Download the original attachment

Dear Young Mother,

I read with great interest a letter recently shared with me by Rob’s mother.  You had written the Obama campaign asking why you should consider voting for Senator Obama.  The letter was referred by an Obama campaign worker, Rob’s mom, to Rob for reply.  Rob’s reply, thoughtful and detailed, displayed enthusiastic support for Senator Obama.  His letter to you led me to thoughtfully consider the true differences between the McCain and Obama candidacies.  Rob reported that he was “relatively” conservative.  “Relative” is the operative word.  I hope the thoughts of true conservative might be of value to you in considering your choices in this election.  I apologize in advance for the length of this discussion, but a conservative making this case operates at a severe disadvantage.  Much of the case you have heard from Rob, some accurate and some not, is repeated regularly in the mainstream media.  Therein lies the great quandary we find ourselves in now as voters.  Rewind twenty eight years.  President Carter was facing Ronald Reagan in the Presidential race.  It would be impossible to imagine then that the New York Times would print an editorial from President Carter on the Iranian hostage crisis and then refuse the submission of Governor Reagan with a statement:

“It would be terrific to have an article from Governor Reagan that mirrors President Carter’s piece,” NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to Reagan staff. “I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.”

This was the reply to Senator McCain after he submitted an op-ed piece on the Iraq War in response to an op-ed from Senator Obama published earlier this year by the New York Times.  Mainstream media has lost any sense of equipoise and has betrayed the American people in the Presidential election of 2008.  I will try to offer analysis and opinion on a number of topics raised by Rob, but found it necessary to go into some detail.  I apologize for what I anticipate to be a lengthy discussion but without some background, my words would likely seem like unsupported political rhetoric.  I have broken the essay up into topics.  My hope is you will be able over the next ten days to get through topics you might deem most important to you and your children.   

The election before us is about two political ideologies.  Conservatism espouses the belief that we are a land of liberty where natural rights of individuals precede and supersede the power of the state.  We are a constitutional republic in which government power is limited and employed for the purpose of providing legitimate public goods rather than for the benefit of insiders and narrow interest groups.  We are a free market in which persons, individually or collectively, have the natural right to sell goods and services to willing buyers, and in which the individual pursuit of economic opportunity benefits all. And we are a free society where citizens solve social problems not only through government but also by working together in families, neighborhoods, churches, charities, and other private, voluntary organizations. Alternatively, liberalism operates from the position that the power of the state supersedes that of the individual and only through the state will a utopian vision be achieved. The state is the best judge of how to achieve that end.  Certainly the intent is that the state exists to wield that power for a larger good.  The state has a role of primacy as protector, educator, physician, moralist, economist, banker, and even purveyor and supporter of arts.   One of the consequences of the ever increasing liberal direction in this country has been a modern government of which democracy’s children increasingly ask for everything and from which they accept everything.

For true conservatives, John McCain is a flawed candidate.  He has supported a number of positions which fly in the face of thoughtful conservatism.  That said, he understands there is a role for government, but believes that role should be relatively limited.  This philosophy underlies his belief in a low tax environment which stimulates economic growth and limits the temptation of those in power to expand their power.  McCain’s principles naturally lead him to freeze and review current levels of government spending which are unsustainable.  John McCain is certain that pursuit of success in a free market best rewards individuals, though he also believes that there are those unable to make it who should be assisted.  He believes in a strong defense that ensures that we will remain a free society.  His core beliefs explain his commitment to a realistic energy policy required to maintain free markets and national security.  John McCain appreciates the tradition and the tenets of the founders of this nation and insists that the Constitution is the source of legal reckoning in this nation, not empathy and “living” interpretations.  John McCain’s respect for individual liberty is best epitomized in his unwavering support for the right of unborn infants to live and born alive infants to survive.

Rob espouses clear support for Senator Obama in his letter.  That is fair.  He is and should be proud of the opportunity to support his candidate.  There are a number of statements and positions he espouses to Young Mom that require significant clarification.  I address a couple of questions to Rob in this letter.  My hope is that the numerous concerns I raise would help him re-evaluate his position and rediscover his past conservative roots.  My hopes for this election and intent in writing are no to take issue with Rob personally, but in replying to his comments, it seemed clear to me that while Rob may have been a registered Republican, he has no conservative leanings.  Quite simply, a conservative, even one struggling with his political identity, could never make the statements Rob makes.  To attempt to enhance the power of his arguments by suggesting to you that he is a “relatively conservative Republican” who has abandoned his core beliefs for the visionary leadership of a candidate who contradicts all conservative principles, is simply disingenuous and unsupportable by any of his commentary.

To the issues….    


Rob expresses deep admiration for the Obama plan.  Regarding education, Senator Obama’s plan revolves around increased monetary support for what he reports is an unsatisfactory system.  Senator Obama blames the “No Child left behind” policy which passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority (87-10) in 2001.  It passed because the education system was already diagnosed as severely ill before “No Child Left Behind.” Senator Obama reports that the problem with the legislation is that the Bush administration has failed to maintain adequate funding.  Really.  Well, over the time of this law, Congress increased federal funding of education, from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. This equates to an increase which outpaced inflation by 5%.  Based on discussion in some circles, one might believe the legislation has had funding cut.  While funding could have been increased further, the fact is we spend more per pupil to educate in this nation than any other country.  Many of our worst schools spend the most money.  Obama calls for more Head Start money, but Head Start doesn’t produce any long term benefits.  There is lots of data to support this.  It does allow the state access to children at a much earlier age, however.  Obama and Biden support transitional bilingual education and will help Limited English Proficient students get ahead by holding schools accountable for making sure these students complete school.  This approach to educating non-English speakers also has proved a dismal failure, unless we plan on a requirement that we all will have to learn Spanish.  No Child Left Behind sadly allows schools flexibility in this area and rather than fail students, many alternative language options are being offered.  The end result is that non-English speakers are saddled with the racism of diminished expectations.  John McCain has called education the civil rights issue of this century.  He is correct.  Senator Obama, however, is willing to allow children across the nation to continue to be subjected to a failed state education system controlled by an NEA driven agenda.  Senator Obama refuses to consider the injection of competition into the system via proven voucher programs that would allow the inner city kids of DC the same opportunities his kids have. 

What about college.  Yes, the Senator is proposing a $4000 college tax credit for those who will agree to serve the community.  His website reports that 100 hours of community service would be required.   One way to look at this is that college students would earn $40/hr for duties that likely pay much less in the private sector.  The nature of such service is not defined.  Not sure Rob has ever served, but 100 hour stints in the military are not easily accommodated.  This past Memorial Day Senator Obama gave the commencement speech at Wesleyan.  As a military veteran I was flabbergasted that he told these young Americans that there are “so many ways to serve” that are available “at this defining moment in our history.”  There’s the Peace Corps, there’s renewable energy, there’s education, there’s poverty — there are all kinds of causes you can take up “should you take the path of service.”  Senator Obama never mentioned the military…on Memorial Day speaking at a college commencement. So I doubt the Senator is considering military service as an option.  One might, however, reasonably suspect that such service would include working for ACORN to recruit Democrat voters.  One might more reasonably ask does everyone need to go to college? 

