A Compelling Editorial

In my opinion, the damage we are doing to future generations as a result of the government’s inability to control spending is immoral. Our children and grandchildren are going to inherit a massive amount of debt that eventually will have to be repaid. The interest alone on the government debt is already staggering and will continue to grow. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial earlier this week that should be required reading for anyone concerned about the problems we are creating for future generations. Because of the importance of this issue, I am providing the editorial to you in its entirety. Here it is:

“The White House disclosed the other day that the fiscal 2009 budget deficit clocked in at $1.4 trillion, amid the usual promises to do something about it. Yet even as budget director Peter Orszag was speaking, House Democrats were moving on a dozen spending bills for fiscal 2010 that total 12.1% in more domestic discretionary increases.

“Yes, 12.1%.

“Remember, inflation is running close to zero, or 0.8%. The good news, if we can call it that, is that Senate Democrats only want to increase nondefense appropriations by 8% for 2010. Because these funding increases become part of the permanent baseline for future appropriations, the 2010 House budget bills would permanently raise annual outlays for discretionary programs by about $75 billion a year from now until, well, forever.

“These spending hikes do not include the so-called mandatory spending programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which exploded by 9.8% and 24.7%, respectively, in the just-ended 2009 fiscal year. All of this largesse is also on top of the stimulus funding that agencies received in 2009. The budget for the Environmental Protection Agency rose 126%, the Department of Education budget 209% and energy programs 146%.

“House Republicans on the Budget Committee added up the 2009 appropriations, the stimulus funding and 2010 budgets and found that federal agencies will, on average, receive a 57% increase in appropriated funds from 2008-2010. By contrast, real family incomes fell by 3.6% last year. There's no recession in Washington.

“More broadly, the White House and the 111th Congress have already enacted or proposed $3.4 trillion of new spending through 2019 for things like the health-care plan, cap and tax, and the children's health bill passed earlier this year. Very little of this has been financed with offsetting spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.

“Throughout the era of Republican rule in Washington, we scored GOP lawmakers for their overspending and earmarks—and so did Nancy Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats. So how do their records compare? From 2001-2008 the average annual increase in appropriations bills came in at 6.4%—or about double the rate of inflation. In this Congress spending is now growing six times faster than inflation.

“And here is the kicker. Mr. Obama's 10-year budget forecast predicts that the budget deficit will fall in future years in part because federal spending on discretionary programs will grow at less than the rate of inflation. But spending is already up nearly 8% (including defense) in the first year alone.

“For a laugh-out-loud moment on all of this, we recommend yesterday's performance by New York Senator Chuck Schumer on NBC's "Meet the Press." Mr. Schumer declared that "Barack Obama and we Democrats—this is counterintuitive but true—are really trying to get a handle on balancing the budget and we're making real efforts to do it." Counterintiutive? He said this four days after Senate Democrats lost a vote to add $250 billion to the deficit for doctor payments without any compensating spending cuts.

“Democrats must figure that they can get away with this sort of rap because no one will call them on the reality of what they're spending. And they're probably right about a press corps that has ignored the spending boom since Democrats took over Congress in 2006. Meanwhile, the spending machine rolls on, all but guaranteeing monumental future tax increases.”

A Giant Leap of Faith

Do you have faith:

(1) that Congress will enact legislation that will meet the seemingly conflicting goals of decreasing the cost and improving the quality of health care?

(2) that members of Congress will take the time to read and understand and to consider the unintended consequences of all 1,500 or so pages of the final health care bill before voting on it?

(3) in the decisions made by members of Congress that will affect your health care if they are unwilling to subject themselves to the same rules and regulations they will be imposing on you and on the employers and insurance companies who provide you with your health insurance?

(4) that the health care legislation passed by Congress will be fair to all American taxpayers if it continues to provide tax exemptions for those who receive their health insurance through their employers but not for those who purchase their health insurance on their own?

(5) that Congress will enact health care reform legislation without special benefits or exemptions for various groups who have donated generously to Congressional campaigns?

(6) in the government’s estimates of the cost of the health care legislation currently being considered by Congress?

(7) that the health care legislation currently being debated in Congress will reduce rather than increase the already staggering federal budget deficit?

(8) that the government can reduce Medicare spending by $400 billion to $500 billion without reducing the benefits available to Medicare beneficiaries?

