering to minorities, if he doesn't then it is an example of his bigotry.

- If the President sides with Israel in a conflict then it is an example of Zionist-Pro-Israel/Anti-Arab bigotry, but if he doesn't then it is an example of the President's Christian Anti-Semitism.

- If the President wins an election without the majority and plurality of the vote (2000), then he has no mandate, but if he wins with both the plurality and majority of the vote (2004) then he has no mandate because 52% of the vote is not a mandate.

- If the President pushes for more refineries and domestic oil drilling to increase supply then he is pandering to Big Oil, but if he does neither and pushes for more efficiency and conservation then he is guilty of trying to keep the status quo by not increasing energy supplies, and is therefore pandering to Big Oil.

- If the President takes an aggressive stance towards North Korea then he is guilty of inciting more war and violence, if he seeks international support then he is guilty of assuming a weak posture in international affairs.

- If the President does not appear at the NAACP, then he is guilty of writing off the black community, but if he appears at the NAACP he is guilty of insincere pandering to the black community.

- If the President has hired a team made up of intelligent people, then it is because he himself is not intelligent, but if the President succeeds on his own merits then it is because he has surrounded himself with intelligent people.

- If the President stays the course and remains in Iraq till the job is finished then he is guilty of being stubborn, but if the President talks of eventual troop reduction then he is guilty of giving in.

- If the President takes a tough stance on illegal immigration then he is guilty of anti-Hispanic bigotry, if he does not then he is guilty of failing to look out for the American citizenry.

- If the President does not send in the National Guard to Katrina ravaged New Orleans right away he does not care about black people, if he does then he is sending in an occupational force against US citizens.

- If the President uses executive powers during a time of war then he is guilty of violating the constitution, but if he does not use his powers and authority then he is guilty of not leading or maintaining control.

- If the President uses military action against terrorists he is guilty of inciting more terrorism and putting lives on the line for the sake of oil, but if he doesn't then he is guilty of dropping the ball and neglecting his duty in protecting the country.

- If the President's policies in preventing terror attacks catch terrorists and yield vital information, then he is guilty of infringing on freedom and human rights, but if his policies fail then he is guilty of not doing enough to protect American citizens.

- If the President stays silent in the face of critics then it is because his critics are right, but if the President speaks out and defends his positions then it is a sign of stubbornness and his attempt to "silence" critics with fascist threats.

- If the President appeals to foreign nations to assist in Iraq but goes in with less than everyone who is approached, he is accused of being a unilateralist, but if he appeals to foreign nations who have a stake in North Korea, then he is criticized for not being a unilateralist.

Look at where we are now:

- We have an inexperienced, junior Senator running for President from the corrupt Illinois/Chicago political machine who's state has one of the largest unemployment percentages in the country, has direct ties to a racist pastor, an unrepentant domestic terrorist, a corrupt community organization being investigated for wholesale voter fraud, an ultra-leftist voting record and openly expressing socialist wealth redistribution.

- We have a democrat Vice Presidential candidate who is the Binford Gaffo-Matic 7000, a man who cannot keep his mouth shut to save his life. A man who not only has been caught lying through his teeth and plagiarizing in national debates, but is documented on the written, spoken and video record of dismissing the ability, truthfulness and experience of his own running mate during the democrat primary, a primary where he admitted that he would endorse John McCain himself over his own running mate...and...most recently admitted on national television that enemies of the US would seek to test his running mate and that their response would not appear to be initially correct.

- We have an ultra-left democrat controlled House and Senate who have an approval rating less than half than that of President Bush, led by the two most inept leaders either party has ever had, additionally burdened with documented proof of their own direct culpability and guilt in promoting the policies and practices that led to the Subprime mortgage meltdown.