Senator Obama is poised to make college education the next addition to the Bill of rights, after home ownership.  These are great aspirations but they should be earned by individuals with individuals making honest choices about what is best for them and what it is they can afford.  Would some high school graduates be better served by other types of technical and job training rather than four years of achieving a certification with uncertain evidence of ultimate benefits?  We have built an expectation that everyone needs to go to college, but all colleges are not create equally and the same diminished expectations which have hindered the ultimate mission of grade and high school education are now prevalent in colleges.  These are questions I would like my next President to be willing to consider Young Mom. 

So Young Mom, the recurring theme in education programs for Senator Obama is more support of the status quo, no choice and a much larger investment in the current failing state education system.  There are no new ideas here and there is no motivation for schools to improve.  There will be a call for more “investment” by Americans with no reason to hope for different results.  This is what you can expect from Senator Obama in the realm of education. 

Young Mom, you should also know what the philosophy of an Obama education program would be.  For insights into this we need to look at an epoch in the Obama history which he has worked very hard to conceal.  While he has been criticized for his lack of executive experience, Senator Obama did chair the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) from 1995-2001.  The Senator, a young lawyer with no prior education experience, was hired by Bill Ayers to run this project.  We won’t discuss how this job offer came about now, but the CAC ultimately spent $110 million dollars in efforts to reform Chicago schools.  The bottom line of the report on the effort was “that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence.  This indicates that there was no Annenberg effect on achievement.”

What were the principles of the Obama-Ayers Education reform work in Chicago?    Well, Ayers was the mastermind behind the project.  He submitted the grant.  He chaired the Collaborative portion of CAC, which set education policy.  Senator Obama was responsible for fiscal control of the project.  Ayers is a despicable, cowardly terrorist.  This should disqualify him from the company of thoughtful patriotic Americans, but his past history is not the concern now.   What is of concern is that Ayers has moved his war against America to the classroom.

Please indulge me in a short review of the history of public education Young Mom, it is important in understanding where we are and where we might be going.  Bill Ayers has intense admiration for John Dewey.  John Dewey, the most influential shaper of the public schools in America, saw the public school system as the vehicle for indoctrinating children into a new democratic, secular faith.  He understood that the success of his effort would require children to be liberated from the prejudices and values of their parents.  In his book, A Common Faith, Dewey advocated a radically secular vision for the public schools and the larger public culture. His concept of a humanistic faith stripped of all supernatural claims, doctrines, and theological authorities, would replace Christianity as the dominant culture-shaping worldview. “Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class, or race,” he claimed. “Such a faith has always been the common faith of mankind. It remains for us to make it explicit and militant."

Young Mom, Senator Obama believes in the Ayers philosophy of education.  Senator Obama spent 6 years chairing the CAC, a Board committed to spending huge sums of money on the Ayers approach.  Ayers is a disciple of the “critical pedagogy” movement.  From Sol Stern at the Manhattan Institute, “critical pedagogy” describes how the “oppressive hegemony” of the capitalist social order "reproduces" itself through the traditional practice of public schooling.” Simply put, this is critical pedagogy's way of saying that capitalism and corporations exercise thought control through the schools.  The answer, stop teaching traditional math and science.  Infuse politics and social justice into all levels of education.

From “Revolution”, the Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party in 2006 (aren’t most close associates of Presidential candidates interviewed by “Revolution”), in an interview with William Ayers (, some comments by Ayers on John Dewey, “John Dewey was one of the brilliant, brilliant writers about what democratic education would look like and was himself an independent socialist. But he never resolved a central contradiction in our work, the contradiction between trying to change the school and being embedded in society that has the exact opposite values culturally and politically and socially from the values you’re trying to build in a classroom. This contradiction is something progressive educators should address, not dodge. So this is what got me going.”

Young Mom, the Obama/Biden plan proposes to address the dropout crisis by proposing legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in “intervention strategies” in middle school.  This includes strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.  Obama and Biden will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.  What will children be doing in these programs?  Will their time be structured by disciples of the Chicago Citizen of the Year in 1997, or perhaps the master himself?

Young Mom, you need to know that Senator Obama has no intent of allowing your children the options for education that he has for his children.  Senator Obama holds this view despite the demonstrated achievement successes of numerous programs which have injected competition into the education system.  Senator McCain wants to aggressively explore such programs.  Teacher unions in public schools do not.  In the Obama plan, your children will be relegated to an extremely expensive, failed public school system.  This system will be subsidized by more tax dollars, controlled by teachers unions, and will be a laboratory for the failed experiments Senator Obama and William Ayers previously conducted in the Chicago public schools.  


Rob expressed in his letter a distrust of supply side economics and denigrated the benefits it offers the “wealthiest” Americans.  While Rob reported this has worked in the past, he posits it will not work in a global economy.  Rob goes on to state it is time “the middle class people started getting a tax break and let the top 5% take up some of our tax burden.”  This is right in line with Senator Obama’s plan to “spread the wealth around” and Senator Biden’s statement that “paying taxes is patriotic.”  There is a word for this philosophy…Marxism.  In short, Senator Obama has declared war on the “rich” and war on “big business.”  Rob failed to report the examples where Marxism has worked because there are none.  Socialism is not the foundation this nation was built on, and it is not the reason we have succeeded as a nation.  The Obama program is not a hand up, this is absolutely a hand out.  How is it possible for 95% of working Americans to get a tax cut when 40% of them don’t pay any taxes now?  The top 5% already pay 60% of all taxes.  In large part, what Rob and Senator Obama are talking about are not tax cuts (if you don’t pay taxes, you can’t get a tax cut).  They are talking about welfare disguised as tax credits.  It is predicted that Senator Obama’s tax proposal will transfer $1 trillion in wealth over 10 years to individuals currently paying no taxes.

Young Mom, the Obama plan, a treacherous political tool for fomenting class warfare, is also unsustainable in view of Senator Obama’s plans to increase spending.  Senator Obama proposes an additional $800 billion in new domestic spending.  This doesn’t include recent additions to the debt in the name of bailouts, to financial, housing and auto industries.  This is the amount of spending proposals Senator Obama has repeatedly told us about.  He hasn’t talked much about the Global Poverty Act (GPA) sponsored by him and currently under consideration by the Senate.  The GPA calls for the US to send $80 billion a year to the UN for redistribution to developing nations over the next ten years.   Marx, Lenin, the whole bunch would be proud.  Not only will we redistribute wealth in the US, we will give the UN $845 billion over the next 10 years to redistribute our wealth worldwide.  Young Mom, who will pay for this?  The last Presidential candidate to sell such economic fantasy to voters was Bill Clinton in 1992.  He proposed billions in new spending with huge tax cuts for, you guessed it, the middle and working class.  The tax cuts never came, the tax increases did.

Senator Obama has decided that families making above $250,000 are rich.  Many small businesses file taxes as individuals to avoid what are currently the highest corporate tax rates in the world.  The top corporate tax rate in the US is 35%.  It is 28% in the United Kingdom, 12% in Ireland.  It is not hard to understand why businesses want to move out of the US.  At the $250,000 level (married…$200,000 if single), it is arguable, but as many as 10-20 million small businesses will be impacted by proposed Obama tax increases.  It is also not clear what the Senator means by $250,000.  Is this net or AGI?  This makes a huge difference, especially to small businesses.  Numerous economists have recently warned about the impact Obama’s economic plan would have on the nation.  Regarding job creation, expect recession, or worse, to be the watchword.  Young Mom you should think about the following chart before casting your vote:

Your browser may not support display of this image.

