Weekly Opinion/Editorial

WE NEED MORE HICKS!

By Steve Fair

The Flaming Lips is an Oklahoma rock band formed in 1983 in Norman, Oklahoma. The band is known for their psychedelic arrangements, weird song tiles and elaborate live shows. One of their albums is entitled, “Psychiatric Explorations of the Fetus with Needles.” To call them “mainstream” would be a quantam leap. The Flaming Lips won an online vote organized by the Official Oklahoma Rock Song Advisory Panel with the song "Do You Realize?"

But the planned legislative resolution honoring that song was defeated when conservative Republicans expressed outrage at a t-shirt bass player Michael Ivins worn to the Capitol when it was announced their song had won. The t-shirt had the symbol of the former communist Soviet Union- the sickle and hammer on it. If he had worn this same t-shirt to school as a kid, he would have been sent home.

Representative Corey Holland, R-Marlow took offense at that. Holland said "I felt that the consequences of that were that I would not be able to support that as our state song," State Rep. Mike Reynolds (R) opposed the resolution because he recalled the band using profanity several years ago after the legislature named an alley after the group. In fact, the front man for the band used the “F” word repeatedly during his acceptance speech in downtown OKC.

The whole rock song controversy got started when State Representative Joe Dorman, D-Rush Springs and State Senator Mike Schultz, R, Altus, authored Joint Resolution #1047 last legislative session establishing the voting criterion for selection of the “official” state rock tune. After polling fortune 500 companies as to why they were not considering the Sooner state, it was determined one of the primary reasons was because Oklahoma did not have an “official” rock song. I’m sure glad we got that impediment to recruiting commerce and industry cleared up. Dorman is the author of such meaningful legislation like THE WATERMELON IS OKLAHOMA'S OFFICIAL VEGETABLE and forcing cigarette companies to market smokeless cigs, so his involvement is not unexpected. Since only two other states in the country have “official” rock songs, it's obvious this was not a pressing matter for the legislature to take up.

The other finalists for Oklahoma “rock” song included “Heartbreak Hotel,” co-written by

Oklahoma school teacher Mae Boren Axton and recorded by Elvis Presley; “Let’s Have a Party,” recorded by Oklahoman Wanda Jackson; “Walk, Don’t Run,” recorded by the Ventures, which included Oklahoman Nokie Edwards; “After Midnight,” written and recorded by Oklahoman J.J. Cale and re-released by Eric Clapton; “Never Been to Spain,” by Oklahoman Hoyt Axton and made famous by Three Dog Night; “Home Sweet Oklahoma,” written and recorded by Oklahoman Leon Russell; “Oklahoma,” by the Call, which included Oklahomans Michael Been and Scott Musick; “Move Along,” by Oklahoma band the All-American Rejects; and “Endless Oklahoma Sky,” by John Moreland and the Black Gold Band, also from Oklahoma. The unexpected winner was the tune by the Flaming Lips, but the vote was taken online, so it was far from being scientific.

After the State House voted down the resolution, Governor Brad "Blackjack" Henry stepped in to resolve the situation. He plans to sign an executive order sanctifying the song as the state's official rock anthem. “The music of the Flaming Lips has earned Grammys, glowing critical acclaim and fans all over the world," Henry said in a statement. "A truly iconic rock n' roll band, they are proud ambassadors of their home state."

It’s one thing for The Flaming Lips to enhance their wholesome image onstage at a rock concert, by promoting communism and dropping the “F” bomb, but quite another in the “peoples” house. To require those who are honored by the state legislature to show some respect and class is not be too much to ask- even of a psychedelic rock band.

Amazingly, the once conservative icon, The Oklahoman took a shot at what they called “the conservative house” in an April 27th editorial. “This is par for the course in the conservative House, which seems intent on taking aim at diversity of thought, science, politics, and about anything that doesn’t conform to its narrow view of what Oklahoma ought to be,” The Oklahoman stated in the editorial, entitled House of Cards. They concluded the conservative legislators that opposed the resolution were “backward hicks.” What has happened to The Oklahoman? The paper has become more and more "progressive" and very critical of conservative principles. By the way, Webster defines a “hick” as someone who is “provincial or unsophisticated.” It can also refer to someone from a “rural” area.