(9) that the government will in fact reduce Medicare spending by $400 billion to $500 billion in order to cover a portion of the cost of health care reform legislation?

(10) that Congress can pay for health care reform in part by imposing new taxes on certain types of health care plans without affecting the behavior of the businesses and insurance companies offering those plans in such a way that the newly imposed taxes will never be collected?

(11) that you will be able to keep your current health care plan if you like it after Congress passes health care reform legislation?

(12) that the financially-strapped states will be able to add millions of people to their Medicaid roles, as mandated by Congress, without raising state taxes in order to cover the cost of those additions?

(13) that most doctors will continue to provide services to Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries if Congress further reduces the amount the government is willing to pay for such services?

(14) that bright young students, after the passage of health care reform legislation, will continue to be willing to incur substantial indebtedness and to invest an additional four to ten grueling years after graduating from college in order to become doctors?

(15) that the premiums you pay for your health insurance will not be increased as a result of new government mandates, including the requirement that all employers and insurance companies provide insurance to those with pre-existing illnesses?

(16) that the new taxes to be imposed on manufacturers of medical devices will not be passed on to the users of those devices resulting in the increased cost of health care?

(17) that investors will continue to invest in companies seeking to develop new and improved medical technologies if the government will control how much those companies can charge for their products if they are successful in developing them?

(18) that Congress has the right under the United States Constitution to impose a requirement that all American citizens purchase health insurance or pay a fine for not doing so?

(19) that the cost of health care can be controlled when most consumers of health care are not paying directly for their care and do not have an incentive to reduce their use of health care services or to shop for the most cost-effective services?

(20) that the health insurance legislation passed by Congress will not ultimately lead to a complete government takeover of the health care industry and will not ultimately lead to health care rationing?

Are you prepared to take a giant leap of faith? If you answered “yes” to at least half of the foregoing 20 questions, then I submit you are ready for a truly gigantic leap of faith.

Taking Credit and Accepting Blame

During my career, it often seemed to me I would receive credit when I didn’t deserve it, I would receive blame when I didn’t deserve it, and no one would notice when I accomplished something I thought was especially praiseworthy.

There were many times when I received credit for the successful completion of a deal even though others deserved more credit than me. In those instances, I always tried to give the credit to the people who actually deserved it. Although I did not like receiving undeserved credit, it motivated me to show I deserved the praise I was receiving. It made me work harder because I wanted to earn the confidence and meet the expectations of those to whom I was accountable.

There were other times in my career when I felt I was being blamed for something that was totally beyond my control. In those instances, it would normally make matters worse if I tried to defend myself or to blame someone else. I found it was best to take my lumps and move on.

I was always my own worst critic, but occasionally I would be extremely proud of something I had accomplished. In most of those cases, no one else seemed to notice or care about what I had accomplished. But it never worked out very well for me when I tried to boast about my own accomplishments. Most people don’t respond well to someone who is bragging about himself or is engaged in an act of self-praise. The reaction is likely to be, “What’s the big deal? That’s why you are being paid. You only did what you were paid to do.”

We all make mistakes. In my experience, it always worked best for me when I acknowledged my mistakes and accepted responsibility for them. Most people are very forgiving, especially when you point out and admit your own mistake. When you make a mistake, the worst thing you can do is conceal it and hope no one will ever find out. The cover-up is always worse than the original sin.

My experiences, of course, clearly demonstrate I am not and never have been qualified to be a politician. The typical politician will claim credit for anything that goes well, even if he or she opposed or had nothing to do with whatever worked, and will blame someone else for anything that goes wrong, even if he or she sponsored or supported the program or policy that failed. Politicians seem to be unable to accept responsibility for their actions. As the columnist Charley Reese wrote many years ago, “Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.” Most politicians will never admit they made a mistake, and they will try to conceal their mistakes so you will never find out about them. Charley Reese wrote that politicians “spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.”

I have been thinking about my own experiences with credit and blame this week in connection with the surprising award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barak Obama. It is clear President Obama has not earned and did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. To his credit, President Obama even acknowledged he has not earned the prize. In a rare act of humility for a politician, President Obama said, “I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.” He also said he would accept the award as a “call to action” to confront the challenges of the 21^st century.

