Steve McCullough's blog

Now that Senator Barack Obama has wrapped up the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, it's time for him to answer some questions about where he stands on the issues that are important to the American people. Here are my questions for the senator:

First, you have made withdrawing US troops from Iraq the top priority of your campaign saying that you want all "combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." Are you still committed to this deadline for removing troops from Iraq regardless of the military situation on the ground? Are you going to ignore our own military commanders including Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has said your position could take "gains we have achieved and struggled to achieve and turn them around overnight"? What are you going to do once our military forces have been withdrawn from Iraq should Iran and Al-Qaeda decide to take action to overthrow the Iraqi government by force? Do you not believe that US troop withdrawal will be seen as a huge victory for these two entities who have stated on more than one occasion that they see Iraq as the pivotal battleground against democracy and Western values? You have said that you would move US military units to other countries in the region so that they could quickly "re-deploy" to Iraq if necessary. Where, exactly, are you going to relocate our military? Are you willing to pay twice in American blood and treasure for military victories that we have already achieved? As Commander-in-Chief, these are difficult decisions that you will have to make. What is there in your background which suggests that you have the experience to make the military decisions necessary to safeguard America's interests in the Middle East and the rest of the world? You have promised that once you are elected you will reduce our military strength, you will cut spending on missile defense, and you will cut funding for future weapons systems. Do you believe this a wise course of action during a time of war and increased terrorist threats to America?

Secondly, we have heard about your personal relationships with terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn who, as members of the Weathermen in the 1970's, bombed government buildings and attempted assassinations of US Army officers, and continue to say that they have no regrets for their actions and wish they had done more. Additionally, you were a member of the Trinity United Church for more than 20 years and attended many sermons where the Reverend Jeremiah Wright proclaimed the nonsense that America invented the AIDS virus to exterminate black people and that the government introduced crack cocaine into African-American neighborhoods in order to imprison black people. Your "spiritual advisor" (your description) also vehemently stated that we should not say, "God Bless America" but, rather, "God damn America" because ours is an evil nation. Reverend Wright has also praised the race-baiter Louis Farrakhan and the terrorist group Hamas. And, although you have recently resigned your church membership from Trinity United, you have not renounced the black liberation theology advanced by your former pastor. In fact, it was only after Father Michael Pfleger, another who you claim helped shape your moral views, made racist remarks from your church pulpit about the evil of white people and described America as, "the greatest sin against God", that you decided to leave Trinity United. However, you also said, "I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church", adding, "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them". It sounds like you are leaving the church for political reasons only. Why can you not denounce a church which puts forth racist, anti-American sentiments? Do you or your wife who says she is "proud for the first time in my adult life to be an American" share some of these feelings? We still have not heard about all your dealings with Tony Rezko, a Chicago slumlord who donated $10,000 to your campaign from an alleged crooked kickback scheme and is now on trial. What are we to make of all these troubling relationships you have had for many years with terrorists, racists, and indicted crooks? You have promised a "change" in the political atmosphere but you appear to be just another politician who will associate with anyone who can help advance your career. Where's the change?

Next, you have proposed a "Global Poverty Act" which would give more than $845 billion of US taxpayers' money to other nations over and above the billions that we already give. You have said that, "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to the elimination extreme poverty". I am afraid, Senator Obama, that the American people will be the ones experiencing extreme poverty once you have enacted all of your big government programs. In addition to a government-run health care program (estimated cost of $100 billion), you have also proposed a 10-year, $150 billion program to establish a "green energy sector"; a $60 billion "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" to construct and repair highways, bridges, and other infrastructure; a government sponsored college loan program and federal pre-K nursery school program; more tax dollars for illegal aliens, giving them amnesty and allowing them to have drivers licenses, Medicaid and Social Security benefits; and a $340 billion tax credit benefit. And there's more…lots more. To pay for all of this, you have proposed a $2 trillion tax increase on all individuals (not just the "rich") and an increased corporate tax rate which is already one of the highest in the world at 40%, including federal and state taxes. You are also in favor of raising the capital gains tax rate to 20-25 percent. How is all of this going to help an already struggling American economy? Are you not afraid, Senator Obama, that your big tax-and-spend initiatives will drive the economy straight into a recession?

