In an interview  with a San Antonio radio station Monday, Obama accused the Clinton campaign of playing dirty tricks saying, “The notion that they would try to use this to imply in some way that I’m foreign, I think is, you know, unfortunate.”

The controversy surrounds a story first reported by Matt Drudge regarding a single photograph of Obama wearing a turban, and dressed in traditional Somali clothing during a 2006 visit to northern Kenya.  Northern Kenya is predominately Muslim, and both Obama’s father and stepfather were in fact Muslim.  During his visit, Obama took time to visit his grandmother and other members of his extended family, who unlike Obama, have retained their Muslim faith.

While Obama’s supporters have dismissed any discussion over his faith as inappropriate, questions have been raised about Obama’s connections to Islam given his personal history, cultural and familial ties, and his attendance of a church with leaders who have purportedly singled out radical, racist, Muslim leader, Louis Farrakhan for praise, and Farrakhan’s own endorsment of Obama this week. 

However in a surprising turn of events, Middle East news organization Al Jazeera may have unwittingly provided an alibi for the Clinton campaign, at least with regard to the photo’s origins.  On Tuesday, Al Jazeera’s English language site covered the photo controversy, but displayed a new and different version of the same enounter (right).  The existence of this photo proves that there are multiple photos of Obama in traditional Islamic clothing, and that multiple sources for these photos likely exist.  Whatever one’s view of Clinton’s campaign tactics, it is unlikely that the Clinton campaign is cooperating with the unpopular Al Jazeera news agency on a negative story about Clinton’s own attempt to smear Obama over connections to Islam.

Moreover, with multiple photos emanating from apparently multiple sources it is impossible to ascertain where the photos originated from, and how they arrived in the hands of various news outlets. Since the controversy broke, other photos of Obama in traditional African or Islamic garb have surfaced, prompting many to question Obama’s enthusiasm for foreign dress despite his outright refusal to wear an American flag pin while campaigning for President of the United States, and his wife’s admission that Obama’s campaign has made her proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.

Despite what his supporters would prefer, and rightly or wrongly, Obama’s religion, and his ties to Islam will likely be highly scrutinized at a time when America is engaged in a global war against Islamic elements, and especially considering the fervor with which the American left has denigrated and openly criticized the evangelical Christian faith of President George W. Bush and his supporters.

Today the House failed to generate enough votes to overturn President Bush’s veto of the SCHIP State Childrens Health Insurance Program)Amendments. Never was a Veto so proper.  The bill was unambiguously designed to be vetoed so that Democrats could call Bush a “baby-hater“. The Democrats never thought this bill would pass.
Despite the Democrats exploitation of a 12 year old boy  President Bush, once again, has shown that he is a capable leader and able to enforce his policies. This will not stop the Democrats attacks, however, as less than half a percent of the American population wrote Congress to oppose the veto:

The good news is that the American people aren’t buying it. We asked you last week to send letters to Congress in support of children’s health care. So far, you’ve sent almost 198,000 letters –many, many more than we ever thought possible.

The SCHIP amendments were horrible. They called for an unnecessary increase in funding and drew funding for the increase from cigarette taxes. Democrats argued that the cigarette tax serves a double benefit in funding the bill and discouraging smoking – basically admitting that their funding center was a depreciating asset – the less people buy cigaretters – the less tax revenue is generated for SCHIP. Also the proposed Amendments unnecessarily expanded the program for families that *can* afford healthcare. The original purpose of SCHIP was to provide a program for children whose parents *could not* afford healthcare.

Moreover, the present program is being thoroughly abused by unintended and likely fraudulent recipients. As noted by House Minority Leader John Boehner, appearing on Fox News Sunday, 

“As an example, in Minnesota, 87 percent of the people enrolled in the children’s health insurance program are adults. Sixty-six percent in Wisconsin…”

That we should expland a children’s health insurance program when almost 90% of recipients in some states are in fact adults is beyond ludicrous. 