John McCain will eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax which expands in its effect each tax year, currently punishing 25 million middle class families.  He will make it harder to raise taxes and he will ban internet taxation. John McCain will increase the tax exemption for dependents, something which will directly benefit you Young Mom.  McCain understand the importance of families and this is a step towards better valuing something we have begun to take for granted.  He will also keep in place the Bush tax cuts which benefit all with any type of investment retirement account.  He has the best plan for attempting to create an investment environment which will encourage job creation and economic growth here in the United States.  Senator Obama proposes further corporate taxation which will drive more businesses out of the United States.  John McCain will drop corporate tax rates which are the highest in the world.  This has two effects Young Mom.  It creates an environment that encourages businesses to stay in the US and reduces costs that businesses pass on to consumers.  Senator Obama has made villains of lots of business sectors which have tremendously improved our lives and promises to tax them more.  

A word about “Corporate Taxes” Young Mom. I am no economist but have learned much this year as both candidates have talked about their approaches to the economic challenges we face as a nation.  When the government levies a tax on a corporation, the corporation is more like a tax collector than a taxpayer. The burden of the tax ultimately falls on people—the owners, customers, or workers of the corporation. 
Many economists believe that workers and customers bear much of the burden of the corporate income tax. To see why, consider an example. Suppose that the U.S. government decides to raise the tax on the income earned by car companies. At first, this tax hurts the owners of the car companies, who receive less profit. But over time, these owners will respond to the tax. Because producing cars is less profitable, they invest less in building new car factories. Instead, they invest their wealth in other ways—for example, by buying larger houses or by building factories in other industries or other countries. With fewer car factories, the supply of cars declines, as does the demand for autoworkers. Thus, a tax on corporations making cars causes the price of cars to rise and the wages of autoworkers to fall. 
The corporate income tax is popular in part because it appears to be paid by “rich corporations.” Yet those who bear the ultimate burden of the tax—the customers and workers of corporations, all of us—are often not “rich.” If the true incidence of the corporate tax were more widely known, this tax might be less popular among voters.  The bottom line, we, we the people, all pay the corporate tax rate. 

Senator Obama proposes the largest spending increases in the history of this nation.  He proposes to increase the corporate tax rates which have already driven business overseas.  His tax reform is a promise to “spreading the wealth” and is pure socialism.  Many may be attracted to Senator Obama’s plan by the thought of a check in the mail from “rich” Americans.  My family would qualify for the Obama tax cut.  We don’t want it.  We simply don’t see this as a long term solution to improving the health of the American economy.  I see the Obama plan as a threat to the long term economic well being of my family.  John McCain proposes numerous actions which will make the economic pie bigger.  He wants our nation to continue to grow, not stagnate.  Five Nobel Prize Economists recently said it best Young Mom: (

Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

Right to Life

Young Mom, Rob’s comments on this topic need the greatest rectification.  To put it plainly, Senator Obama is the most pro-abortion Presidential candidate this nation has ever known.  He may talk about reducing abortions but the facts suggest otherwise.  He has supported partial birth abortion, voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) and supports the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).  BAIPA sought to provide infants that survived an abortion attempt with the same rights as any other newborn.  Senator Obama claimed that he did not support such legislation in the Illinois legislature because it did not contain language that would protect infringement on the right of a mother to choose abortion.  When some pointed out that he has unwilling to support such legislation twice, with one bill being identical to the federal bill which contained a neutrality clause, Obama called those people “liars.”  Most recently he has attempted to defend his position by saying that the legislation was unnecessary since infants born alive after a botched abortion were protected by existing law.  “Existing law did not so protect them” as the Attorney General of the state said in declining to bring prosecutions under it for the mistreatment of these infants.

Senator Obama objected to the bill because it provided protections for infants that abortionists deemed pre-viable.  He objected in principle to providing legal protection to such infants.  Jill Stanek, a perinatal nurse at a Chicago hospital, testified at the US Senate Hearings about her experiences as a nurse in Illinois and personally pleaded with Senators to support the bill in the Illinois legislature.  Rob is unfamiliar with what goes on in hospitals regarding birth of live infants deemed pre-viable or non-viable.  On a regular basis at hospitals and clinics infants are delivered alive after abortions and left to die in buckets/trays in cold utility rooms.  Sorry, but this is the unpleasant fact.  In some cases it is even more unpleasant than that as this case from Kansas this year illustrates:

Abortionist Shelley Sella is a "circuit rider", who splits her time between Tiller's Wichita clinic, a California Planned Parenthood clinic, and other, smaller abortion mills.

"Ms. Davis gave us a very specific eye-witness account about the incident," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "We were told that the baby was 35 weeks gestation at the time of the abortion. The baby came out and was moving. Sella looked up at Ms. Davis, then picked up a utensil and stabbed the baby in the left ribcage, twisting the utensil until the baby quit moving. At 35 weeks, there is no doubt about viability. This is murder in anybody's book."

Regarding the BAIPA, it passed 98-0 in the US senate.  Talk about bipartisan!  Even Barbara Boxer supported it!  Senator Obama was not in the US Senate at that time but voted “present”, a regular position for him in the Illinois legislature, on the Illinois bill which was identical to the Federal legislation.  Rob is incorrect, the Illinois bill was identical to the Federal bill  It had the same Rowe neutrality clause which protected the right to have an abortion.  Senator Obama could not support the measure Young Mom.  But in failing to do so he supported infanticide.  This is the same man who said he doesn’t want his daughter punished with a baby as a result of an unwanted pregnancy. This is the same man who said an opinion on when life begins was “above his paygrade.”  I suspect if Obama would speak honestly he might tell us he believes in a truly utilitarian view of life, that life doesn’t begin until an infant has reached some level of “consciousness.”  While monstrous, this might allow him to rationalize his position of unwillingness to support the BAIPA. 

Young Mom, Rob speaks about the difficult personnel issues involved in a woman choosing an abortion and he reports that he is against the government inserting itself into that situation during the “first trimester” of pregnancy.  Is Rob, like Senator Obama, in favor of partial birth abortion, which occurs much later in pregnancy?  Rob states that he believes life begins at conception, then what about the rights of the 47,000,000 unborn infants who have been killed since Roe?  Another difficult ethical issue from our past might help some to think about the current abortion situation.  Slavery was a difficult moral issue. Half the nation supported it.  It didn’t necessarily sentence anyone to death but it was a reprehensible practice that diminished and devalued the gift of human life.  Would Rob have argued to allow slavery to continue even though he was personally against it?  As regards Rob and Catholicism, I hope he will seriously consider the guidance of the Holy Father on abortion.  You may choose to believe other social justice issues are of greater import, and that Obama will deliver on some of these issues.  That, however, is not the view of the Catholic Church, no matter what Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden think.  The Church's teaching is based on the conviction that all life is sacred, and the fact that without an inviolable right to life, all other rights -- no matter how important -- are ultimately meaningless.  Again, just as claiming to be a converted conservative is an unreasonable tactic in attempting to persuade an undecided mom, attempting to use the force of one’s religious heritage to manipulate support for political positions is equally insincere.

Lastly, Senator Obama told a Planned Parenthood Meeting in July that “the first thing I will do is sign the Freedom of Choice Act”:

“Once passed, FOCA will protect a woman's right to choose by federal statute. This means that if our worst fear comes to pass and a newly constituted anti-choice Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, women in the United States will have the protection of federal law in the exercise of their right to choose. In addition, FOCA would immediately restore reproductive freedom for the millions of American women who already face interference with their right to choose as a result of onerous state and federal restrictions.