Many people on both the left and the right have criticized the Nobel Committee for awarding the prize to President Obama. These criticisms, I believe, are justified. I don’t agree, however, with those who seem to be blaming President Obama for receiving the award or who think he should refuse to accept the award. It does not make sense to blame President Obama for something over which he had no control. I think it would also send the wrong message to the rest of the world if President Obama refused to accept a peace prize. He should accept the award with humility, as he has done, and he should use the award as motivation to work even harder for world peace. Of course, every student of history and every realist know world peace will never be achieved. There always have been and there always will be conflicts in the world. But we will always need peacemakers who are trying to end the conflicts. All of us should want our leaders to be seeking world peace as a primary and never-ending goal.

I would like to see President Obama use the honor of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize as an opportunity to seek peace in Washington, D.C. as well as peace in the world. It seems to me that the political discourse in this country reaches a new low almost everyday. Politicians on both sides spend far too much time and energy calling each other names and blaming each other for our problems when they should be engaging in a serious and honest debate about how to solve our problems. President Obama did not create the nasty political environment, but he also has not made any obvious efforts to change it. At times, it seems to me President Obama’s rhetoric toward his political opponents at home has been harsher than his rhetoric toward the tyrants and dictators who are threatening our national security abroad. President Obama repeatedly blames the prior Administration and the Republicans for all of the country’s problems. Even though the Democrats control both Houses of Congress, President Obama continues to blame Republicans when he has difficulty getting his legislative priorities through Congress. As the leader of our country, President Obama is setting the tone in Washington, but it is not the tone he promised.

During the Presidential campaign, President Obama promised to establish a new tone in Washington and to govern in a bipartisan manner. This would be a great time for him to start doing so. I acknowledge it is difficult to establish a new tone and to work in a bipartisan manner when your opponents are taking shots at you at every opportunity. But the top person in any organization is responsible for setting the tone for the entire organization. I have witnessed numerous examples of how a new chief executive officer of a company can change the entire tone and atmosphere within the company in a very short period of time. In my opinion, President Obama could change the tone of the political debate in this country if he wanted to do so. If he takes the lead, I believe his political opponents will be forced to follow or they will pay a heavy price for failing to do so.

I would also like to see President Obama use the honor of receiving the Noble Peace Prize as an opportunity to remind the rest of the world that the United States of America has been the greatest force for good in the history of the world. During the first nine months of his Administration, President Obama has not been a strong advocate for the important role the United States plays in the world arena. Instead, he has repeatedly apologized for the United States and has blamed the United States for many of the world’s problems.

Our country is not perfect and never will be. But our country has done more to resist evil, promote peace, and help the helpless than any other country. In almost every instance where there is a conflict in the world, the United States takes a lead role in trying to resolve the conflict and achieve peace. Yes, we have made mistakes, but some of our biggest mistakes have been waiting too long and watching from a distance while innocent human beings were being slaughtered by evil tyrants and dictators.

In the Sunday edition of The New York Times, the columnist Thomas L. Friedman wrote the speech he hopes President Obama will deliver when he accepts the Nobel Peace Prize. Among other things, Mr. Friedman suggested President Obama say the following things in his acceptance speech:

“I cannot accept this award on my behalf at all. But I will accept it on behalf of the most important peacekeepers in the world for the last century—the men and women of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers who landed on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944 to liberate Europe from the grip of Nazi fascism. I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers and sailors who fought on the high seas and forlorn islands in the Pacific to free East Asia from Japanese tyranny in the Second World War. … I will accept this award on behalf of the tens of thousands of American soldiers who protected Europe from Communist dictatorship throughout the 50 years of the cold war. I will accept this award on behalf of the American soldiers who stand guard today at outposts in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan to give that country, and particularly its women and girls, a chance to live a decent life free from the Taliban’s religious totalitarianism. … I will accept this award on behalf of all the American men and women soldiers who have gone on repeated humanitarian rescue missions after earthquakes and floods from the mountains of Pakistan to the coasts of Indonesia. … Members of the Nobel committee, I accept this award on behalf of all these American men and women soldiers, past and present, because I know—and want you to know—that there is no peace without peacekeepers.”

The Nobel Peace Prize gives President Obama an opportunity to turn a new leaf both at home and abroad. I hope he takes advantage of the opportunity. I hope he becomes a statesman who does not accept credit when he doesn’t deserve it, who will accept the blame when he deserves it, and who will not blame every problem on someone else. In other words, I hope President Obama will quit acting like the politician that he is.

