It is important to understand that we do have a dog in this fight and it is not the opposing candidate, Musavi, or any other Muslim extremist propped up by the supreme leaders of Iran, our dog in this fight is the Iranian people. The Iranian people, who are screaming out for freedom from behind the dark vale of Islamo-fascism, Obama was quick to credit himself and his platitude filled speech in Egypt for changing the face of the middle east, when early election returns showed Ahmadinejad’s opponent in the lead. Now however with the Islamic state arresting political activists, shooting demonstrators in the street and sentencing dissenters to death, Lord Barack is noticeably silent, claiming it would be wrong for an American president to be seen as meddling in Iranian affairs. Yet this is the same man who speaks of the "universal principle of democracy," apparently. He does not believe those universal principles reach the country of Iran. Nor does he have a problem meddling in the affairs of Israel, dictating to them, where they can live where they can build and that they should be more open to the demands of groups and countries that openly call for genocide of the Israeli people.

In his usual fashion Obama will wait until the winners are sorted out before he chooses a side. Now don’t misunderstand, no one is asking for military intervention, but how about some word of encouragement for the Iranian rebels, and this is a rebellion. More importantly if it is so vital that we not appear as meddlesome, then what rights do we have to speak to this nation about their nuclear program. What credibility then does his statements about America leading by example when it comes to disarmament and other similar issues really have. Obama asks the Iranian government to "unclench its fist," However the unclenched fist he has asked for is pounding its open hand on the door of freedom and Obama has turned a deaf ear. President Obama is much more comfortable curling up with the latest offering from the Hugo Chavez book of the month club than embracing a democratic revolution in one of the worlds most hostile regimes and the messy transfer of power that goes with it.

Anthony D Dolpies

  The Republicans do have a real problem, and it isn’t that they have moved to far right. The fact is polls among the party base shows just the opposite and further polling of a wider cross section of voters show that Obama’s big government policies are not that popular, and this is in direct conflict with his Personal poll numbers.

  The Republican party however has been irritatingly inept and downright mute in leveling criticism toward the President. This is incredibly vexatious since Obama gives fresh ammunition to his detractors on an almost daily basis. The question is why, The answer is the GOP leadership is infected with John McCain types. These big government rinos are not really all that upset with President Obama’s power grabbing policies, they’re just mad it’s not them grabbing the power. The other truth of the matter is that the republican party really began alienating its own base shortly after the election of George W Bush; putting his compassionate conservative nonsense aside, Bush portrayed himself as a republican in the mold of Reagan, But tax cuts do not a conservative make, and he soon revealed himself to be quite the opposite. Government expanded drastically under President Bush, entitlement spending rose by 25% he nearly doubled education spending and created the massively expensive prescription drug program. The base however wasn't willing to bail on the guy while the Iraq war was raging. After losing congress Bush settled all too comfortably into the role of lame duck, he put forth his own stimulus pkg at the beginning of the recession, remember those groovy $600 dollar checks, well at least we got a check out of it. He then set the table for Obama’s scourge of nationalization with his signing of TARP; and using it to fund the auto bailout after the American people overwhelmingly rejected the idea was the final nail in the coffin. Combine that with the fact that Bush lost his veto pen early in his presidency allowing an undisciplined GOP to spend themselves into the minority.

  What republicans should learn from this is conservatives have far fewer patients with unprincipled leadership then do our ends justify the means driven liberal counterparts. This manifested itself again in the failed McCain presidential bid. McCain fractured his own base with his staunch support of Illegal immigration and cap & trade. This kept a lot of conservatives away from the polls or forced them to cast third party ballots. The problem the McCain types face is that the big government approach has been a historically proven loser for republicans, sure it might get them some accolades in the press and a pat on the back from across the isle but it never translates at the ballot box.

  The answer is not to become more like McCain, or to somehow reinvent the wheel but just the opposite. Voters remember that Ronald Reagan crushed the opposition twice and many republicans in office now made it to D.C. on his coat tails. The reason Reagan won by such large margins is because he wonderfully articulated the American spirit; individual liberty, freedom of self determination, low taxation and limited government is a time tested winning formula.

  One thing the republicans should pluck from the democrat play book is their talent for not only being the loyal opposition but a noisy one. That means connecting Obama with his policies and not mincing words about what they are, and what they are is Marxist. This will of course draw the ire of the Obama adoring media, But so what, the national media will attack them no mater what they do, so they might as well go in swinging.

Anthony D Dolpies

     Like all of Obama’s focused grouped statements, this seems innocent enough on the surface.After all who would have a problem with their son or daughter becoming a scientist or engineer. But just because someone has an "aptitude" for math doesn’t mean they mean they will seek a career in one of these fields, and even if they do it doesn’t mean that they will end up in that profession. People for the most part don’t aspire to be wall street traders when they grow up then settle into a career in engineering. In fact it is usually just the opposite, and to go one further if someone did have a passion for science or engineering that person could fund an endowment with some of those evil wall street profits, in turn benefitting society many times over.

    The Reality is that draconian government regulation and statist attempts to mandate demand only create more of the bubble and burst economic events that Obama claims he is trying to stamp out. This approach will also drive down salaries overall. The laws of economic are a lot like the laws of gravity, absolute. If workers migrate from one profession, because of diminished salaries, that creates a surplus of workers else ware in the market, Therefore, driving down wages.