Also, despite your claims of support for the Second Amendment rights for Americans, you have pledged to "ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons". You have stated that the DC law which prevented citizens from defending themselves was "constitutional" and you refused to join with 55 other senators to support the Supreme Court case opposing the DC gun ban. In 1996 you supported "banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns" in Illinois. In 2004 you voted against the DeMar self-defense bill to protect citizens who use handguns in self-defense in their homes and businesses. The bill was overwhelmingly voted into law despite a veto by the governor. You were one of only 20 state senators to vote against the bill. You have been endorsed by several anti-gun groups including the deceptively-named, American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA). It appears, Senator Obama, that you believe American citizens should not be allowed to defend themselves with firearms. How do you explain your anti-Second Amendment comments and actions?

On the cultural front, there is not a single issue on which you have broken with the positions of left-wing interest groups - from gay marriage, to abortion, to legalized drugs. Although you claim that you oppose gay marriage, in 2004 you said that you opposed the Defense of Marriage Act which was meant to prevent gay marriage from being imposed on the country without the consent of the American people. Shouldn't the people, rather than unelected judges, decide on the definition of marriage? You received a perfect 100% voting rating from NARAL over the past three years and you have stated that you oppose "notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions". You have also said that you support partial birth abortions. If you are elected president will you attempt to overturn the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003? How do you feel about the millions of babies who have been put to death by abortion? Also, you have admitted to using drugs in the past and you say that you favor decriminalizing the use of marijuana. Do you or do you not believe that drug use is harmful to our children? If you believe it is harmful why would you want drugs to be more readily available?

You have expressed your intent to name justices to the Supreme Court in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter - judges who have made decisions based more on their personal, political and moral views than on constitutional and legal principles. You said that you want judges who have "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old". You voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts - one of only 17 nay votes (all Democrats) - justifying your opposition by saying that difficult cases should be decided by "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspective on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy". As a lawyer, do you believe that issues should be decided based upon constitutional and statutory language? Or, should a judge make decisions based upon personal feelings? Do you believe that the will of unelected judges supersedes the votes of the American people?

Finally, you have made "hope" and "change" the centerpiece slogans of your campaign, promising fresh national unity and a higher purpose. The national media and young people, especially, love your idealistic rhetoric. But are you the unifier who you claim to be? Your voting record is among the most partisan in the Senate and you were rated the most liberal senator in 2007 by the National Journal, a non-partisan publication. Your policy agenda is more liberal than Hillary Clinton's or Ted Kennedy's or any Democratic nominee since George McGovern. The change that you advocate seems to be nothing more than a reversion to the failed big-government policies of the Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson administrations. If you are truly a unifier, which liberal policies are you willing to compromise for the sake of unity? What bi-partisan legislation are you prepared to support?

So far you have avoided answering any of these questions. The Democratic Party has nominated for President a freshman Senator with barely three years of national experience who most of America still barely knows. You are the least tested and least experienced nominee for the presidency in modern times. Are you prepared to do more than obfuscate, dodge and ignore the tough questions? America needs more than a smooth-talking, politically-correct, empty-suit President. What American voters want to know, Senator Obama, is who are you? Who, really, are you?

Take the online poll here: http://www.stevemc2.com

Recently our elected
representatives in Congress interrogated the heads of the major oil
companies (those evil corporations) and wanted to know why these
companies are making a profit for their stockholders. Of course, many of us are
stockholders either through our IRA's, our 401K's, or the stock market. But,
never mind that. "Big Oil" is the evil-doer and the cause for high
gas prices. Oh, really?