Cheerleaders for God

Fort Oglethorpe is a small town in the northern part of Georgia near the border between Georgia and Tennessee. Many residents of Fort Oglethorpe work in nearby Chattanooga, Tennessee. For more than 20 years, the cheerleaders at a public high school in Fort Oglethorpe have prepared huge paper banners containing Bible verses prior to each football game. The football players would crash through the banners as they ran onto the field prior to each game. The tradition of more than 20 years ended last week when the Superintendent of Schools in Fort Oglethorpe ordered that the religious banners could no longer be used at football games.

In 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars erected a cross in San Bernardino County, California to honor those who were killed in World War I. The cross was built on public land in the Mojave National Preserve. For more than 70 years, Easter sunrise services have been held at the foot of the cross. In 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit seeking the removal of the cross on the ground that it violated the clause in the Constitution that prevents Congress from passing laws establishing a religion. After a lower court ruled that the cross violated the Constitution, Congress transferred the property on which the cross stands to a private veterans’ group in exchange for other property. This did not satisfy the ACLU, which continues to argue the cross violates the Constitution. This case has now reached the United States Supreme Court where oral arguments are being held today.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …..” Like other provisions of the Constitution, the language is ambiguous. It can mean whatever you want it to mean.

It is fairly clear the founders of our country were not hostile to religion. In fact, most of them were very religious. There are many religious symbols on public property, including the building where the United States Supreme Court is located. The phrase “In God We Trust” appears on our currency. Crosses appear on gravesites at Arlington Memorial Cemetery and other public cemeteries.

The question is where do you draw the line. I don’t know the answer, but here is what I think. The Constitution is designed to provide freedom of religion—not freedom from religion. As Ted Cruz and Kelly Shackelford wrote in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, “The Constitution prohibits government from favoring one religion over another, but it does not compel hostility to faith.” Mr. Cruz and Ms. Shackelford represent the Veterans of Foreign Wars and have filed an amicus brief in the case being argued today before the United States Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, we are living in an increasingly secular society. Religion does not play as important a role in the lives of many people as it once did. It is clear that many liberals are much more hostile to Christianity than they are to other religions. They are much more willing to accommodate Muslins in the expression of their beliefs than they are Christians. A war against Christianity is clearly underway.

In the case of the Fort Oglethorpe cheerleaders, the Superintendent of Schools has taken tremendous heat for her decision to ban the religious banners, but I believe she made the correct decision. Despite their long tradition, the banners had a clearly Christian message, which is inappropriate for a public school. A public school should not be favoring one religion over another or promoting a religious message at a school-sponsored event.

Although I think the Superintendent of Schools in Fort Oglethorpe made the correct decision, I love the way the cheerleaders and their supporters responded to the decision. First, the cheerleaders complied with the Superintendent’s instructions, as they should have done. Next, hundreds of supporters for the cheerleaders showed up at last Friday night’s football game wearing t-shirts or carrying homemade signs containing scripture verses. High school officials said they sold more tickets to last Friday night’s game than ever before. These supporters for the cheerleaders were engaged in the “free exercise” of religion as clearly permitted by the Constitution. In another sign of support for the cheerleaders, a youth pastor organized a rally at a local Chick-Fil-A restaurant. The rally had to be moved when approximately 1,000 supporters showed up to cheer the cheerleaders, who have become local celebrities.

In the case of the cross in the Mojave National Preserve, I don’t know how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule. My guess is the Court will dodge the issue by holding the plaintiff in the case did not have standing to file the lawsuit because he had not been injured, or it may rule that Congress cured the problem by transferring the property on which the cross is located to a private group. If the Court orders the removal of the cross, however, it will be opening a Pandora’s box that will lead to increased litigation and will likely result in the removal of numerous historical religious symbols from public property. These symbols are an important part of the heritage of our country.

Conflicts such at the one in Fort Oglethorpe and the one involving the cross in the Mojave National Preserve bring out heated emotions on both sides. In my opinion, these conflicts are as much about tradition as they are about religion. Most people want to preserve traditions that have continued for many years. Other people get great pleasure out of finding ways to complain about how things have always been done. They love to agitate, even when they are not being adversely affected by whatever it is they are trying to change. Those on both sides demonstrate a lack of tolerance for those with an opposing view.