Yet, despite the democrat party being rank with absolute ineptitude, lack of leadership, scandal and lockstep ties with the most radical kook fringe of society, they are WINNING because the political paralysis caused by President Bush's liberalism and unwillingness to engage in the politics of a one-on-one fight...has demoralized the base, radicalized and emboldened the democrats and has left the Independents who are liberal leaning, indecisive and generally spineless to their mercurial natures of going with whichever side that appears to be on the current winning end of the political spectrum (i.e. Colin Powell). In any other political scenario that would have come about by the President governing like a conservative and not as a liberal douche-bag, democrats would be melting down and running in circles with abject panic.

The lesson from all of this is a simple one: When it comes to politics, conservatives can never, ever, EVER let our enemies get away with defining who we are or wax eloquent on the lofty idea of leaving judgment to history, because history is written and defined by the people who win, not the people who are right.

The Powell Endorsement

I remember the day Colin Powell first held a press conference to announce his party affiliation. When he came out and said he was registering as a Republican, I not only found it odd that such an announcement was even newsworthy, I also was struck at how uncomfortable he looked in his addressing the press. Being on camera was nothing new to the man, and I always remembered that moment.

Recently, Colin Powell endorsed Barrack 0bama for President. Naturally, the forum I discuss politics on was abuzz over this, and on queue the liberals were tripping over themselves to rub the news in the faces of conservatives. That was no surprise.

What liberals don't seem to understand is that most conservatives like myself fully expected Powell's endorsement, because over the years it became painfully obvious that Powell was as much a conservative Republican as the New York Times pet moonbat, Mr. Paul Krugman.

The link here is to a Youtube video of Colin Powell's address to the United Nations where he made his case for invading Iraq

In this video and the other linked at the site, Powell presented a passionate and strong rationale to the world to support the US decision the go to war. Powell reviewed and studied copious amounts of covert intelligence gathered since the end of the first Gulf War, and eagerly used it to present his findings and make his case clear. When WMD's were not found, Powell did not hesitate to tell Barbra Walters on how his doing so was a blot on his record. Instead of criticizing the intelligence amassed during the Clinton administration, Powell instead chose to direct his attacks on the Bush Administration, saying afterward that he really didn't review the intelligence, he just went along with what was given to him by VP Dick Cheney. Does that sound like the action a General would take?

The idea that Powell was ever considered a strong Republican by anyone baffles me. Powell worked with Clinton to hedge his bets on gays in the military by defining what has become known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Colin Powell continues to actively support and promote affirmative action and is pro-abortion. Despite his military training, he's called for additional gun control laws beyond what are already actively in place. After giving his rationale for war as he was seen doing in the link, he claimed that he tried to persuade President Bush to not go to war with Iraq in the same manner he undermined his father's efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Powell opposed the nomination of conservative John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations because of personal disagreements he had with him during his tenure as Secretary of State. He also joined the obnoxious chorus of liberal moonbats who blamed the President for the problems caused by Hurricane Katrina, yet offered no such criticisms for either the indecision of Governor Blanco of Louisiana or the failed local leadership of Mayor Ray Nagin.

Even back in the early 90's, when the first Iraq War was ready to start, Powell ran around warning everyone that American casualties would be severe because we could not fight in the desert, take the heat or handle veterans in the Iraqi Army who studied the hard lessons of Russia's war in Afghanistan. General Norman Schwarzkopf would have nothing to do with Powell's negative assessment and backed the quality and formability of US troops on any field of battle. When Powell turned out to be completely wrong in his strategies, predictions and beratement of US troop capabilities, he pulled a complete 180 and rode the wave of fame and victory that he used to start he foray into politics.

The Powell endorsement is another step in a series of planned and calculated moves on the part of a man who has a record of hedging his bets and making decisions on the basis of the direction the prevailing political winds are blowing. Looking back at the day he televised his announcement regarding his party affiliation, the uneasiness and hesitation I saw and heard in the man came from him knowing full well that he was joining a party that stood for things he didn't agree with out of political ambition and expediency, not out of principle.