It is unsophisticated to imply there is NO unacceptable behavior in the “people’s” house! To justify misbehavior by defending it in print or signing an executive order is selling out to political correctness- the very thing that is destroying our country. Thankfully, we still have some “hicks” with some moral values and convictions representing us in the legislature.

Tempest in a teapot? Sure, but the actions of the Governor and The Oklahoman reveal deep divides and disconnects between the average Oklahoman and the more "sophisticated" in our state.

Now it seems the front man for The Flaming Lips, Wayne Coyne, said those that voted against the resolution were "small minded religious wackos." Obviously, there is no standard for misbehavior by this group. Mark Shannon wrote a very insightful commentary on this issue. You can access it at: http://markshannon.com/

QUOTES FROM DAVE RAMSEY'S TOWN HALL FOR HOPE!

Broadcast live on Fox Business to over 6,000 locations on Thursday April 23rd

On irresponsibility by banks and other businesses- "When the tide goes out, you can tell who has been skinny dipping."

***********

"Fear is the antithesis of hope."

***********

"Bush bailed out stupidity- Obama has stimulated stupidity."

***********

"Business is rewarded when they provide good service with Certificates of Appreciation(Ramsey held up currency)."

***********

"The word NO has become politically incorrect."

***********

"60% of the home foreclosures in in only five(5) states." "Thirty five counties accounted for 50% of the foreclosures."

***********

"52% of single moms live below the poverty line."

***********

"A good place to go when you're broke is to work."

***********

WANT HOPE? THREE THINGS TO DO

(1) GET UP, TAKE ACTION- GET MOVING!

(2) DON'T PARTICIPATE IN LOSER TALK!

(3) LEARN TO GIVE AGAIN!

Who’s the easiest senator to work with across the aisle? Who’s the toughest? The Hill asked all 99 seated senators about their colleagues’ bipartisanship, and the following names — arranged by frequency, from top to bottom — were cited the most.

MOST BIPARTISAN
DEMOCRATS
1. Edward Kennedy (Mass.)
2. Tom Carper (Del.)
3. Chris Dodd (Conn.)
4. (tied) Evan Bayh (Ind.)
4. (tied) Tom Harkin (Iowa)

REPUBLICANS
1. Susan Collins (Maine)
2. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
3. Orrin Hatch (Utah)
4. (tied) Richard Lugar (Ind.)
4. (tied) John McCain (Ariz.)

LEAST BIPARTISAN
DEMOCRATS
1. Patrick Leahy (Vt.)
2. Charles Schumer (N.Y.)
3. Chris Dodd (Conn.)
4. Dick Durbin (Ill.)
5. John Kerry (Mass.)

REPUBLICANS
1. Jim Bunning (Ky.)
2. David Vitter (La.)
3. Tom Coburn (Okla.)
4. Jim DeMint (S.C.)
5. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)

To read the whole story go to: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/ranking-senate-partisans-2009-04-20.html

Why Republicans are devouring one book

By Andie Coller & Patrick O'Connor

There aren’t any sex scenes or vampires, and it won’t help you lose weight. But House Republicans are tearing through the pages of Amity Shlaes’ “The Forgotten Man” like soccer moms before book club night. Shlaes’ 2007 take on the Great Depression questions the success of the New Deal and takes issue with the value of government intervention in a major economic crisis — red meat for a party hungry for empirical evidence that the Democrats’ spending plans won’t end the current recession.