The conflicts involving the cheerleaders and the cross also reflect the public’s growing resentment against the government’s domineering presence in all aspects of our lives. Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception we are losing our rights and our freedoms to politicians and judges who want to change and control everything. My guess is that many of those who showed up to support the cheerleaders at the football game and the rally in Fort Oglethorpe were more interested in protesting against authority than they were in advancing their own religious beliefs. They were exercising their right to free speech in order to deliver the message that enough is enough. They were simply using a controversy over religion in the public schools as an opportunity to rebel against authority.

The language of the Constitution does not specifically require the separation of church and state. It simply prohibits Congress from passing laws establishing a religion or favoring one religion over another one. It also prohibits Congress from passing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. As the cases involving the cheerleaders and the cross demonstrate, it’s not easy to know how to comply with these somewhat conflicting principles. One thing is clear. The language of the First Amendment to the Constitution has not changed since it was ratified in 1791, but the way the language is interpreted has changed dramatically. As a result, many long-standing and cherished traditions have fallen by the wayside, and many more are likely to fall during the years ahead.

Indoctrination of Children

Now, children, let’s all sing together in honor of our great President:

Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand

To make this country strong again

Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today

Equal work means equal pay

Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand

To make sure everyone gets a chance

Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white

All are equal in his sight

Mmm, mmm, mm!

Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!

Mmm, mmm, mm

Barack Hussein Obama

I am sure you noticed the fourth stanza, which borrows lyrics from the well-known Christian song “Jesus Loves the Little Children,” except, of course, for replacing the name of Jesus with Obama’s name. Now isn’t that sweet.

Now let’s sing another song honoring our President:

Hello, Mr. President, we honor you today!

For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say “hooray!”

Hooray, Mr. President, we honor your great plans

To make this country’s economy number one again!

So continue, Mr. President, we know you’ll do the trick

So here’s a hearty hip-hooray ---

Hip, hip hooray!

Hip, hip hooray!

Hip, hip hooray!

The following lyrics are contained in still another children’s song about our President: “The ground has shifted. The world has changed. Oooo, I’m a proud American. Oooo, yes yes yes yes YES WE CAN!”

All of these songs were taught to and sung by children in public schools. These songs represent pure and simple indoctrination. They are appalling. They represent a sickness spreading throughout portions of our population that is downright scary. Now you know what it was like to be a school child in Germany during the age of Adolph Hitler, in China during the age of Mao Tse-tung, in Russia during the age of Joseph Stalin, or in North Korea during the current age of Kim Jong-il.

Some of the songs were taught to children at an elementary school in New Jersey. Almost as alarming as the songs themselves, the principal of the school and the teacher who taught the songs cannot understand what is wrong with them. After a videotape of the songs was posted on YouTube, the principal was unapologetic and said she would allow the songs to be sung again. The same school reportedly had pictures of President Obama and posters containing his campaign slogans hanging in the hallways and classrooms. In my opinion, if the principal and the teacher cannot see anything wrong with their obvious attempts to indoctrinate their students, then they don’t have the basic intelligence necessary for their jobs.

Another school official has decided the best defense is a good offense. This official said the children’s performance of the songs was videotaped and posted on the internet without authorization. In other words, this official wants to divert attention from the school’s obvious efforts to indoctrinate its students by making accusations against the person who exposed the indoctrination. This is the same tactic currently being used by Acorn. After several of its employees were caught on tape encouraging illegal activity, Acorn decided to take the offensive by bringing charges against the individuals who made the incriminating tapes.

We are living in a dangerous time. I do not believe President Obama wrote the children’s songs praising him or ordered that they be written, but there is no doubt in my mind he has a Messianic complex. All you have to do is listen to his speeches, where he repeatedly admonishes the world, including his own country, for past sins and presents himself as the redeemer and savior for mankind. I believe Obama truly thinks he is God’s gift to mankind. He has many loyal followers who share his belief. Obama is like the leader of a cult whose followers are blinded by their loyalty and devotion to him.

One columnist, Ron Hart, wrote that he recently watched television on Sunday morning for the first time in years. He observed, “Just as I remembered, it was full of worship services. The elite media worshipped their Lord and Savior, Barack Obama, on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation,’ ABC’s ‘This Week’ and NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’ They even had a Spanish service on Univision.”