Even in 2007, when it looked like Hillary was going to steamroller over 0bama and get the democrat nomination in a walk, Powell gave the maximum donation possible to John McCain's campaign, since it was widely regarded that another Clinton running would unite conservatives of all colors and stripes. When it was predicted months ago that Powell would choose 0bama, Powell vigorously denied it and resented it having even been being suggested. Yet, once again, when the political winds shifted in favor of 0bama, Powell went with the perceived winner. Look at how he waited until two weeks prior to the election to make an announcement, he couldn't even definitively support one candidate over another until he had a good idea who would win.

Every single doubt and suspicion I held about Colin Powell has turned out to be 100% correct. When it comes down to brass tax, Powell is just another liberal/independent that is incapable of taking a long term concrete stance on any issue without first considering the political hay that can be made with it or made against it. I'll make this next prediction: If 0bama wins the election, I see two possibilities: Powell will change his party affiliation to democrat, and if health issues and questions of Biden's mental state continue to persist, he will be asked to replace him as Vice President.

Question: Why don't more blacks vote for Republicans?

It's because historically, no matter how much Republicans reach out to blacks, their message has not, and will not resonate. Look at what passes for black leadership these days; race baiting hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who make their living off the emotional and economical upheavals of their own people.

Blacks are constantly told that America is out to get them in every way, shape and form. Their culture has been poisoned by the notion that they themselves are incapable of taking care of their own needs and goals because they are taught from birth that the odds are stacked against them.

The moment a black person becomes an educated and successful member of society, they are called sell-outs and Uncle Toms. Instead of looking at successful blacks and holding THEM up as role models, they are excoriated, for all things...of acting white.

Every attempt Republicans have made to reach out has been met with criticism and negative press. It's not that it's too difficult (speaking is easy), and they certainly don't avoid it out of laziness(they have tried for years). It's because, in my opinion, it has gotten to the point where the negative press and media presented on such events now supersedes any measurable benefit when looking at how many people actually listened and changed their mind. I hate it, and wish it were different, but it has unfortunately been what has come to pass.

Let's say for the sake of argument that I were running for office and I decided I was going to address a black audience who came to hear my ideas. I give it my best shot and explain how dependence on government programs has taken away their sense of independent identity, and that through hard work, education and self-reliance, they can achieve anything. I stand up for successful blacks and tell them why they should be their role models. I explain how I was raised and how the lessons I learned from the time I was a young man helped shape my views of the world and have aided me greatly in life.

The reaction and the way this event would be covered would unleash the most scathing criticism I would ever receive in my political career. The reaction to my speech would be one of apoplectic shock for the audacity of a white man to address a black audience and even begin to suggest to them how to live their lives, let alone having a conservative point out to them the very reasons behind their never-ending problems. "Easy for you to say!" or "Who the @#$! are you to tell us what to think!?" or "You don't know what it's like to be black in America!!"

The only thing that would be televised and brought up on the news would be this hatchet job of coverage that wouldn't concentrate on what I said or the sincerity of my ideas, but of the reaction I would receive.

Democrats have so successfully sunk their claws into the hearts and minds of blacks that they have created a solid, concrete base of supporters and voters for themselves. Can anyone honestly tell me that if conservatives efforts to reach out to blacks started taking them away from the democrat base that democrats would be star-struck at the love and support coming from conservatives? Hell No, democrats would whip it into high gear and start the process all over of telling blacks what lousy racists we are and how we want to take away their civil rights, and if that kind of bullshit rhetoric is what we have to deal with just so blacks won't think we're trying to re-introduce slavery, forget it. And if appealing to blacks means that we have to moderate our stances on welfare spending or the negative consequences of affirmative action, then to moderate those stances means abandoning the majority of our own concrete base that believes in the opposite. So again, it's not worth it in that case, either.