The SCHIP Amendments were weak, politically motivated, and deserved to be defeated. The resulting question is how will this affect Democrats? Will the Democratic base, fooled into thinking that Harry Reid really did want the bill passed, be so upset that the House could not overturn Bush’s veto? And if so will that lower the Democrats approval rating an provide an opening for the GOP … only time will tell …
(more…)

Or so the Democrats would have you believe. Today, George W. Bush found the political courage to exercise his veto power and stop the backdoor attempt by the Democrat Party to incrementally establish a federal health care system and expand the size and scope of the federal government.

While the motives of the Democrats may be to attempt to provide assistance to working families with children, the road to hell, as the saying goes, is paved with good intentions.  Adding $35 billion to the program, and opening the door for massive fraud - as higher income individuals, who may already have private coverage, take advantage of the free federal/state subsidy – is poor policy, and does nothing to assist the poorest Americans who were the beneficiaries of the original legislation.

What the Democrats choose not recognize is that federal health insurance programs for children, or anyone else, is not the province of the federal government. While they ballyhoo about spending for the War in Iraq, rather than on children’s health, what they fail to recognize is that making war (and paying for it) is the central and constitutionally prescribed duty of the federal government. Comparing the two expenditures is akin to berating your mailman for not cutting your lawn.

If the Democrat Party wants government-run health care, they ought to put forth the idea solely where it belongs – the nation’s 50 state houses.  The notion the federal government is not bound to performing only the duties authorized by the Constitution is not only expensive, but it undermines the entire foundations of the Republic and replaces a nation of laws with a nation of lawmakers.

(Updated) 

The only good news for George W. Bush is that despite a historically low approval rating, the Congressional approval rating is even lower. In a Zogby poll released Wednesday, Bush received just a 24% approval rating on his handling of the Iraq war, while Congress’ handling of the war met with the approval of just 3% of those polled. Clearly those polled believe Congress can and should do more. The reasons for their lack of support are clear – a lack of leadership that can muster a unifyng vote supported by the party’s core.

Over the weekend the House approved a wiretapping bill which imposes some limitations on President Bush’s program, but does not limit or weaken the ablity of the government to listen in on international communicatons. The passage of this bill should send shivers down the spines of the liberal Democratic base. Like their Republican colleagues across the aisle, the Democratic Party is on the hot seat for not living up to the expectations of it’s core constituency.  Faced with a choice between failing to act to combat terrorism and placating their base, the Democratic leadership has decided to begrudgingly support some of Bush’s policies.

In 2006 Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats re-gained the Senate on a platform of, among other things: 1) ending the war in Iraq; 2) enacting an energy policy; and, 3) bringing an effective end to the, misguided imperial Presidency of George W. Bush.  Pelosi and her House Democrats, however, have accomplished virtually nothing.

(more…)

The latest national polls are telling. Nearly a quarter of Republican voters, when asked who they favor in the primaries choose, “None of the Above.” Can anyone blame them? In what has generally been an exception to the rule, America finds itself in the midst of a difficult and trying time in its history without the kind of capable leadership that has so often found its way to the top.

The American Revolution was spurred by some of the most gifted minds in world political history – Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, Washington and others. The critical early years of the Republic were guided by their steady hands, and America was placed on an unlikely and unparalleled path to prosperity. 

During the tumultuous frontier years, capable men like Andrew Jackson came to the fore, and the providential choice of Abraham Lincoln saved the union from destruction. Men like Theodore Roosevelt shaped America into a world power and reminded citizens that the government is one of and for the people. Franklin Roosevelt helped pull a nation out of the Great Depression and successfully fought a global conflagration on two fronts. Men like Eisenhower kept us strong, men like Kennedy reminded us of our mission, and men like Reagan helped restore our pride and renew our spirit. None were without controversy, but all were capable, gifted, leaders.

Now faced with one of the great challenges our time, the cultural clash with radical Islam, and a worldwide power shuffle consisting of rogue regimes, ineffectual allies, and global economies, our political process has produced a paltry field of candidates to assume the office of President of the United States. At a juncture of great historical importance, we are asked to choose the best fruit from a barren vine.

(more…)