There are different kinds of indoctrination. When I was in elementary school and high school, I was taught to believe in God and to believe that my country was great. I pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America on a frequent, if not daily, basis. Along with my classmates, I joined in singing “America the Beautiful” and “God Bless America” along with other patriotic songs, many of which are now banned from public schools because they use the word “God” or are politically incorrect. I was taught that God is great and that our country is great, but I was never taught to worship or believe in any single political leader or other individual or in any single religion.

I am not opposed to indoctrination. It all depends on who is doing the indoctrination and the message behind the indoctrination. I believe in indoctrinating my own children and grandchildren. I want them to believe in God and country, as I do. I want them to share my values and the values that have made this country great. I want them to love the sports I love and to support the teams I support. I even try to persuade my adult children—but not my minor grandchildren—to adopt my political philosophies and to support the same political candidates I support.

There is a big difference, however, between my indoctrination of my own children and grandchildren and a teacher’s indoctrination of his or her students, especially when the teacher is expressing his or her own views about the greatness of a specific individual rather than the greatness of our country and our system of government. A teacher, especially a teacher in a public school, is acting on behalf of the state, i.e., the government. A teacher does not have the right to—and should not be allowed to—indoctrinate students based on his or her political beliefs. A parent, on the other hand, has every right—and even an obligation—to share his or her values and beliefs with children and grandchildren.

Where do you stand? Are you as appalled as I am when you observe school children being taught to worship the person who currently serves as President of the United States? Or have you joined the cult and become a believer in our new savior and redeemer?

The Politics of Race

Dr. Thomas Sowell is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago. He is the author of numerous books and articles.

Dr. Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles. Like Dr. Sowell, Dr. Williams is the author of numerous books and articles.

Michael Steele is the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. He served as Lieutenant Governor of Maryland from 2003 through 2007. Mr. Steele spent three years as a seminarian in the Order of St. Augustine in preparation for the priesthood. He later received a bachelor’s degree in international relations from John Hopkins University and a law degree from Georgetown University.

Herman Cain is a successful businessman, a motivational speaker, a radio talk show host, and a former candidate for the United States Senate from Georgia. He was the recipient of the 1996 Horatio Alger Award. He is the author of several books, including They Think You’re Stupid.

What do these four men have in common?

First, all four men are black. If you don’t believe me, type their names into Google and quickly find a picture of each one. The pictures speak for themselves.

Second, all four men have expressed opposition to the way President Obama plans to reform the nation’s health care system. Dr. Sowell has written, “To tell us, with a straight face, that he [President Obama] can insure millions more people without adding to the already skyrocketing deficit, is world-class chutzpa and an insult to anyone’s intelligence.” Dr. Williams has written, “President Obama and congressional supporters estimate that his health care plan will cost between $50 and $65 billion a year. Such cost estimates are lies whether they come from a Democratic president or Congress, or a Republican president and Congress.” Mr. Steele has referred to President Obama’s health care plan as a “dangerous experiment” and a “reckless experiment” and as “a risk our country cannot afford.” Mr. Cain has observed that the health care reform legislation sponsored by the Democrats, or H.R. 3200, would create 53 new government programs, offices and bureaucracies. Mr. Cain adds, “Liberal logic says those 53 new bureaucracies will be deficit neutral, will not lead to long wait times for medical services, will be cost-effective, and will not lead to health care rationing. Common sense and history say none of that would happen. When dealers have to wait to be reimbursed for clunker car sales, they lose money. When people have to wait to get medical services, they lose their lives.”

Finally, according to many liberals, including former President Jimmy Carter, all four men are racists. In an amazing display of utter stupidity and arrogance, former President Carter, a man for whom I once had great respect, has alleged on several different occasions during the last week that those who oppose President Obama’s health care plans are racists. President Carter apparently believes approximately 55% of the country’s citizens, including Dr. Sowell, Dr. Williams, Mr. Steele, and Mr. Cain, are racists.

President Carter first made his charge of racism after Congressman Joe Wilson rudely and inappropriately yelled, “You lie,” during President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress. Even after Congressman Wilson had apologized to President Obama, President Carter said, “I think it’s based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an African-American ought not to be president and ought not to be given the same respect as if he were white.” President Carter has since repeated his comments on several occasions, and many liberal journalists and commentators have expressed their agreement and have applauded him for doing so.

There are, no doubt, some people who do not like President Obama because he is black. It is absurd, however, for President Carter and other liberals to imply that many of those who disagree with President Obama are racists.