FOCA will supersede anti-choice laws that restrict the right to choose, including laws that prohibit the public funding of abortions for poor women or counseling and referrals for abortions. Additionally, FOCA will prohibit onerous restrictions on a woman's right to choose, such as mandated delays and targeted and medically unnecessary regulations. As a result, women will be freed from improper governmental interference with their right to choose a pre-viability abortion. Women who require a post-viability abortion in order to preserve their lives or health will also be protected by FOCA.”

The above quote is from Planned Parenthoods action sheets.  The bottom line is that Senator Obama can talk about limiting the need for abortions, but he is advocating legislation that allows for unrestricted abortion. 

Some of Senator Obama's supporters are now making one last, rather desperate-sounding attempt to defend his votes against protecting infants born alive after unsuccessful abortions. Their argument goes this way: Permitting children who survive attempted abortions to be abandoned is so heinous, so barbaric, that for someone to accuse Senator Obama, a decent man who is himself the father of two daughters, of supporting what amounts to legalized infanticide is too outrageous to merit an answer. There is a problem, though. In light of the documentary evidence that is now before the public, it is clear that the accusation against Senator Obama, however shocking, has the very considerable merit of being true.

Energy and Healthcare

Young mom, Rob did not review these issues in any detail.  They are, however, crucial.  The price of energy has enormous repercussions for each of us every day.  It is not just what we pay at the pump.  Fuel costs, like corporate tax rates, are part of businesses doing business and are passed down to us in increased cost for food, services and necessary items for daily living.  Energy is also a national security issue.  We send $800,000,000, 000 a year to oil producing nations, several of whom are sponsors of the Jihadist movement bent on our destruction.    

Senator McCain has outlines a realistic energy plan that supports all alternative fuel developments, but also realizes alternative energy is not an immediate answer to our problems.  McCain supports programs which will make it possible to build nuclear reactors ASAP.  Eighty percent (80%) of French electricity is supplied by nuclear reactors.  In the US, 20% of our energy is from nuclear.  This is because environmentalists have carried the day and despite the record of safety in nuclear power, they have convinced many of the American people and legislators that nuclear is not safe.  Similarly we have not built an oil refinery in this nation for twenty years and oil companies are unable to drill some of the lands they now have access to due to environmental regulation.  We have not built a nuclear reactor in this country since 1996.     

Senator McCain realizes that for the next 20 years at least, we will require oil to drive our economy.  Should we attempt to become oil independent?  Yes.  Both candidates agree on this.  Senator Obama says we can be “off oil” in ten years.  This means no gas powered transportation or home heating in ten years, but is this possible?  Denmark is perhaps the most advanced nation in pursuit of alternative energy.  Denmark has invested in wind technology for twenty years.  Despite enormous investment and the most vigorous wind industry on the planet, this small nation is only able to derive 20% of power from wind; and the wind power they have has been costly and it is very unreliable.  Denmark has not kicked the oil habit.  Based on population, consumes oil at half of the current level of US oil consumption. Denmark remains dependent on oil, the difference is they do not import it, they drill for it.

Denmark aggressively drills for oil in the North Sea.  They have drastically cut their oil imports by building an oil industry which exports more than it consumes.  What are those of us out here seeing gas and food prices go up supposed to do Young Mom while President Obama attempts to force a green dream on us which has not been attainable in twenty years for an extremely small, committed European state?  Senator Obama has said he believes gas prices should go up, not too fast, but that we should pay more for oil and gas.  He has said this pain is necessary in order for us to become less dependent on oil.  He believes we should be paying more for gas.  In pursuit of his goal of weaning us from oil, Senator Obama has supported everything possible to make sure there is no chance the price of gas will drop.  He has opposed any domestic oil drilling legislation that would result in more oil coming out of the ground and he wants to institute a windfall profit tax oil companies.  The result of that will be the same as other corporate tax increases.  Oil companies will pass the tax on to us and ultimately, as happened under Jimmy Carter when he instituted a similar tax in 1980, oil production will drop.  In the meantime Senator Obama will levy taxes to support green energy sources.  This is part of Senator Obama’s vision to develop an energy industry supported by the state. 

The problem is Young Mom, the nation in the world most committed to this process has over twenty years only managed to generate twenty percent of its energy from non-carbon sources.  If this much smaller nation of 5 million people, totally committed to this process still needs oil, who in their right mind believes we, a nation of 300,000,000 will eliminate a need for oil in ten years?  Yes, we can try, but we need a leader who recognizes the realities of energy and who will build the bridges required in a thoughtful energy independence plan.  This means recognizing that we have tremendous untapped oil reserves and that irrational environmental concerns have severely limited our ability to pursue a variety of energy sources.  We can safely drill.  We can build a self reliant oil industry (as Denmark has done).  We need nuclear power and fast tracking of plants, not hesitation and double talk from Senator Obama on what we will do with reactor fuel.  France does this for goodness sake Young Mom!  We need clean coal, but despite what Nancy Pelosi thinks, this is a carbon fuel.  And yes, we need alternative sources, but it is socialist and tyrannical to presume that the state should punish citizens and the economy with unnecessary oil and gas costs in its pursuit of a utopian vision of energy which even the best socialist European states have been unable to achieve.        

Exxon made 40 billion on sales of $404 billion dollars in 2007 Young Mom, roughly a 10% net profit on sales.  They are lots of costs which go into running an oil business, something those warring on big oil rarely talk about.  That said, 10% profit is not bad, though not as good as Microsoft.  Exxon didn't hit the lottery though, the government did.  For all the sales taxes, duties and income taxes collected, the government pulled in a $102 billion on Exxon's sales of $404 billion.  Young Mom, nearly 25% of all of Exxon's sales (not profit, sales!) goes to some governmental entity!   
Increases or sustained elevations in the price of gas will have devastating effect during the economic tailspin many believe will result from Obama economic policies.  As we pump gas we cannot afford during a possible Obama Presidency, and pay $5.00 a gallon, we all must remember that the government puts $1.00 in its pockets, the oil company keeps $0.50. 

As a physician the Obama health plan clearly starts us on the road to nationalized healthcare.  He should just be honest about this.  He believes we need government control over the healthcare system.  Many agree.  The driver in this discussion is the oft repeated statement that 47,000,000 are uninsured.  First, this does not mean these people have no healthcare.  In fact, everyone in this country can show up at the emergency room and get healthcare.  When this group is analyzed one finds that a third are eligible for Medicaid butr are not signed up, a third could possibly afford healthcare insurance but have made the decision not to purchase it and a third need real assistance in getting on an established  plan.

Senator McCain proposes giving individuals choice in choosing healthcare, and offers monetary assistance to do so.  He proposes a tax credit of $5000 for families purchasing healthcare on their own.  He also offers the option for individuals to reclaim the salary that employers currently take to purchase healthcare plans and gives it to the individuals.  That salary which you have never seen before would be taxed, but in combination with a $5000 tax credit, would put $500-1000 in the pocket of middle and lower working class Americans.  This plan would be a break even or slight cost to wealthier taxpayers.  McCain would also eliminate restrictions on purchase of healthcare insurance across state lines.  Many states have enacted healthcare mandates for insurance policies which have driven the cost of insurance through the roof for all.  Perhaps you don’t want an insurance plan that covers the cost of cosmetic plastic surgery or artificial reproductive technologies.  You have the choice in the McCain system to purchase a plan which meets your needs.  You keep the amount of money left over and there will be money left over for most Americans. 