“There aren’t many books that take a negative look at the New Deal,” explained Republican policy aide Mike Ference, whose boss, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, invited Shlaes to join a group of 20 or so other House Republicans for lunch earlier this year in his Capitol suite. “Republicans are gobbling it up — and so are other lawmakers — because it tells you what they did, what worked and what didn’t.” To read the entire story, go to http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21477.html

Weekly Opinion/Editorial
RIGHT WINGERS ARE NOT A THREAT!
By Steve Fair

Two weeks ago, the Department of Homeland Security sent a nine-page document to police warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity." They said the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could increase the number of white-power militias. A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says. If you want to read the entire report, it’s available in PDF form on the Internet at http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:NoVMKyGOQdcJ:www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf+pdf+of+the+right+wing+extremist+report&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us. In a nutshell, Homeland Security is targeting and profiling conservative Christians and patriotic Americans as a potential threat to national security.

Because the report begin to draw the ire of hardworking, patriotic Americans across the country, The White House immediately distanced itself from the report. White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said, "The President is focused not on politics but rather taking the steps necessary to protect all Americans from the threat of violence and terrorism regardless of its origins. He also believes those who serve represent the best of this country, and he will continue to ensure that our veterans receive the respect and benefits they have earned." In essence, Shapiro said the President apologized to the military, but not to “all” the groups in the report.

The report says the federal government "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months" to gather information on "rightwing extremist activity in the United States." What does that mean?

Will local law enforcement be forcing conservative Christian churches to hand over their membership and attendance rolls? Will those that attend local NRA banquets be scrutinized more than those who attend a lecture by Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright? Will the actions of those who support closing the southern borders of the U.S. be monitored? Will someone with an NRA bumper sticker or a pro-life license plate be put on a “watch list?” There may come a day when right wing radical extremists will have to register with local law enforcement like sex offenders if the Obama administration has their way. There should be further explanation on how local law enforcement will be “helping” the feds.

Conservative thinking people, as a whole, are no more a threat to America’s homeland security, than most liberals. But liberals fear those that disagree with them, particularly those who believe the second amendment of the Constitution(the right to bear arms).

The real threat to America is liberal ideology. Liberals or “progressives” as they like to be called, fail to see the threat that illegal immigration presents to America. Liberals wrongly believe that disarming the American public will lower the crime rate, but that is simply not true. According to Dr. Jeremy Blanks, “the Brady Law has done nothing to lower crime or violence. Again, this is a continuation of mounting evidence that gun control schemes have no relation to crime or violence prevention.” Liberals are against killing-unless it’s in the womb. This report puts those who are passionate about life being protected in the womb on a potential “watch list.”

The real threat that “right wingers” present to the Obama administration is at the ballot box. Thus far, the President has not brought the country together, but further divided it. Obama has negotiated with foreign governments who are our swore enemies. He has mortgaged our grandchildren’s future with big spending and government bailout policies. He has moved America toward a state of collectivism and hurt the free market system. In 2010, “right wing radicals” aka conservatives, will be a threat to Obama’s “kingdom.” They will turn out in record numbers to seize control of Congress. It happened in 1994, after two years of Bill Clinton’s failed policies and it will happen again.

That is what the report is all about- the 2010 elections. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano is using political intimidation to beat back what is seen as a “political” threat to her boss. This report was inappropriate, unnecessary and reeks of partisan politics. Secretary Napolitano should apologize to conservative Americans who were smeared in the report. You can go to the Department of Homeland Security website at http://www.dhs.gov/xutil/contactus.shtm to express your opinion directly to the Secretary.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

MODERN DAY TEA PARTIES SEND A MESSAGE!
by Steve Fair

On Wednesday, tea parties will be held all across America. Not the type of tea party where women wear hats and daintily hold their little finger out as they sip black pekoe from a china cup, but the type where average citizens protest what’s going on with our federal government.

The modern day “tea parties” got started when Rick Santelli, a reporter for CNBC, said the government was promoting irresponsibility by bailing out people who took out home loans they couldn’t afford. (View at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA). When Santelli made the on-air comments from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, he mentioned that it was time for a Chicago Tea Party. Santelli’s remarks inspired 30,000 Americans to stage “tea parties” in over fourty cities across the country in late February.