Liberals for years have used the charge of racism as a way to stifle political debate. If you oppose or disagree with a black politician, you are, by definition, a racist. No one wants to be called a racist, so most people who are accused of being a racist tend to back off and stay quiet. This is the reason to make the charge. It’s a lot easier to charge someone with being a racist than it is to debate the substance of policy issues with him or her.

It is common for a black politician who is accused of wrongdoing to claim the charges against him are racially motivated. The black politician, of course, always claims he did nothing wrong and that his accusers are racists. Several years ago, numerous charges, including racketeering, bribery, and tax evasion, were brought against former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell. Even after being convicted of tax evasion by a predominately black jury, Mayor Campbell continued to claim he did nothing wrong and was a victim of racism. More recently, Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson was found guilty of 11 of 16 corruption counts. Congressman Jefferson followed the usual script by claiming he was innocent and that those who brought the charges against him were racists. Congressman Charlie Rangel, who is facing numerous charges of corruption and tax evasion, is always quick to use the race card. There are numerous other examples too many to mention.

To his credit, President Obama has tried to distance himself from the comments of President Carter and others and has made it clear he does not believe those who disagree with his policies are racists. I applaud President Obama for his comments on this issue. I would applaud him even more, however, if he would ask his liberal supporters, including President Carter, to back off their charges of racism as a defense against policy differences. I believe President Obama is pretending to take the high road while letting his surrogates fan the flames of racism.

Racism is still a problem in this country. A bigger problem exists, however, when liberal politicians use the race card when there is no evidence of racism. They are devaluing and watering down the meaning of racism. Sooner or later, no one will pay any attention to charges of racism, even when those charges are legitimate.

Although I did not support President Obama during his campaign for the Presidency, I was very proud of our country when we elected our first black President. If a mostly white country can elect a black President, then maybe we have finally arrived at the stage where we can move past charges of racism. We took a great step forward with President Obama’s election. It is now clear, however, that liberals do not want progress on the issue of race because progress means they will lose their most powerful weapon—the ability to accuse those who disagree with them of being racists.

The Meaning and Effect of Socialism

Depending on the source, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of citizens held a rally in Washington, D.C. last weekend to protest high taxes and out-of-control government spending. Many of those attending the rally held signs protesting the country’s slide toward socialism. Many of the protesters accused the President of the United States of being a socialist.

The terms “socialism” and “socialist” are being widely used these days by those who are concerned about the growth of the federal government and the government’s increased involvement in virtually all aspects of the economy. Even before the election, many conservatives, including me, feared President Obama, if elected, would accelerate the country’s slide toward socialism. For many, their worst fears are now being realized.

It is clear the terms “socialist” and “socialism” have negative connotations and invoke fear of a society totally controlled by the government with few, if any, individual liberties. But what do these terms really mean? I think it is time to pause and consider the meaning of these terms because they are being used so frequently in today’s political debates.

For many years, the 1985 edition of The World Book Encyclopedia has been collecting dust on a bookshelf in my house. I thought this would be a good place to start in attempting to understand the meaning of the term “socialism” because I wanted to see how the writers and editors of the Encyclopedia defined the term some 25 years ago. We all know definitions of words can change over time to correspond with changes in the culture or to comply with evolving standards of political correctness.

The Encyclopedia explains the goals and methods of socialism as follows:

“Socialists claim that free enterprise systems are inefficient and wasteful. They believe capitalism leads to such problems as unemployment, poverty, business cycles, and conflicts between workers and the owners of the means of production. To solve these problems, socialists believe that a nation’s wealth must be distributed more equally and justly. They strongly oppose social inequality and discrimination. Socialists aim for a society based on cooperation and brotherhood rather than on competition and self-interest.

“Socialism proposes to fulfill its aims by placing the major means of production in the hands of the people, either directly or through the government. … Many socialists favor a mixed economy—government ownership of basic industries and private ownership of many other businesses. The private businesses, however, would be regulated by the government.

“Socialists disagree over how much wealth should be left in private hands and how to deprive the rich of their excess property. Many socialists call for redistribution of wealth through taxation. They favor laws to help the aged, the unemployed, the disabled and handicapped, widows, dependent children, and other people in need. Many socialists believe that the government should also provide free education and medical service to everyone and should help all citizens obtain safe and sanitary housing at rents they can afford.