Senator Obama proposes a National Health Insurance Exchange which will create a government mandated benefit for all.  He reports that you can keep your current plan and doctor, but follows on with reporting that those employers who do not offer the plan proposed by the Exchange will be fined.  He refuses to state what the fine, or “incentive” for employers to join the Insurance Exchange will be.  He most recently refused to discuss this issue in the last debate with John McCain.

Young Mom, as a healthcare provider I have great concern with Senator Obama’s healthcare plan.  It will force individuals and employers into a health care benefit managed by the government.  The results of such experiments in healthcare, socialized medicine adventures, are visible throughout Europe and in Canada.  Costs have continued to rise and cost containment, at the expense of quality, becomes the only course of action for governments committed to offering a one size fits all solution for individual health care. The government approach presumes they are the best ones to decide what health benefit everyone needs.  Senator Obama says that he simply wants all Americans to have the same benefit legislators have, the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP).  We need to discuss the FEHBP. 

Young Mom, the FEHBP is not a described benefit, though that is how Senator Obama presents it.  This year, 283 plans are available through the FEHBP at the national and local levels. The benefit packages change from year to year— sometimes dramatically—depending on prevailing market conditions, consumer demand, and insurers' willingness to compete and offer different packages through the FEHBP.  This wide range of personal choices and the intense competition among the various health plans are precisely what make the FEBHP both popular and successful. It is the closest thing that Americans—at least those Americans who work for the federal government—have to a functioning, consumer-driven national health insurance market.

The Obama plan has nothing to do with such choice and plan competition.  Despite Senator Obama's rhetoric of "choice and competition," his plan is a vehicle for new regulations and federal power that would leave ordinary Americans with even less control of their health care dollars than they exercise today.  As a parent and physician Young Mom, the Obama plan is bad medicine.

Instead of using the massive power of the federal government to impose a top-down change on the health care system, Senator Obama and other policymakers would be wise to transfer direct control of health care dollars to individuals and families. Senator McCain’s plan recognizes that this would enable Americans to exercise real personal choice of health plans and benefits while making health plans and providers compete directly for consumers' dollars by providing value to patients. 

The War against Jihadism, National Security and Homeland Defense

Rob leaves on the table several other important topics which you as a Young Mom should consider carefully in selecting the next Commander in Chief.  We are currently engaged in a war with Jihadists and radical Muslims around the world.  Despite what Senator Obama says, we did not ask for this conflict.  It began certainly in 1979 with the taking of the American Embassy in Iran, but has roots even earlier than that.  Despite this, the United States has been the greatest provider of financial aid to developing Muslim nations worldwide.  I would suggest this has not always been wise policy but US economic aid to Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey dwarfs that supplied by any other nations.  We have been the savior for millions of Muslims worldwide not only through economic aid but through military support.  We have sacrificed our most precious treasure to protect Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan from control by tyrannical regimes bent not only on our destruction but the torture and destruction of their own people. 

Senator Obama would have you look upon the military as a needy special interest group sacrificed in meaningless imperial adventures.  Talk to military members who have served in those arenas Young Mom.  Military members are proud of the service we have performed worldwide to ensure the safety of our nation.   In performing this duty we have also created safe space for people around the world to attempt the experiment which has been successful here. 

The war we are engaged in now concerned mom has multiple fronts.  It is in Iraq, Afghanistan and may be elsewhere in the future.  Senator McCain recognizes the vicious enemy before us and the global conflict we are engaged in.  Senator Obama does not.  He sees separate individual conflicts.  Obama talks about ending the war in Iraq.  Well Young Mom, you would never know it from the cricket sounds in newsrooms, but we are winning and very likely have won the battle there.  Camp Fallujah was closed this week.  You didn’t read it in the NY Times or hear about it on the nightly news.  There is nothing left for Marines and Army members to do in Anbar province. We have begun bringing troops home.  This is happening because John McCain supported General Petraeus’ strategy of counterinsurgency and demanded the surge.  McCain defied the Bush administration, criticized war planning and demanded a different approach.  It has worked spectacularly.  Senator Obama said the surge would not work and would make things worse.  He demanded withdrawal on a timetable which would have given AQ in Iraq a light at the end of the tunnel.  There are many who would argue about whether we should have gone.  There were many good reasons; enough reasons in fact that the Senate authorized this conflict (77-23).  Senator Obama reports he was against the war.  Fact is, he was not in the Senate at the time.  It is easy to be in the State Senate and say such things.  Do you believe Senator Obama would have voted differently than Clinton, Kerry or his running mate Biden?  The fact is, like it or not, we remain at war with Islamofascism and we are in Iraq. 

The approach advocated by John McCain took courage.  He defied his party in being critical of the war effort.  McCain knows we are engaged in a multi front war and that to lose the Iraq battle would have been a disaster for many.  The Obama approach would have been a victory for Islamofascism.  It has also been reported that on his recent world tour Senator Obama, while in Iraq, asked PM Maliki to delay US troop withdrawal. (  Per the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Senator Obama reportedly told Maliki that when a new administration came on board, they should be the ones to coordinate such a withdrawal.  If Senator Obama believes so firmly in withdrawal, shouldn’t he be celebrating the fact that it is safe to bring some troops home now?  The cynic would say no, he wants to take credit for that himself if he is elected.  The fact is that the only reason anyone will be coming home in an orderly fashion and the Iraqis have a chance at stability is that the Petraeus strategy has secured the country.  Such conversation by Senator Obama also displays a despicable disregard for the safety of our troops.  If it is safe to bring them home, do so.  Maintaining deployed forces, even if not actively engaged in battle, is a hardship on military members and families which is endured as long as it is required.  In addition, requesting that Maliki keep US forces in place until a possible Obama Presidency is realized puts military lives at risk.   

Young mom, the world views of the two Presidential candidates men are also polar opposites.  Senator Obama sees the United States as needing to assume its place in the larger world community as another member.  Senator McCain sees the US as a world leader who must work with other nations, maintain alliances, but retain our ability to function independently in our best interests.  Senator Obama believes, much as Neville Chamberlain did in the 1930s, that our enemies are reasonable people who can be talked with, or at least bought off.  While Senator Obama and the media would have us all believe the US has not spoken with rogue nations which concern us most, President Bush’s administration has held talks with Iran, North Korea and Venezuela.  We have encouraged European allies to take the lead on Iranian negotiations.  They asked for this responsibility.  The President of the United States should never walk into such dens of snakes without clear pre-conditions and expectations.  Senator Obama has stated clearly that he would meet “without preconditions” with top leaders in nations determined to destroy us and our allies.  McCain has made clear he will meet with anyone when the time and conditions are right.

Young Mom, the Senator Obama national security and worldview is naïve and  dangerous.  Leaders of the worst of nations and terrorist movements (Venezuela, Iran, Hamas, North Korea) have espoused their support for Senator Obama.  Do you think that is because he will insist that they conform to accepted standards of behavior for modern governments?  When Senator Obama says “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,” he reveals a staggering lack of understanding of the ideology of these nations’ leaders.  These rogue nations with emerging nuclear capability, have all demonstrated a commitment to supporting terrorism.  These regimes are unstable and irrational, unlike the USSR, and have the potential to lethally impact democratic nations which are crippled by political correctness and free and open borders.   