Consider the following: Republicans are the party that led the vote to abolish slavery. Lincoln was a Republican. Republicans were the majority of the people that voted for the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ronald Reagan appointed Samuel Pierce as secretary of Housing and Urban Development. George HW Bush made Colin Powell the first black 4-Star General and nominated Clarence Thomas as the first black Supreme Court justice. George W. Bush chose Condoleeza Rice as his Secretary of State, Roderick R. Paige as his Education Secretary, and John McCain pushed Clinton for Colin Powell's son to run the FCC.

Despite a clear historical record of nominating qualified and intelligent blacks into positions of genuine power and policy making, Republicans never get credit for doing so. Rather, woman and minority candidates that serve in Republican administrations are ridiculed and subjected to scathing criticism and endless objections to their loyalties and qualifications for the positions they hold, regardless of their abilities and talents.

The bottom line? Ideas like independence from government, self-reliance and overcoming adversity though hard work are not resonating because blacks by a large margin have been conditioned into a group-think mentality that tells them that none of those things matter. Every election, over 90% of blacks vote democrat, and in light of the entrenchment of their cultural leanings, no amount of outreach can overcome that until the likes of Sharpton and Jackson are dead, buried and forgotten.

That's why. There's your reason. It's ugly, it sucks and I wish to God it was different, but it's the truth.

We're still waiting for another Reagan...

One of the reasons why former President Clinton had disappointed me so much as an executive was not so much his inability to tell the truth, but rather the inability on his part to define a definitive set of core beliefs that made up who he really was. There was nothing genuine about the man past his ability to try and win people over through his likable nature. When his Presidency started, he went hard left and governed as a hard leftist, projecting $200+ billion deficits for each year into the future. When the Republicans took over in 1994, he back tracked and immediately started going center-right in his policy decisions. It royally pissed off liberals to no end, but it frustrated conservatives who were dragging Clinton kicking and screaming into making such policy decisions, yet getting none of the credit for their success. Clinton, in the end, was pliable because there was nothing to his core beliefs. In the end, he licked his finger, determined which way the political winds were blowing, and followed them where they took him.

Ultimately, Clinton's lack of character caught up with him, despite his overall job popularity. His character issues were so flawed that they ended up hurting Al Gore. While Gore was criticized for running a very bad campaign, the character issue used against him by his proximity to Clinton subsequently helped hand a very narrow victory over to President Bush.

I had very high hopes for President Bush. My biggest concern was that the close margin of his victory would overshadow any pretense he had about a mandate to govern the direction his administration would take.

The WTC attack initially revealed a man who's ability to lead was very sharp contrast to that of his predecessor. The President drew a line in the sand and spoke for all Americans when he, for all intent and purpose, said "enough is enough".

This act of drawing a line in the sand was reminiscent of another President who also stood up against what was perceived as an unconquerable foe. Ronald Wilson Reagan, the man who rightfully called the former Soviet Union an evil empire, took on all enemies, both foreign and domestic, all at once.

He eliminated an unjust and woefully burdensome series of tax penalties levied against the American people for years. His ideas and beliefs were so powerful and resonated with so many Americans that he took on both a House and Senate littered with democrats and bent them in his direction. He inherited a faltering military and transformed it into the most advanced and lethal fighting force on the planet. He got in the face of the Russians and refused to compromise this country's security to appease their aggression. He refused to let liberal detractors get in his way or define who he was, and as a result, he was and still is admired by a vast majority of those of use who were fortunate enough to live during his stewardship of this nation.

I have lived through and remembered what life was like during the Presidencies of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and George W. Bush. Not one of the President's I have watched has ever come close to matching Ronald Reagan's class, style, patriotism, optimism and unwaivering love on this country.

George W Bush is no Ronald Reagan. He never was, not even close. Outside of his stances on taxes and the war against Islamic terrorism, President Bush has been a profound disappointment and an albatross around the neck of every conservative in the country. I won't be sorry to see him go, but I shudder to think that after the liberal moonbats manage to exclusively sink their talons into this country, people will look back at the Presidency of George W Bush and say "ah...those were the days".