THE THIN LINE BETWEEN POLITICS AND PERSONAL LIFE

Last week I wrote a blog about the up and coming John Ensign, a U.S. Senator from the state of Nevada. Ensign is currently in his second term as a senator after serving in the House of Representatives. Recent actions and speeches have hinted that Ensign has been contemplating a presidential run in 2012, though he had not released an official statement on the matter. It seemed like the ball was beginning to roll for Senator Ensign's political future, but then today, things got a little more complicated.

In a statement to the AP, John Ensign admitted to being involved in an affair last year. According to Senator Ensign, the incident was kept within the family, but speculators have insinuated that the senator was forced to go public after being blackmailed on the issue. Regardless of the specifics within the affair, my purpose is not to write another article on the matter. What really matters is, where do we go from here?

The most important issue in these cases is how does the individual react and take responsibility for their own actions. Senator Ensign came forward and admitted his faults to the press and then went on to issue a televised statement on the issue. He said:

"Last year I had an affair. I violated the vows of my marriage. It is the worst thing I have ever done in my life. If there was ever anything in my life that I could take back, this would be it."

There is no doubt that the Senator will take flak for this incident long into the future, but judging by the content of character it took to react how he did, Should Ensign's political career be over? Absolutely not. Yes it was an act of bad judgment, but the truth of the matter is, this was a personal matter that Ensign chose to be nothing but honest about. We can look into the past for political scandals and see how very prominent politicians have responded to their own scandals. Need I remind you of this such incident...

Bill Clinton's vague testimony on the CSPAN Network

There is a clear difference between how Senator John Ensign handled the situation, versus how he could have gone about it. Under Clinton's presidency, the American people were repeatedly lied to and conned by the president himself while trying to cover up his own shame. This is not the case with Mr. Ensign. Because of his honesty towards his family and the state of Nevada, Senator Ensign should not be portrayed in the negative manor that politicians in the past have been when trying to run away from the truth.

This is undoubtedly an embarrassing mistake, but the character shown in response to the incident has kept me behind Senator Ensign. As of now, I also hold strong to my support for Ensign to make a run for the Presidency in 2012. As for now, I extend my thoughts and prayers to the Ensign family and hope for nothing but the best for them, the Senate, and the state of Nevada.

"SAVE DARFUR, BUT NOT IRAQ"

It has become a definitive trait of the left-wing progressives to expose their own hypocrisy where ever their protest seeking hearts take them. One of the most classic examples is the fad-like hype of the "Save Darfur" campaign. Even the online t-shirt company BustedTees.com saw the absurdity of American celebrities and their mindless followers in making genocide a fashion statement. Check out this shirt sold by BustedTees in which they overlay a "Save Darfur" message on a silhouette of South America, blatantly poking fun at people who hop on the Darfur train strictly for the fad, yet have no idea. (Hint: If you don't get the pun, Darfur is in Africa, not South America.)

So why are these people hypocrites you ask? Well, the conflict in Darfur has some striking similarities to a topic of hot debate we have been arguing over here in America. Before I tell you what it is though, here are the facts of Darfur.

The "Save Darfur" campaign was created to stand up for the human rights of people living in this specific region of Chad. Those living in Darfur have become victims to ethnic discrimination, which has led to acts of mass murder. Some would call it mass genocide. The UN estimates that the mortality rate is somewhere around 10,000 lives lost in the region, while other advocacy groups say its more like 400,000 deaths.

Now, how does this parallel to a current event in America? If you hadn't made the connection yet, this ethnic conflict in Darfur is strikingly similar to Iraq. Not Iraq now, but the Iraq we liberated in 2003. Since 1979, Iraq had been ruled by the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein. As a Sunni himself, Hussein took power despite 73% of the population being of Shi'ite belief, a threat in Saddam's eyes. This is why, over his tenure as dictator, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein killed and arrested thousands of innocent people whom Hussein felt was a threat.

It's now 2003- Enter the United States. the U.S. military has captured Saddam Hussein from hiding in a spider hole, and turned him over to the Iraqi government. After standing trial, Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death for crimes against humanity by his own nation. The United States then worked with the Iraqi government to build a democracy, giving rights and freedoms to the newly liberated 35 million citizens of Iraq.