    When Barack Obama speaks in terms of we, he really means I. Obama is the quintessential Marxist, he believes that it is governments role to determine the winners and losers of society. In every way Barack Obama is the anti founder. In his own words he views the constitution as "a flawed document of negative rights." He rejects the limitations it places on centralized government, and he faults the founders for not addressing "economic justice." Economic justice is the Marxist euphemism for wealth redistribution. But as much as Obama Wraps himself in hope and change, his ideas are old and stale.

    The founders recognized his type long ago. It was Samuel Adams who said this; " The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional." The founders were much more concerned with the equal distribution of natural rights and not the equal distribution of things. The founders did not believe rights were the governments to distribute, Obama believes rights are the provinces of the state, to be rationed as he sees fit.

   Obama loves to speak of equality. The founders addressed this as well. Ben Franklin often wrote that kingly government seizes power under the illusion that it will somehow establish equality among citizens, and it was John Adams who said "That all men are born with equal right is true. But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people as was ever practiced." The founders new that men who made false promises of equality would only lead the nation toward tyranny.

   President Obama is walking briskly down that despotic road, by arbitrating the recent Chrysler bankruptcy he exceeded the bounds of the executive and assumed the role of the courts. He has shown a complete disregard of fiduciary law. He deploys the Treasury Department as a means to reward his political allies, by encroaching further and further on private property and industry.For now these actions give him the appearance of fighting for the little guy. But with this style of governing you always need fresh domestic bogeymen to trot out in front of the public. Eventually he will have none left to blame.

  I have decided to draft a petition to be sent to the President recommending the nationalization of Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups. Not all of Hershey’s just the Reese’s division. I say this because there is no better example of American confectionary exceptionalism, The Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup is truly a single serving of packaged happiness. My recently expanding waistline is not only proof, but a direct result of this, and in these tough economic times it is only fair that Obama seize this evil capitalist company, that for too long has profited from exploiting the sugary cravings of their unwitting victims, and fairly redistribute this divine joy among the masses.

  I figure it would cost less than 10 billion dollars annually to keep the American people on a peanut buttery endorphin high. And since the President has unilaterally decided to give the United States a majority ownership roles in financial institutions instead of paying back the taxpayer, what’s another 10 billion.

  But how would the government handle the distribution? There would certainly need to be an age limit. Sort of like the British health care system, you just cant allow children unlimited access to the candy store(remember that’s only for the UAW), they would simply eat too much. Exactly like the Obama administration’s chief economic advisors view of the way Americans utilize health care. What I do know about Government programs is that there is mandated regiment to be followed if you want to receive the benefits. For example Pennsylvania’s WIC Program rations how many times per month you can go grocery shopping. WIC also dictates what brand of product you can buy, and what grocery items you can buy in a specific week. You also need to provide the state with regular medical reports on your children.

  The cost control thing does have me a bit vexed. What I love most about Reese’s is the wonderful variety they offer, the Original Reese’s, The Fastbreak Bar, Reese’s pieces, The sinful nutrageous, and of course my favorite the Big Cup, only problem is they don’t seem to be available in large bags. But not to worry, the governments comparative Reese’s research analysis board would undoubtedly make the proper decision as far as which one of these products would be best for all of the American people. And of course let’s not forget what makes a Reese’s a Reese’s, the peanut butter, there’s just nothing like it. A close second is Nutter Butter peanut butter, but I digress; I fear in an effort to equally distribute the goodies and suppress cost, the government may cut corners or tamper with the recipe.

  Ok, maybe it’s not such a great idea. And much to my chagrin, unlike my recent shoulder surgery, which was performed at one of the best orthopedic institutes in the country(The Rothman), within one week after contacting the surgeon, who happened to be one of the best on the region, I don’t believe I’ll just be able to walk into the supermarket and grab as many Reese’s as I would normally have the freedom to enjoy. I guess the saying Freedom isn’t free doesn’t only pertain to warfare.

Anthony D Dolpies

    In those four days the U.S. Navy has raced to the scene in an attempt to hem the pirates in while keeping other pirates out in an a brazen attempt to rescue their comrades. There has been very little comment on from a usually quite chatty Obama administration, and zero word from the President himself. In fact when asked about the situation during a press conference, the president chastised the media saying "come on guys were talking about housing".  Let's put this in perspective; I understand that the best option here is not to just blow the Somali pirates out of the water while holding an American hostage.(They should have been doing that before they started taking hostages, unfortunately the U.N. doesn't want to violate the right of the pirates. The same Pirates who are now using hostages as human shields against sniper fire.) Waiting them out is surely the best option.  However none of this changes that fact that there is an American being held hostage by the same people who not that long ago were celebrating as they dragged the naked body of a dead U.S. soldier through the streets of Mogadishu.

   Barack Obama's silence on this is not only deafening, but it has resonated in the ears of all our nations enemies. Again I'm not looking for the president to come out on this with guns blazing. A proper response at this time would be a stern warning of reciprocity if any harm were to befall Captain Phillips. This is the type of bear trap scenario that ensnares a political animal like Barack Obama. His senatorial instinct wants to play both sides of this issue. Take the credit for a positive resolution, act as a bystander if things go bad, at the executive level you just don't have that option, and these are just the type of situations in which the American people look to there president for leadership.  What I fear most is that Obama's paralysis will embolden our more dangerous enemies, putting even more Americans either at home or abroad in harms way. Let's Pray that I'm wrong

Anthony D Dolpies