Did they forget
that drilling in ANWR is off limits, and drilling off the coast of Florida and California is also off limits, except for China, Venezuela and Cuba who have signed 100-year leases on the oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
Coal-to-oil technology, which has been around since the 1930s, is prohibited,
no dams can be built for hydro-electric power, and don't even think about
copying France which gets 80% of its energy needs from nuclear power. And
no windmills which only clutter the view of Senator Kennedy from his
summer cottage in New England. Meanwhile, there has not been a new refinery built in
over 30 years and the number of operational refineries has been cut in
half since 1982. The refineries that are in existence have to make
different blends of gasoline, allowing states like California to dictate what unique gasoline blends must be made for
them, further driving up the cost to produce gasoline. To add insult to
injury, several states (again, like California) and the federal government have imposed gasoline
taxes amounting to more than 15% of the price of gasoline, while
only 4% represents oil company profits. Of course,
Congress will not consider a reduction of the federal gasoline tax, even
for the summer months.

Instead, our genius
representatives have passed legislation that would allow us sue OPEC
- like that will accomplish something! Let's produce more ethanol
which costs $1.23 to make a dollar's worth of energy while driving the cost of
food through the roof. Great idea! Oh, and don't forget the recent action
to protect the polar bears and their habitat which makes the location of future
oil development off limits to drilling. Finally, because the oil
companies are making "too much money", our government is looking
at seizing any money that the legislators consider "windfall
profits". Hillary Clinton said she wants to "take that
money" and do something productive with it. (I guess that's how she
intends to pay for her government health care program).

Did Congress ever hear of the law of "supply
and demand"? World-wide demand for crude oil has increased in recent years
due to the rapid industrial growth of China,
India, and
other developing countries. Meanwhile, supply has been limited by OPEC and
foreign national oil companies, which control nearly 80% of world petroleum
reserves and benefit financially from limiting the availability of crude oil.
Many of these oil-producing countries are less than friendly to the US
(Venezuela, Russia,
Iran, and other
Middle East states). We have enough domestic natural
energy resources to allow the US
to be energy independent for centuries. According to most energy experts, oil
and gas reserves on federal lands hold an estimated 100-plus billion barrels of
recoverable oil. These areas hold an estimated 635 trillion cubic feet of
recoverable natural gas. Anywhere from 800 million to two trillion barrels of
oil are available from oil shale in Colorado,
Utah and Wyoming.
According to Mackubin Thomas Owens,
Professor at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and editor of Orbis, the journal of the Foreign Policy
Research Institute in Philadelphia, "If Congress really cared about
the economic well-being of American citizens, it would stop fulminating against
IOCs (investor-owned oil companies) and reverse current policies that discourage,
indeed prohibit, the production of domestic oil and natural gas. Even the
announcement that Congress was opening the way for domestic production would
lead to downward pressure on oil prices". Until Congress takes these steps
we will be held hostage to countries who want to cripple our economy.

So, tell me why, exactly are gas prices so high?

Take the online poll here: http://www.stevemc2.com

Have you seen the bumper
sticker that reads, "War Is Not the Answer?". I saw one the other day
and thought to myself, "That's a nice sentiment but it is a simplistic,
ill-informed slogan". In truth, war sometimes is the answer. There are
many anti-war protest groups, many of them formed on American university
campuses, which continue to believe that war never changes anything and should
never be considered, regardless of the consequences of not waging war. There
are few people who are pro-war but, when used as a last resort, war can often
be the answer. To believe that if we laid down our arms, all of our enemies
would reciprocate, is naïve and explains why most anti-war groups come from the
Left of the political spectrum. Most of those who hold these beliefs are
idealists who continue to advance the theory that man is intrinsically good by
nature despite historical evidence to the contrary. Would pacifism have
defeated the evil of Nazi Germany or imperialist Japan?
Would the communist "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union
have collapsed without the threat of missiles deployed on the European
continent and the buildup of the American nuclear arsenal? Would Hitler, Tojo
or Stalin have abandoned their militaristic actions if the rest of the world
had simply laid down their arms? Of course not. Our enemies, you see,
understand that war can change things. This is the reason that Osama bin Laden
and al-Qaeda have declared war on America
and the Western world. They realize that war is the answer for them to achieve
their goals of conquest. They will not capitulate to pacifism and bumper
stickers.