In the United States, for various reasons, socialism has never been as strong as in Europe. In Europe, socialism was largely a working-class movement. But the labor movement began later in the United States and grew slowly. Many scholars believe that labor developed slowly in the United States because the frontier and the untapped wealth of the country provided greater opportunities—even for the poor—than Europe did. Other scholars believe that American ideas of freedom and individualism weakened the appeal of socialism.”

Based on the Encyclopedia’s description of socialism, it is clear socialism already exists in this country to a fairly large extent. We already have “laws to help the aged, the unemployed, the disabled and handicapped, widows, dependent children, and other people in need.” The government already provides a free education to everyone through high school. We already redistribute wealth through a tax system that imposes higher tax rates on people with higher levels of income, relieves people with income below certain levels from the responsibility to pay income taxes, and provides for the issuance of “tax refunds” to individuals who don’t pay any income taxes. In addition, we redistribute wealth through a variety of other government benefits, such as food stamps, rent subsidies, and Medicaid, that are made available to people who don’t pay income taxes. In addition, the government, at least for the time being, owns and controls two automobile manufacturers and one of the nation’s largest insurance companies and also effectively controls the country’s largest banks either through regulation or direct equity ownership. An article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal quoted the president of a mortgage firm as saying, “Over 29 years in business, we’ve always thought of ourselves as being in the free-enterprise system. Today I think of myself as a government contractor.”

Our society today is really a blend between a socialist and a capitalist system. Over the last several decades, we have been moving in the direction of a socialist system by providing more and more government services to citizens at the expense of the wealthiest Americans who bear the largest share of the income tax burden. The question is where do you stop. Where do you draw the line? At what point do you conclude we have too many citizens who are dependent on government for their livelihood? When do you start requiring more individual responsibility from citizens? How much can you take away from the wealthiest Americans before they are no longer wealthy or no longer have the incentive to create wealth?

Most conservatives believe we have already gone too far down the road to socialism and are convinced President Obama and the Democratic Party want to continue down the same road at an accelerated pace. Conservatives think it is time to apply the brakes and perhaps even reverse the direction in which we are proceeding. Few liberals think of themselves as socialists, but many—if not most—of them clearly subscribe to many of the goals and objectives of socialism as described above.

Is President Obama a socialist? If you examine his history, his comments, his actions since becoming President, and his agenda for the future, I think it is clear he is much closer to being a socialist than he is to being a capitalist. You can draw your own conclusions.

What does the future look like for the United States if we continue down the road to socialism? Victor David Hanson is a scholar, college professor, and syndicated columnist who has travelled extensively in Europe and has observed and studied the European form of socialism. He was written that the European form of socialism “closely resembles the model that Obama seeks for America.” According to Hanson, in Europe the “vast majority of citizens lives in apartments, even in smaller towns and villages. Cars are tiny. Prices are higher than in the states; income is lower.” Despite the goals of socialism, Hanson says in Europe “class is firmly entrenched and aristocratic snobbery more pronounced. (We already see that strange symbiosis between socialism for everyone else, capitalism for a few, whether in Michelle’s clothes, the Obama’s mansion, the Kerry fortune, the Edwards compound, the Gore appurtenances, the Clinton speaking cash cow, and too many others to list).”

With regard to Europe, Hanson says, “This is a continent of Tom Daschles, who win by being exempt from the burden of government that they subject on others, and win again by having contacts to sort out government contracts to crony-businesses. My point? The more Europe professes to be egalitarian, the more cynical and conniving the people have become—almost as if the human craving for one’s own property and to make one’s own destiny cannot be denied by the state…”

Hanson also observes, “Socialism surely does not make one happier, or content knowing that the resulting society is somehow more humane or caring. Instead each faction is constantly on the verge of striking against the public good. There are always the bad ‘them’, easy-target public enemies among the rich and aristocratic who need to give away more to the ‘deserving.’” Hanson further says, “I’ve never met a beatific equality-of-result person. They are usually grim and angry warriors determined to right cosmic wrongs, eager to demonize those who ‘have too much’, convinced that the divine ends justify the demonic means.”

Hanson concludes, “The road to socialism is not natural. It must be paved with the hard work of class envy, demonization of the successful, and obfuscation that each new massive spending program that will raise both taxes and deficits…must be passed immediately, without delay, now-or-never to starve off Biblical hunger, plague, and flood. Or else!”