Other Americans, concerned about the state of the economy and the direction of the government toward socialism, organized and established Tax Day- April 15th as the day to stage the events. The most visible tea party in the Sooner state will be at the State Capital on Wednesday at noon. For information on "tea parties" in your area, go to http://taxdayteaparty.com/

The original Tea Party was in Boston harbour in 1773 and the battlecry was, “Taxation without Representation!” The American colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their constitutional right to be taxed by their own elected representatives. While we have representation, it appears most of Congress is ignoring what average Americans are saying

What are the modern tea parties all about? First, they are non-partisan. Republicans, Democrats and every other Party will be represented at the events on Wednesday. Second, they are an opportunity for average citizens to let their voice be heard by their elected officials. Third, the tea parties will provide resource sites so the participants can remain informed in the future. There are watchdog groups and think tanks that do a good job of monitoring what is going on in Congress and their websites will be provided to those participating. And finally, the tea parties will send a clear message to our elected officials that Americans are not pleased with the way things are going in Washington.

According to the Institute for Policy Innovation, http://www.ipi.org/, there are at least ten reasons why citizens should be up in arms about their taxes and get involved in “tea parties.” Those ten reasons are:

#1. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the national debt will double over the next five years; and it will triple over the next 10 years to $17.3 trillion.

$$$$$$$$$$
#2. The CBO projects the national debt will soar over the next decade from 40 percent of GDP today to a shocking 82.4 percent. Compare that to just twenty years ago when Reagan left office. The national debt was at 42 percent of GDP.

$$$$$$$$$$
#3. The budget will grow federal borrowing by $2.7 trillion this year alone, an increase of 27 percent in one year!

$$$$$$$$$$
#4. The budget for this year increases federal spending by an incredible 34 percent over the previous year, with a total of $4 trillion in federal spending, the highest ever.

$$$$$$$$$$
#5. The federal budget deficit (not the national debt) would reach $1.845 trillion this year, according to the CBO, the highest ever. That would be more than seven times Reagan's largest budget deficit of $221 billion.

$$$$$$$$$$
#6. The CBO estimates this budget deficit will total an astounding 13.1 percent of GDP, more than one-eighth of the entire U.S. economy, for the federal budget deficit alone! Under George Bush, the federal deficit for 2008 was 3.2 percent of GDP. The deficit for fiscal year 2007, in the last budget adopted when Republican majorities controlled Congress, was $162 billion, or 1.2 percent of GDP.

$$$$$$$$$$
#7. The top five percent of wage earners will have their income tax increased under the Obama budget. The budget includes $1 trillion in tax increases on the upper 5 percent of income earners.

$$$$$$$$$$
#8. Corporate income tax will increase by 124% in the next three years under the Obama budget. Corporations will only pass those taxes on to consumers or end users.

$$$$$$$$$$
#9. A $645 billion tax increase will be imposed from President Obama's proposed anti-global warming cap and trade system, which is essentially an energy tax on the production and use of carbon energy, such as oil, natural gas, and coal.

$$$$$$$$$$
#10. Of the two trillion dollars the Obama administration claims to have cut from the budget over the next decade, $1.5 trillion of those "cuts" actually represents the troop draw down in Iraq.
$$$$$$$$$$

In these tough economic times, government should be tightening their belt and strengthening the dollar. Instead they are engaging in irresponsible, reckless spending, borrowing and bailouts. Hopefully, Wednesday's tea parties will get the attention of Congress and the President. On Wednesday, Americans will once again cry out, “taxation without representation!”

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

EFFECTIVE LOBBYING!
By Steve Fair

In 2007, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life polled 35,000 Americans and found that 16.1% were unaffiliated- non-believers. A recent poll by a researcher at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., pegged the percentage of people who say they have no religion at fifteen percent. That number has nearly doubled from polls taken in 1990. Is America becoming more secular? It certainly appears that way.