Iraqis celebrating the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime and dictatorship by tearing down a statue of Hussein

Despite the dangerous, yet committed efforts of the U.S. military, progressives and celebrities alike were quick to jump out and condemn America's actions in Iraq. Quite hypocritically though, these same celebrities that spoke hatefully of our actions in Iraq, are also speaking hatefully about not doing those same things in Darfur. What makes the Darfur victims worthy of liberation but not the victims of Saddam Hussein?

In condemning the war in Iraq, George Clooney said, "We're picking on people we can beat." Then, as a voice for a different movement he said, "The critical hour for Darfur is now!"

George Clooney isn't the only celebrity making a fool of himself over the Darfur fad either. Matt Damon, Cate Blanchett, Angelina Jolie, and Jessica Biel (just to name a few) have also thrown their name into the "ethical pot" for the Darfur refugees, while also condemning the liberation of Iraq. Just as these celebrities express their hypocritical ideals from behind podiums or Ferrari steering wheels, mindless 'star-struck' followers have taken up the initiative by purchasing their own witty t-shirt slogans. Figures why the rest of the world sees America as a nation full of idiots.

Case in Point

OBAMA: THE SECOND COMING?

It's no surprise that the loons on the left reacted to the emergence of Barack Obama as if he was a political rock star.

After an Obama speech, MSNBC's Chris Matthew's said, "It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."

Then there was Oprah Winfrey who, at an Iowa rally, said, "I've never taken this kind of risk before nor felt compelled to stand up and speak out before because there wasn't anyone to to stand up and speak up for. I know [Barack Obama] is the one."

Later on, Oprah would deny Sarah Palin an interview stating, "I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates." Doesn't it seem kind of weird that a talk show host who prides herself on empowering women would turn her back on one of the most high profile females within American politics? It's simply because these television faces wouldn't dare to threaten the image of their favorite superstar.

In just a few months, Obama had been transformed from his true identity as a freshman senator, into a phony superhero. Being as it was so easy for Obama to be transformed from a nobody in congress, to a rock star, and then to a superhero, it shouldn't surprise anybody that Obama's next move was to take the position of God. He may not have made the claim himself, but Obama had (and still has) several left-wing cronies perpetuating the illusion of his Divinity. Even the progressive crazies at MSNBC have bought into the Messiah illusion...

In honor of Obama NOT being God, I have compiled the following list with some help from Google and Rush Limbaugh.

-Differences between Barack Obama and God-

1. God only asks for 10% of your money
2. The media feels a strong attachment to Obama
3. Progressives wouldn't mind putting Obama's name on the dollar
4. The Lord giveth, yet Obama taketh away
5. God doesn't own a car company
6. God doesn't communicate by use of a teleprompter
7. God created the earth in 6 days, then rested. Obama destroyed liberty in 6 months and still wont give it a rest
8. God spoke to Moses through a burning bush. Obama speaks to America by blaming Bush.

At least Barack Obama has one thing in common with God. Neither one of them have an American Birth Certificate.

OBAMA TAKES MORE CONTROL, ONE CZAR AT A TIME

In the two and a half months between winning a presidential election and Inauguration Day, the President Elect has a lot of work to do as far as organizing there cabinet. The easy part is selecting the nominees to the various secretary positions. The hard part is convincing congress to confirm them.

Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing for her Secretary of State nomination

It might seem tedious, but congressional confirmation is vitally important to the President's appointees because it keeps the president from taking total control of the government and negating the separation of powers. It also allows congress to stop the president from appointing somebody that may not be able to perform the job in an effective manor. While President Elect, Barack Obama selected Bill Richardson as his appointee to the Secretary of Commerce position. Following a month of investigation and senate scrutiny, Bill Richardson removed himself from contention after a federal grand jury announced an investigation into Richardson's pay-to-play dealings. A similar situation ensued regarding Obama's original Health and Human Services nominee Tom Daschle after it surfaced that Daschle had skipped out on paying his taxes to the amount of over $140,000. Knowing that congress would never confirm his nomination, Daschle backed out of contention. It's cases like this that prove the importance of congressional confirmation.