Democrat presidential
candidate Barack Obama has stated that he would meet unconditionally with representatives
of all the world's regimes, including Cuba's
Castro, Iran's
Ahmadinejad, and North Korea's
Kim Jong-Il. He believes that all problems can be resolved through dialogue and
negotiations. Once again, this is a naïve point of view. Former US
president Jimmy Carter recently traveled to the Middle East
to meet with the leaders of the terrorist group Hamas in order to engage in
"negotiations". The only thing he accomplished, as Hamas readily
proclaimed, was to give credibility to an organization which has the stated
goal to eliminate the state of Israel.
Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain during the 1930's,
believed that he could negotiate with Hitler and keep his country out of war
with Germany.
Joseph Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler believing that he could
spare Russia
from the militaristic ambitions of Nazi Germany. Both men came to realize,
almost to the point of the ruin of their respective countries, that negotiation
was not the answer it appeared to be. Those who hold ambitions of conquest,
whether they be Julius Caesar, Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, or Osama bin Laden,
have no interest in a negotiated settlement. In most cases, negotiations solve
nothing until a military victory has been achieved.

Another characteristic of the
anti-war Left is that they tend to believe that the aggressor is the victim.
Many believe that America's
foreign policies brought on the attacks of 9/11 and that the problems in the Middle
East are all the fault of America
or their ally, Israel.
Islamic extremists also want the world to believe this lie. The decline of the
Islamic civilization in the Middle East has been
advancing for many years and the region's only economic development was due to
the birth of the oil industry thanks to the investment by American and other
Western companies. Without this economic intervention, the region would be
nothing but a poor, undeveloped, uneducated Third-World ghetto. Al-Qaeda has
taken advantage of this state of affairs to wage a war of terrorism against the
democratic non-Islamic governments of the world. Unfortunately, the "War
is not the Answer" crowd has bought into the myth of American repression
of the Middle East. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy
Pelosi, Harry Reid, and most of the Democrat party leadership have all declared
that America
should withdraw from Iraq
and then the Iraqis will solve all their problems created by our invasion on
their own. Never mind that history has shown that precipitous retreat from a
battle usually results in catastrophic consequences. Those who want to compare
the war in Iraq
to the war in Vietnam
refuse to recognize the horrendous results from the American military
withdrawal in the previous war which resulted in the slaughter of millions in South
Vietnam and its neighbor Cambodia.

America
and her allies cannot simply unconditionally withdraw from Iraq,
return all of the troops home, and hope to peacefully negotiate a settlement
with Iran, Syria,
Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. America's
military has suffered more than 4,000 deaths during the war in Iraq
and, as terrible as that may be, a greater tragedy would be for us to lose the
war. We must do whatever it takes to win. Bumper stickers and slogans will
never lead to peace. Sometimes war is
the answer. War is the answer when it results in defeating an enemy which murders
innocents with suicide bombings, beheadings, and other acts of terrorism. War
is the answer when people can freely elect their representatives, live in
peace, and strive to achieve their dreams of happiness.

He's just going to keep on drifting further and further to the Left. Obama in February:"I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.I think it's important for us to recognize
that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership
generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for
sportsmanship, and for protecting their families.”

Obama now: “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

If you needed more, here is another reason NOT to vote for this idiot! Even Hillary Clinton is opposed to revoking concealed carry permits.