Nica Lalli said in a USA Today editorial(4/6/09 edition) entitled “No religion? No problem,” “Atheists like me are just content to be able to be religion-free without the social stigma that has been attached to “my kind”- the irreligious minority.” The premise of Lalli’s column was that all Americans should focus more on co-existing and less on religious combat. Does Lalli have a right to be a non-believer? Biblically, not a chance! This article on FREE WILL might interest those serious about the subject: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Tracts%20and%20Writings/FreeWill.htm. Scripture addresses these enlightened, educated, tolerant creatures known as nontheists in Psalms 14:1, which says, “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”

Pew’s poll found that one in four Americans between the ages of 18-29 said they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion. Young people are not attending church like their parents or grandparents. When they do, they expect more entertaining services and less “meat” from the pulpit and there is not shortage of churches and ministers willing to fill that demand. Perhaps one of Lalli’s friends will get her engaged in a mega-church where she can find her “purpose” or read all the “Chicken Soup” books to enhance her spirituality.

The real issue is the 18-29 age group doesn’t have an appetite to study or mediate on God’s word or consider their spiritual standing before a holy God. Those who are believers would rather be spoon-fed some spiritual Pablum* to satisfy their spiritual hunger.

American youth now look to government for their existence, protection, security, joy and peace rather than a sovereign creator. Few can deny younger Americans are more open to socialist concepts than their parents and grandparents. When America elects a President whose stated goal is to “spread the wealth,” and who believes government is the answer to every problem, we are not headed to a socialist state-we are in one.

In the September 2008 Tabletalk magazine, theologian Dr. R. C. Sproul wrote, “a decline from statehood to statism happens when the government is perceived as or claims to be the ultimate reality. This reality then replaces God as the supreme entity upon which human existence depends.” Sound something like what is happening in America today? Sproul’s entire article is worth reading. You can access it at: http://www.ligonier.org/tabletalk/2008/9/1091_Statism..

The reason America has moved to “statism” is not government’s fault. Government by its nature grows, consumes, and perpetuates itself. The average American has brought into the secular philosophy the state will handle the hard issues and has abrogated personal responsibility to the government. Instead of believing a sovereign God controls His creation, average Americans trust government and government responds by “giving them what they want-not what they need.” And we to wonder why politicians “tell us what we want to hear?”

Political activists with religious right leanings- almost exclusively Christians- have engaged in “behavior modification” tactics instead of spiritual ones to impact government. Activists have immersed themselves in the political system, worked on campaigns, attended seminars and engaged in party politics to “make a difference.” Their work and activism has produced some limited results, but until they/we understand that ONLY God can permanently change a heart in an individual and a country, we are destined to be disappointed.

America’s spiritual problem is far greater than our economic ones and much more pressing. It's obvious the "seeker friendly" church concept has not produced lasting results, nor is the conventional political lobbying of conservative Christians. Activists should lobby more, but not the conventional way. We should lobby our Creator on our knees and ask Him to forgive our sins and heal our land. We should plead with Him to change hearts in and out of government.

*Pablum is a processed cereal for infants originally marketed by the Mead Johnson Company in 1931. The trademarked name is a contracted form of the Latin word Pabulum, meaning "foodstuff". The name is also used metaphorically, especially in literary criticism, to refer to something bland, unappetizing, or with little content value.

WE’RE DOING FINE, OKLAHOMA!

Earlier this week you may have received an email in support of moving Oklahoma Republicans back to a caucus system of choosing which presidential candidate receives Oklahoma’s delegate votes to become the Republican nominee for President.

Most knowledgeable Republicans who have studied the caucus proposal being promoted feel passage would be extremely devastating to our party and could set our party back over 20 years.

The information provided in support of this change to the caucus is extremely misleading and comes from individuals whose goal is to create a system that would allow a very small, well-organized minority to manipulate the process to promote their own political agenda.

Let’s analyze each statement made in support of the Caucus.

“In 1976, 1980, and 1984 the Oklahoma GOP supported Ronald Reagan for President - through a caucus system instead of a "Presidential Preference Primary".