But what if the President could appoint people that didn't have to be confirmed and answered to nobody except the President himself? It isn't a far stretch. In fact, this is what Barack Obama is doing right now. By creating a "Czar" for a specific issue, Obama does not have to go through congress, and the Czar is not subject to congressional hearings or accountability. Since the beginning of American history, from Washington to Bush, all presidents combined have appointed 22 Czars in 233 years. There have been so few in history because appointing a Czar is done under special and dire circumstances. This is why the citizens of America should be especially alarmed at the rate in which President Obama has appointed his own army of Czars.

If there have only been 22 Czar's in the history of the United States, would you believe that in his first 5 months, Obama has already appointed 21 Czar's of his own? Not only should you believe it, but you should fear it. These are powerful positions of influence that do not have to be confirmed by anyone, yet answer to Obama alone.

The separation of powers ensures that no one person, or group, can take ultimate power over every other branch of government and this includes the executive branch. While past presidents have used czars for special interest purposes such as President Reagan's Drug Czar, or Clinton's AIDS Czar, Barack Obama is using czars to take complete control over virtually every political issue in the United States.

The question is, "Why?"
Why do we need a Health Czar when we have a Secretary of Health and Human Services?
Why do we need a Housing Czar when we have a Secretary of Housing and Urban Development?
Why do we need an Energy and Environment Czar when we have a Secretary of Energy?

Energy and Environment Czar Carol Browner's Appointment

We don't need these Czars, Obama needs them. He needs them to take more control, and without accountability, he will continue to take over as much as he can. Below is a list of Obama's Czar positions that he has created without contest from the Senate, House, or the American people.

Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske
Energy and Environment Czar Carol Browner
Homeland Security Czar John Brennan
Health Czar Nancy-Ann DeParle
Urban Affairs Czar Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
Economic Czar Paul A. Volcker
Regulatory Czar Cass R. Sunstein
Technology Czar Vivek Kundra
Government Performance Czar Jeffrey Zients
Border Czar Alan Bersin
WMD Policy Czar Gary Samore
Intelligence Czar Dennis Blair
Car Czar Steven Rattner
Pay Czar Kenneth R. Feinberg
Great Lakes Czar Cameron Davis
Faith-based Czar Joshua DuBois
TARP Czar Herb Allison
Stimulus accountability Czar Earl Devaney
Guantanamo closure Czar Daniel Fried
Housing Czar Shawn Donovan
Cyber Czar (Announced, but unnamed to date)

Political Opposites: Lincoln to Obama

On April 15, 1865, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth in the Ford's Theater after. Booth's original plan was to kidnap Lincoln but after a compelling speech by the President on black voting rights, Booth's plan changed. Fast forward 143 years. America has just elected the first black president, Barack Obama. On the long and stressful path to the White House, the Obama campaign (including the mainstream media) perpetuated a great myth that Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln were one in the same. In reality, there are very few political traits to compare the two on.

There is an obvious historical relationship between Lincoln and Obama, as the election of a black president would not have been possible without the abolishing of slavery by Abraham Lincoln. While it may be an interesting piece of history, it does not accurately represent the political similarities between Obama and Lincoln. Both men spent much of their adult lives in the state of Illinois, but once again, this is nothing more than an item for the next edition of the "Trivial Pursuit" board game.

President Obama is sworn in using the Lincoln family Bible. He insisted on doing so, straying from the normal procedure of using the George Washington bible that has been used to swear in every other president in American history. Obama even traced the train route Lincoln took to his own inauguration.

The reason there is no evidence of similar political policies is simply that there are no political similarities between the two. The Obama loving Chris Matthews (click here to see) once tried to argue that they are similar in that both Lincoln and Obama are on a mission to unite the people of America. The obvious flaw with this argument is that Lincoln literally united a country that was divided. While the Confederacy fought to secede from America and own the lives of other human beings, the Union army fought to free all men and keep the nation intact. Lincoln was uniting a nation on the verge of splitting in two. The only divided entities that Obama is trying to unite are the Marxists who want to leach off of the hard work of others and then the actual hard workers who want to enjoy the fruits of their own labor. Obama's quest of unity is none more than a figurative way to get reelected in 2012 and keep the country under democratic control for as long as possible despite the nosedive our country has taken on all fronts from the democratic "leadership".