In his note to you Young Mom, Rob does not even mention national security or the war on Jihadism as an issue which he feels will impact his family’s future.  Simply amazing in this day and age.  This is the world view, however, of those wearing liberal Obama eyeshades.  Despite the continual escalation of a war against the West over the last thirty years, liberals refuse to recognize the enemy.  Some of our allies do, however.  This is from Geert Wilders, Chairman of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, speaking to America:   

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

“Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

As you weigh your vote Young Mom, you must give serious thought to considering who should assume the role of Commander in Chief.  This week Joe Biden made some disturbing comments about what faces us in an Obama Presidency:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."  
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." 
Joe Biden almost bluntly declares here that a President Obama will invite challenges from enemies abroad.  If Obama power diplomacy is going to be so effective, why will this happen?  Senator Obama tells us, “if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.”  I don’t know about you Young Mom, but Biden’s comments are shocking to me.  The VP on the Dem ticket, who in debates said about Obama and his ability to be President, "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training", warns us that a President Obama will react to the coming crisis in a way that demoralizes the country and which shatters public confidence in Obama.   
Young Mom, no one is suggesting this would happen under a President McCain.  There will be no rush by our enemies to challenge a President McCain.  Why, because he is committed to protecting our nation and our allies.  Why would thoughtful voters ever consider casting a ballot for a Senator Obama when his VP, someone familiar with foreign affairs, predicts a calamity within the first six months of an Obama Presidency?  Young Mom, I want to elect someone who will be equipped to prevent such an occurrence.  When even Joe Biden tells you that disaster awaits the first six months of an  Obama Presidency, we should listen.  There's no way to deny the reality of the defeatism and retreat represented by a vote for Obama and which our enemies see in a President Obama.

John McCain has led a thoroughly examined life which has been ruled by honor and what he has judged to be good sense.  He is not a man who wavers, not a man who will ever compromise the security of this nation to any enemy. Rob and most liberals believe the forces committed to the destruction of Western civilization are an exaggerated figment of Republicans’ imaginations.  You will have to form your own opinions about this Young Mom, but there is no doubt that the next President will have to make vital national security decisions that will have enormous repercussions for future generations.   

The Stealth Candidate

As you consider your next Commander in Chief Young Mom, you should be aware of an important fact.  Senator Obama, if he were a civilian applying for secret, or even top secret clearance, would be denied.  Senator Obama could not work as a civilian at Lockheed or at the White House.  I have been through the clearance drill and know others involved in this process at the White House.  Senator Obama would be denied not because he has a funny name and not because of his color. 

The mainstream media has done this nation an enormous disservice in vetting Senator Obama.  I would highly recommend reading Senator Obama’s books, Dreams From My Father and Audacity of Hope.  They are fascinating reading and offer some interesting insights into Senator Obama’s thought process and his struggle for identity.  Perhaps most importantly, this is the only detailed accounting we have of the Senator’s activities over a twenty year period (1979-1999).  Senator McCain’s life is an open book.  During his twenties McCain was being tortured in a POW camp, Senator Obama by his own account (Dreams) was attending school, socializing with radicals at Occidental and then Columbia, and doing drugs.  Senator Obama has NEVER talked about why he went from Occidental to Columbia, what his relationship was with Pakistani students at Occidental, how same students influenced him to move to New York, why he took several extended trips to Pakistan while in school, what the details were of his decision to go to Chicago, did he meet Bill Ayers while at Columbia, how did a very average student got into Harvard Law first time around, and exactly how was all this paid for? 

Senator Obama has a laundry list of documents he has either refused to produce or actively obstructed distribution of.  These include all transcripts from all colleges and law school, theses from all colleges and law school, birth certificate (not certificate of live birth...there are many stories from his Kenyan family that he was born in Kenya while his mom was there, not Hawaii), passports, college loan documents, selective service registration, Illinois state senate schedule and agendas, client list from his time at law firms in Chicago, and medical records. 

So, no secret clearance would be granted without releasing all these records.  No secret clearance would be approved with a history illegal drug use.   No clearance with an established record of consorting with known criminals and terrorists.  Three strikes, and you don’t get three strikes when applying for secret clearance.  This might not mean much to those who have not been involved in the military or national security work.  To those who have spent time in these areas, the thought of a President who never served in the military (understood many future President’s will not), who will not produce his selective service registration (making one wonder if Senator Obama is registered) and who could not meet the requirements for clearance, is incomprehensible. 

Rob, attempts to dismiss Senator Obama’s friendship with William Ayers as attempting to paint Senator Obama unfairly with the radical brush.  If one is to believe Rob, then Senator Obama is an absolute incompetent and imbecile.  Rob is asking for the willful suspension of disbelief.  He suggests that it is unreasonable to believe that two men share core values when Senator Obama took his first executive job from Ayers, served the Ayers project for six years, served with Ayers on other boards and decided to launch his first political campaign from the Ayers living room. 

Rob is correct that Bill Ayers is only one part of the patchwork of mentors, friends and associates that form the Obama cloak of radicalism.  Jeremiah Wright, as the former pastor of Trinity United Church, a church Obama attended for twenty years, preached the gospel according to black liberation theology (BLT) from his pulpit.  BLT, according to James Cone (a mentor for Wright), one of its founders, has written, “Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”  Rob is not telling the truth Young Mom when he says this was never preached from the pulpit.  Pretty much all of the vile bile spewed by Jeremiah Wright was done from the pulpit, much like other Obama minister friends (Pfleger, Meeks).  Rob must not think you have access to You Tube, but check out this one of many videos of infamous Wright performances(

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” (2003)

Most of the available tape of Jeremiah Wright is from the pulpit.  What is truly astounding is that Trinity has maintained its tax status as a non-profit organization.  That should have been stripped away years ago.  Rob says that Wright never preached hate from the pulpit.  He says that it is inconceivable that Trinity could be a racist anti-American institution.  In fact, looking at the tapes of Wright and the reaction of the crowd, it is not at all hard to imagine that what Rob denies is fact.  Rob describes Wright as the person who brought Obama to Christ.  In Dreams, Obama clearly discusses his belief that the black churches would play a critical in developing a political power base.  From Obama (                                                                    

Nowhere is the promise of organizing more apparent than in the traditional black churches. Possessing tremendous financial resources, membership and — most importantly — values and biblical traditions that call for empowerment and liberation, the black church is clearly a slumbering giant in the political and economic landscape of cities like Chicago. A fierce independence among black pastors and a preference for more traditional approaches to social involvement (supporting candidates for office, providing shelters for the homeless) have prevented the black church from bringing its full weight to bear on the political, social and economic arenas of the city.

Rob attempts to diminish any concerns you might reasonably have about Senator Obama and black liberation theology by stating that Obama has denounced Wright and that his close religious relationship with Wright might “understandably engender certain forgiveness that strangers would not indulge.”  Rob rationalizes such acceptance based on his recollection of the neighborhood priest he knew growing up who, outside of church, shared racist sentiments and smelled of whiskey.  Rob, however, did not come to this priest at twenty seven, listen to his sermons for twenty years, as an adult ask this man to bring him to Christ, preside at his wedding and baptize his daughters.  Senator Obama has also made it clear that he sees the black church as vital in furthering his hopes of developing a political action base in black communities.  So based on Senator Obama’s writings it is not absolutely clear at all that he found Christ.  What he did clearly find was another means to further his quest to solidify a political power base.   