Ronald Reagan lost the Iowa Caucus in both 1976 and 1980. He then came back and won the New Hampshire primaries. So using that logic, if New Hampshire had a caucus Ronald Reagan may have never become President. How can we empower the grassroots to support conservative leaders like Reagan in the future? Answer: Restore the Oklahoma GOP to the Caucus System?

Back to the Reagan example. In 1976 Gerald Ford won the Iowa caucus. One week later Ronald Reagan won the New Hampshire primary. In 1980 George H.W. Bush won the Iowa Caucus. The following week Ronald Reagan won the New Hampshire Primary. I don’t know of anyone who would argue that Ford and Bush 41 were more conservative than Ronald Reagan.

Counties across the State, including Oklahoma and Tulsa counties, have already passed a proposal known as "Caucus OK!" that would restore the Oklahoma GOP to a caucus system, and it will soon be heard at the State Convention, Saturday, April 18. I would invite you to visit the Caucus OK website http://caucusok.org/to learn more!

While it is true the proposal was passed in a few counties it was soundly defeated 52-28 in Cleveland County, which was perhaps the only county to have a full and open debate on the issue. Cleveland County even suspended its own convention rules to allow the principal proponent of the caucus proposal to debate for the measure. It was still soundly voted down.

"An enlarged , invigorated , and empowered grassroots volunteer and donor base will result from the restoring of the caucus system."

There is no evidence that this would be the case. Iowa has been the example given to support this assertion, claiming Iowa gets more attention and activity because of their caucus. Truth is, Iowa receives attention because they are first in the process. New Hampshire receives an equal amount of attention and they have a primary. Current RNC rules do not allow Oklahoma to conduct their selection process earlier than it is currently held, either primary or caucus. Changes are currently being discussed by the RNC and will more than likely be put into effect before the 2012 elections.

"A caucus system is a nomination process that truly reflects a consensus of the Party grassroots."

Again, there is no evidence to support this claim. In 2008 over 345,000 Oklahoma Republicans turned out to vote in the Republican Presidential Primary. If the proposed caucus were to be approved we would be telling those Republicans that we didn’t care about their opinion and that their votes didn’t matter.

"Moving to a caucus system will increase fundraising opportunities for the Party."

The change as proposed would not generate additional revenues; in fact, it would be extremely costly to the Oklahoma Republican Party, as it requires the party to furnish ballots, including absentee ballots, to all Republicans at no cost. The OKGOP would also be responsible for conducting the voting process, including having to verify whether those showing up or mailing in ballots were indeed eligible to vote.

"Moving to a caucus system will save Oklahoma tax-payer dollars (up to $3 million)."

This is not true, as the change to the caucus does not eliminate the primary. The Democrat party will still conduct their voting via a primary. It does not change the law.

"Moving to a caucus system will increase Oklahoma's influence and attention in the national election process."

Since 1988 when Oklahoma moved from the caucus to the Primary, Republicans held 32 seats in the Oklahoma House; we now hold 61. In 1988 Republicans held 15 seats in the Oklahoma Senate; we now hold 26. All in all, Oklahoma Republicans have done quite well under the current system.

CONCLUSION

The truth is a caucus system would empower a few influential activists who believe they know better than the general population what Oklahoma needs. A caucus system would establish an oligarchy which is a form of government where power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society- aka Political Pharisees. That is never good and goes completely against the principles of the U.S. Constitition which is inclusive and protects us from the establishment of an oligarchy.

Oklahoma Republican activists should be about the business of educating Oklahoma voters and encouraging more conservatives to become involved in the process. Moving to a caucus system would be a step backward in Oklahoma. We have accomplished too much with a Presidential Primary! While not a perfect system, it is infinitely better than moving back to a Caucus system. Vote No at the State Convention!

Since this post appeared, I have received dozens of emails on this issue. The emails are running three to one in favor of retaining the Presidential Primary system. Most writers have been gracious, others not so kind. I appreciate each of you who have taken time to read the post and to comment-no matter your position on the issue. There are good people on both sides of this issue and many I count as friends. I do not question anyone's intergity or motive if they are for moving to the caucus system. They are sincere, but I believe they are sincerely wrong. If the tone of the article offends you, please forgive me. It was never my intent to offend, but to present the other side of this very important issue.