Beyond the subtle differences between President Lincoln and President Obama, there is one fatal flaw in comparing the two. This flaw is how the two view the American dream of being able to live in a nation of Liberty.

In 1864, Lincoln said:

We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of these things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names- liberty and tyranny.

The context of Lincoln's speech shows that his conservative principles identify his interpretation of liberty as one man's ability to enjoy his successes as an effect of his hard work. How does this conservative principle align with Barack Obama's interpretation of liberty?

In this video, "Joe the Plumber," as made famous by Obama's campaign, confronts the president to be with a question on how he will be taxed more for owning a successful business. Obama outlines his "take from the rich" mentality and in the final seconds of the video expresses his true desire of redistributing the wealth.

Both Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln will long be remembered in history for different things, but they should not be remembered for their similarities to one another. President Lincoln was a true conservative who stood for the hardworking man and his ability to take enjoyment in the successes of his work. Obama on the other hand, will continue to increase taxes on the rich and "redistribute the wealth," as he puts it. President Obama's political philosophy represents the principles of Karl Marx as his actions mirror the communist credo, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Looking to the Future of 2012, The GOP, and Senator John Ensign (R-NV)

Since the successful election of Barack Obama last November, democrats have been perpetuating the notion that the republican party is in disarray and without leadership. Moderate democrats argue that Rush Limbaugh is bad for the party and staunch conservatives claim John McCain is not a true conservative. The truth of the matter is that the republican party is down, but by no means out. While the democrats would like us to think they are sitting comfortably atop every branch of government in the United States, some republican congressmen are giving us reason to believe the race for 2012 is already here.

Something I have recently learned about the science of running for political office is that announcing your candidacy must be done at exactly the right time. Jumping into the political race earlier may give you more time to raise the finances for the campaign trail, but it also gives your opponents more time to dig up the dirt and attack your political platform. This is why, the news media often begs the question, "Will you be running for president in the next election?" Almost always the politician in question will give a stereotypical political answer such as, "Ummm, I haven't given it any thought." Despite these vague answers, you can bet several conservatives are already considering a possible 2012 run. One of the candidates that I has very strong potential to represent the GOP is junior senator John Ensign from Nevada.

This week, Senator Ensign took a trip to Iowa to meet the people and get his face out beyond the state lines of Nevada. But as a Nevada member of the United States Senate, why would John Ensign care to leave his constituents in the battle born state to indulge in some ice cream at a local parlor in a rural Iowa town? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Iowa is the first stop on the long trek through the presidential primary race.

Along with his recent visits to other states, John Ensign has made several trips to meet with the troops in Iraq dating back to 2003. Senator Ensign has also recently visited the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan and the southern border in response to the escalated war on drugs.

Senator Ensign climbing into a BMP-1 tactical vehicle (Feb. 10, 2008)

As far as his membership in the Senate, Mr. Ensign is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration. He also serves as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. Some other Senate committees John Ensign serves on are:
The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
The Budget Committee
The Finance Committee
The Committee on Rules and Administration
The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee

As a veterinarian by profession, Senator Ensign's passion for animals led him to be a lead sponsor of the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act. Other sponsors of the act included Maria Cantwell of Washington, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Dianne Feinstein of California, all of which are democrats.

Finally, in what is likely to be a hot topic in the 2012 election, Senator John Ensign has proved to have an outstanding track record on fiscal responsibility. Citizens Against Governmental Waste, a financial watchdog group, gave John Ensign a 97% rating for the year of 2007, bringing his lifetime fiscal responsibility rating to 92%, the 4th highest in the entire U.S. Senate. This compares John Ensign's Nevada counterpart, democrat Harry Reid, who has accumulated an 18% lifetime rating for fiscal responsibility, not to mention an astonishing 0% for the year 2007. With President Obama's massive debt accumulation and government expansion in his first 4 months alone, Senator John Ensign's sense of financial restraint will be a valuable asset if he so chooses to take the next step towards the presidential race in 2012.