There is great detail that can be found regarding other troubling Obama connections, including Rashid Khalidi, political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi, Bernadine Dohrn, Rev. Meeks, Rev. Otis, Father Pfleger Louis Farrakhan, and Aiham Alsammarae.  I would be happy to supply or refer you to places for more detail about these relationships Young mom.  It appears to me that Senator Obama could make all these concerns about his past and personal relationships go away if he would answer questions and release documents.  The problem is that main stream media will not ask these questions, Obama will not spend time with anyone who will publicly put these questions to him and he is unwilling to release the pertinent documents.

Rob doesn’t mention any of the latter relationships but attempts to dismiss the Wright-Ayers connections as an unfortunate consequence of choosing work in public life.  According to Rob, such nasty characters will happen along on an ambitious individual’s career path.  Rob reports that John McCain has had associations with Roger Quinn and William Timmons.  Lets assume what Rob says is true about these men, which I don’t necessarily believe is the case.  There isn’t space to quibble over it.  These are hired hands, not mentors that have over decades guided McCain’s personal, religious and professional development.  Much like the priest Rob discussed, this is another effort to dismiss disturbing insights into the Obama character using laughable attempts at moral equivalence.                   

Running a Campaign

Lastly Young Mom, you should be aware of the strategies being employed by the Obama campaign to attempt to secure this election.  A principal weapon in the Democratic  election effort is ACORN, the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now. This group purports to be apolitical, committed to representing the interests of the underprivileged in a variety of underserved areas, mainly urban.  A review of ACORN’s history demonstrates that they are anything but that.  A complete primer on this band of thieves masquerading as community do-gooders can be found at With some diligence, you can find multiple reports from a variety of MSM sources, implicating ACORN in fraudulent voting activities in the upcoming election. In Cleveland ( In Detroit ( In New Mexico (  In Las Vegas ( and in Milwaukee (, the “community organizers” are hard at work, and it ain’t at removing asbestos from rundown housing or tutoring in school basements.  They are paying people to register to vote, sometimes with money, in other cases with cigarettes.  They are encouraging individuals to register multiple times to vote.     

There are too numerous to report past reminders of ACORN activities out there, but this one from 2007 in Seattle is representative of numerous others:

The Seattle Times adds that the announcement of criminal charges came after the King County Canvassing Board revoked 1,762 allegedly fraudulent voter registrations submitted by ACORN employees.  According to prosecutors, six ACORN workers “had admitted filling out registration forms with names they found in phone books last October. The canvassers filled out the forms while sitting around a table at the downtown Seattle Public Library.”

Senator Obama, is intimately linked to ACORN (has taught at ACORN leadership seminars, represented ACORN interests in motor voter registration).  From Senator Obama meeting with ACORN leaders last November, “I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”  ACORN is a supposedly non-partisan voter registration organization that has had many of its activists indicted and convicted of voter fraud violations.  Senator Obama has been involved with ACORN throughout his career and in turn, ACORN’s political arm has endorsed him while its non-political arm is pledging to spend $35 million this year registering voters— quoting John Fund, “most will be real but many fictional.” The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has details regarding the Senator’s willingness to provide less than transparent support for ACORN activities:

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat’s campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.

An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. — a subsidiary of ACORN — worked in “get-out-the-vote” projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary.

Rob mentions in his note that Senator McCain has ties to ACORN, and attempts to dismiss the group as a non-sequitur in campaign discussions.  McCain did attend an immigration rally which ACORN co-sponsored.  That is the extent of McCain’s association with ACORN.  The group is perpetrating massive voter fraud across the country, is registering democrats mainly in cities, has had its offices raided by police in Las Vegas for suspicion of voter fraud, and has received $800,000 worth of support from the Obama campaign.     

The financing of the Obama campaign is equally troubling Young Mom.  Senator Obama has received historical records of donations under $200.  These donations now total greater than $220,000,000.  Donations less than $200 are not routinely monitored by the FEC and this might be a tribute to the amazing democratization of politics in the internet age.  The Newsmax and Spectator pieces below report on known multiple illegal Obama campaign donations:

For example, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most for $25.  For most of the donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”   Mr. Doodad apparently has a “You” partner at the “Loving” named “Good Will.” Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600. Regarding Mr. Good Will, analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.  In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.  Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.

Lets presume Mr. Doodad’s and Will’s donations originated in the US.  How about the possibility of illegal donations to Senator Obama from foreign nationals? This from the “The American Thinker” (

Despite dropping the groundbreaking bombshell  story of "Palestinian" brothers from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza who donated $33,000 to Obama's campaign, no big media picked up the story. Jihadis donating to Obama from Gaza? Could there be a bigger story?  Foreign donations are illegal, but this story was all that and so much more. The "Palestinian" brothers were proud and vocal of their "love" for Obama. Their vocal support on behalf of "Palestinians" spoke volumes to Obama's campaign.  
There has been no mainstream press or media interest on these subjects.  Honestly Young mom, would there be interest if John McCain got donations from Palestinian refugee camps?

Obama returned the Palestinian dollars, but never reported it to the FEC; and as above, Camp Obama has been much slower to return other illegal donations. For the doubters, observations can be corroborated by going to the FEC website.  All the campaign contribution data is there.  You can troll through it just as the above sources have done.  Other foreign contributors of small donations to the Obama campaign, with uncertain national status, come from France, Virgin Islands, Planegg, Vienna, Hague, Madrid, London, AE, IR, Geneva,Tokyo, Bangkok, Turin, Paris, Munich, Madrid, Roma, Zurich, Netherlands, Moscow, Ireland, Milan, Singapore, Bejing, Switzerland, Toronto, Vancouver, La Creche, Pak Chong, Dublin, Panama, Krabi, Berlin, Geneva, Buenos Aires, Prague, Nagoya, Budapest, Barcelona, Sweden, Taipei, Hong Kong, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney, Zurich, Ragusa, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Uganda, Mumbia, Nagoya, Tunis, Zacatecas, St, Croix, Mississauga, Laval, Nadi, Behchoko, Ragusa, DUBIA, Lima, Copenhagen, Quaama, Jeddah, Kabul, Cairo, Nassau and Luxembourg.

How about those small donations democratizing the election? Unmonitored and in the internet age, well, maybe not the democratization we might have hoped for.  This might all be a moot point.  While not specifically commented on at this time by the Senator, would an Obama administration consider election reform that would include legalizing foreign contributions?  This would conform to his worldview.  If just these reported observations, very possibly the tip of the Obama iceberg, were attributed to John McCain, would it make it above the fold of the NYT…for days?  Would McCain still be in the race Young Mom?  

So where is the national outrage over the conduct of the Obama campaign?  Is the actual activity itself OK, as well as the willingness of main stream media to look the other way and functionally serve as a cog in the Obama machine?  There are clear disagreements that many of us have on critical political issues, but most conservatives couldn’t support a Republican campaign built on such tactics.  Is it reasonable to assume that for most, at least in this country, political views are derived from core values that include courage, integrity, honesty and commitment?  If so, why are some of us willing to tolerate, and others actively support, a campaign and adulating media that promote goon tactics as standard operating procedure in pursuit of the Presidency?  If a fellow citizen fully accepts the Obama political solutions as best, fair enough, we can debate those points.  May the best plan win.  Where, however, is the anger from both sides of the aisle over the deceptive, deceitful, and thuggish conduct of the Obama campaign, with the traditional media as unindicted co-conspirators?  I expect this observation will elicit protests from Liberal friends but the Republican playbook is simply different.   John McCain is simply an honorable man who refuses to debase our political system this way.  If he had Young mom, you would have heard about it.  