To clarify, this article reflects MY position and does not necessarily reflect the position of anyone else. ~Steve

Cole Says Majority's Budget Proposal Undermines National Defense

WASHINGTON – Congressman Tom Cole (OK-04) made the following remarks on the House floor last night opposing the Majority's budget proposal.

"Mr. COLE: I thank the gentleman for yielding. And, Madam Chair, I rise to oppose this Democratic budget. As we have heard repeatedly tonight, it spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much.

But I want to be fair to my friends on the Democratic side. There is one area of the budget where there is a glaring exception to that rule, and that is the defense of the United States of America.
Over the course of a 10-year projected Obama budget, we will move from 20 percent of the Federal budget down to 14 percent devoted to defending the country. We will move from just over 4 percent of the gross national product to 3 percent to defend the United States of America. We will risk canceling major weapons systems, like the future combat system, a tanker that will help us project air power around the world and missile defense, at a time when the North Koreans and the Iranians are developing missiles. That risks jobs, that risks security. That is reckless in a dangerous world.

That is not just my opinion, Madam Chairman. Let me read from Robert Samuelson's recent article, 'Obama, the Great Pretender.' 'It would be responsible for Obama to acknowledge the big gamble in his budget. National security has long been government's first job. In his budget, defense spending drops from 20 percent to 14 percent of the total from 2008 to 2016, the smallest share since the 1930s. The decline presumes a much safer world. If the world doesn't cooperate, deficits will grow.'

More importantly, American soldiers and American security will be at risk, Madam Chairman. So let's reject this budget because it does spend too much, it does borrow too much, it does tax too much. And let's embrace the Republican alternative which spends less, borrows less, taxes less, but, most importantly, puts more resources where it counts, defending the United States of America.

NEWT TO SPEAK AT BIG DINNER!

......replaces Pallin!

from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20726.html

Congressional Republicans are replacing their party’s former vice presidential nominee as the headliner of their big spring fundraising dinner with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich after the Alaska governor vacillated publicly about the appearance, sources familiar with the situation said Tuesday.

Gingrich becomes a Catholic
By Betsy Rothstein of The Hill

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) converted to Catholicism on Sunday and celebrated his new faith with some close friends at the hot spot Café Milano. Gingrich, who had been a Baptist, attended Sunday evening Mass at St. Joseph’s Catholic Church on Capitol Hill and was confirmed into the Catholic Church that evening during a separate service.Gingrich’s wife, Calista, is Catholic.

~~~~~~~~~~
Former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), now a lobbyist at Clark & Weinstock, and his wife attended the Sunday service. Weber told ITK that the Gingrich party “for his Catholic friends” was “very, very nice.” Weber cracked that it was different from any other event he has attended with Gingrich because “it was the only event with Newt where he didn’t give a speech.”

~~~~~~~~~~
The possible 2012 White House hopeful had no comment on becoming a Catholic. Rick Tyler, Gingrich’s spokesman, said, “He’s not commenting on it. That’s not to say that he won’t comment on it, but he isn’t right now.” Gingrich’s Wikipedia page already posts his religion as Roman Catholic.

~~~~~~~~~~
Writer Michael Novak and Cardinal McCarrick, the retired cardinal of Washington, were in attendance at Café Milano.

~~~~~~~~~~
Becoming Catholic isn’t simple. “It’s harder than becoming a Lutheran or a Methodist,” said Weber. “You go through several months of preparation — it’s not like joining a country club.”
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was at the restaurant dining with three men. He didn’t appear to be there to celebrate with Gingrich.

WHY IS RICK WAGONER FIRED AND NANCY PELOSI STILL WORKING?

Ann tells it like it is in her latest column. Click on link to access it: http://www.anncoulter.com/