In the end Young Mom, this is a choice between support for individual liberty or increasing concentration of power in the state.  John McCain supports a government that recognizes its limitations in securing life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for its people.  Senator Obama believes that the government should be the source of that happiness.  The liberal fascism of Senator Obama is smiley face fascism.  Senator Obama sees the state as the principal force in the lives of American citizens.  He would have the state control your healthcare, education, energy production, and finances.  Senator McCain proposes a state that protects the right of an individual to life (certainly after they are born), ensures the security of the United States, and provides individuals the ability to make choices in their healthcare, finances, and education.  Senator Obama has built his campaign on class warfare, promising wealth redistribution through tax increases (on the “rich) and tax credits (for the 40% of Americans not paying taxes) which cannot be supported based on his proposed spending.  The last person to take an economy the likes which we are currently experiencing and employ the economic practices Senator Obama advocates was Herbert Hoover.  Hoover’s policies quickly thrust America into the Great Depression. 

John McCain has served his nation nobly during war and peace.  His military service is well documented.  His legislative history is one of determination to form alliances and move legislation in a bipartisan manner.  Honestly, this has been much to my chagrin.  I have completely disagreed with him on some of these efforts…McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Lieberman.  His leadership on Iraq, however, has been impressive, and his commitment to reform spending in DC is critical at this time.  Barack Obama has no serious accomplishments to speak of.  He appears to have been at best a mediocre community organizer.  He rose through the ranks of Chicago politics through the mentorship of a number of unsavory sponsors, including Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, Dohrn, Rezko, and Meeks.  He was undistinguished as an Illinois legislator and remains so as a US Senator.  Despite lofty claims, he has never demonstrated a willingness to reach across the aisle on anything of significance.  Senator Obama votes with his party 97% of the time.  In addition he has the distinction of being the most liberal Senator in the Senate.  This is quite an accomplishment.  Senator Obama is even left of Bernie Sanders, the only avowed socialist in the Senate.  No doubt Senator Obama is capable of delivering soaring oratory and is a good debater, but what qualifies him for the Presidency Young Mom?     

While there are enough differences in core philosophy for most Americans to arrive at a preference amongst these two candidates, there is another critical factor at play here.  Character matters in choosing a President.   Neither McCain nor Obama is a perfect man.  However, there is a staggering lack of transparency on the part of the Obama candidacy.  Senator Obama has weaved a tangled web of radical associations over the course of his life.  How can it be that there is a twenty year gap in significant knowledge about the activities of Senator Obama from his time at Occidental to his time in the Illinois legislature?  This man wants to be President.  We have a right to know this history.

Rob reports words and deeds do matter.  Rob says, however, he has seen nor heard nothing from Senator Obama that “insinuates that his views on patriotism were informed by Ayers, or his views on race were informed by Jeremiah Wright, or his views on politics by ACORN.”  Senator Obama has attempted to make his own race an issue numerous times in this campaign (not John McCain), he has stated that "there's no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country, we've got some very sad and difficult things to account for," and he has described his grandmother as a “typical white person” regarding a comment she made which he felt was racist.  This is in addition to spending twenty years in a BLT church, giving ACORN $800,000 and describing our military efforts in Afghanistan as “air raiding villages and killing innocent civilians.”  That’s for starters.  I’m not exactly sure what would need to be said to Rob to provide evidence that Senator Obama has some serious explaining to do regarding radical tendencies and character concerns.  So what we do know is disturbing enough, and if there is nothing to hide, why will Senator Obama not fully detail and release records related to two decades of his life?  More importantly, why has the media not done its duty and properly vetted Senator Obama?  Added to character concerns is the thuggish conduct of the Obama campaign, including support of ACORN and questionable campaign financing practices. 

Rob reports that Senator Obama is “visionary”, “even tempered”, “charismatic” and has a “transformative will on domestic and global issues.”  Where are the Obama accomplishments that support any of these assertions?  Rob offers no support for his descriptors.  It is somewhat disconcerting, though, that the qualities noted by Rob have been shared by the great liberal fascist leaders of the past…Woodrow Wilson, Mussolini, Hitler, FDR, Stalin, Mao.  All proposed state centered solutions which sacrificed individual liberty on the state altar, some literally, some figuratively.  

There is much to consider in this election, and the bias of mainstream media makes it essential that voters use all information sources available to them.  Cruising the candidate’s websites, as Rob recommends, is informative.  The thoughtful voter needs to do much more, however.  Liberal views are endlessly streamed in the mainstream media on newsstands, in airports, and on major networks.  If you want balance Young Mom,  add Fox News to your regular cable lineup.  Despite what liberal bloggers at Daily Kos and Huffington Post may say, Fox is balanced; it might appear relatively conservative to some when measured against the liberal skew from other media outlets.  Consider visiting some of the sites referenced in this letter.  My hope is that you have the opportunity to give your vote the consideration it deserves.  Time is short, however, and in this election voters will make a momentous judgment in the course they wish America to take.      

This election, Young Mom, is a contest between well defined ideologies, conservatism and socialism.  Both candidates have made their positions clear.  We all have a choice to make.  We may elect to reject the tradition that has made this nation great, a tradition committed to the pursuit of individual liberty, free society, free markets and a constitutional republic which recognizes limits of the power of government.  Some may choose a vision which views the state as the arbiter of all rights and societal well being.  History is replete Young Mom with examples of what leaders of states do when afforded this opportunity.  When all power is handed to the state, although technically composed of individuals, the state takes on a life of its own.  The state reflexively seeks greater extremes of control. Young Mom, the socialist tendencies of Barrack Obama will find no modulation in potentially the most liberal Congress this nation has ever known.  Ultimately, socialism seeks the destruction of democracy.  It may come in the form of a smiley face, offering great oratory, but it seeks an absolute monarchy of power. 

Senator Obama has framed his campaign as one that fights for legitimate aims, while the defenders of democracy and the republic are painted as repressive reactionaries.  He has attempted to picture his campaign as one with the forces of progress, legitimacy and even peace, while trying to discredit and paralyze the citizens who are only trying to preserve our tradition and heritage.  In Senator Obama we are offered a candidate with no executive accomplishments, no demonstrated leadership ability, a history of radical and anti-American relationships, a career built on old time, corrupt Chicago politics, a socialist vision for the United States and a worldview which minimizes or ignores the significant strategic challenges facing us today.        

Young Mom, as a conservative, I can tell you that John McCain was not my first choice for a Republican candidate.  He is a good and honest man though.  He has sacrificed much for his country.  He understands the foundation this nation was built on and he advocates principled solutions that are in keeping with that foundation.  John McCain is determined to make sure that our children continue to enjoy the same liberties and freedoms that we have been blessed with in this greatest of nations.  In the challenging times before us America needs a leader who understands the difficult choices a democracy must make to sustain its existence.  Only a tiny minority of the human race has ever experienced democracy.  This grand experiment in our nation has only existed for a little over two hundred years, and is hardly a historical footnote.  My prayer is that conscientious voters will consider the internal and external threats to this great American experiment.  From Thomas Paine, “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.” As American citizens, we are the beneficiaries of a harvest reaped from the sacrifices of generations gone before us.  Should their dream be wagered on the bankrupt political philosophy of a mediocre community organizer; or should we entrust that dream to an American patriot whose life is built on service to his nation and a realization that the “cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind?” I pray we choose wisely.