Take the online poll here: http://www.stevemc2.com

In
1968, while serving as an interrogator with the USMC, I was assigned to
the 11th ITT (Interrogation/Translation Team), 3rd Marine Division at
the prisoner-of-war (PW) compound in DaNang, Republic of Vietnam. One
of dozens of interrogations I conducted during my 13-month tour of duty
was with a rather interesting NVA (North Vietnamese Army)
prisoner-of-war who provided some unusual information. As part of our
procedures, our interrogation team members routinely asked PW's if they
had ever seen an American held prisoner anywhere. Occasionally, they
would answer they had seen Americans, sometimes in captivity, and once,
one was seen fighting alongside the enemy Viet Cong. We kept an album
with photographs of all our military personnel who were missing in
action and asked those who said they had seen an American to go through
the album. Only once, in all my interrogations, was a PW able to
identify a person from the photos. He said that he had witnessed an
American pilot who had been shot down over Hanoi being manhandled by
his captors while a crowd was cursing and spitting at him. He told me
that the pilot was held with others who had been captured and gave me a
description of the prison compound and its approximate location. The
American he identified from the photo was a US Navy Lt. Commander named
John McCain. For me, at that time, John McCain was just another Navy
pilot missing in action who had his photo in the album. I had never
heard of the man. I submitted my interrogation report and thought
little more about it. However, a year or two later, after I had
returned home to the States, I heard a radio news story about an
attempted rescue of American prisoners-of-war from a compound in
Vietnam. The location of the compound was not identified.
Unfortunately, everyone had been moved so there was no one at the site.
The news story reminded me of the interrogation I had conducted in
DaNang concerning the captured Navy pilot, Lt. Cmdr. McCain.

It
was 1973 when I first saw John McCain on television as one of the
returning prisoners-of-war from Vietnam. There he was - the American
from the photo that had been picked out by the PW I had interrogated
several years earlier. For those who may not know, John McCain was held
as a prisoner-of-war for five and a half years (1967-1973), much of the
time in solitary confinement. He retired from the Navy as a Captain in
1981. His naval honors include the Distinguished Flying Cross, Silver
Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, and Purple Heart. John McCain's
first person account of his time in captivity can be found here: John McCain, Prisoner of War.
Since that time, I have recounted this story to very few people,
however, a short time ago, I decided to send an email message to now
Senator McCain briefly telling him about my interrogation report of
1968. I have never received a response but I suspect his email is
screened and he has possibly never seen the message I sent.

John
McCain is now a candidate for President of the United States. The
senator is an honorable and patriotic man who has sacrificed much for
his country. I respect him greatly for his military service. As a
former trained military interrogator, I disagree with his views on
passive interrogation techniques for enemy combatants. I also disagree
with his positions regarding illegal aliens, President Bush's tax cuts,
oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, climate change
regulation, drug re-importation from Canada, and campaign-finance
legislation. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to win the
fight in Iraq, on finding and eliminating Islamic militants and
eradicating al-Qaeda and other terrorist factions. These are the most
dangerous threats to our country today. I will vote for Senator McCain
because we cannot elect someone as the next President of the United
States who will retreat in the face of evil. I know that John McCain
loves his country and I trust that he will never retreat. He will be an
outstanding Commander-in-Chief of our military.

Take the online poll at http://www.stevemc2.com

Consider this. If George Bush were running against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, how would you vote? What are Bush's positions in the following areas? Are they much different than those of John McCain or, perhaps, are McCain's positions more conservative than those of George Bush?

What McCain has promised to do, if elected:

1. Taxes: "I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I will cut corporate tax rates from 35 to 25% to keep industries and jobs in this country. I will end the Alternate Minimum Tax. And I won't let a Democratic Congress raise your taxes and choke the growth of our economy."

2. Health care insurance coverage: "I intend to address the problem with free market solutions and with respect for the freedom of individuals to make important choices for themselves."

3. Federal Judges: "I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend."

4. Iraq: "I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen."

5. Iran: "I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions."

6. Radical Islamic extremism: "I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us."

7. Second Amendment rights: "I have defended my position on protecting our Second Amendment rights, including my votes against waiting periods, bans on the so-called "assault weapons," and illegitimate lawsuits targeting gun manufacturers."

8. Life: "I have proudly defended my twenty-four year pro-life record."

9. Illegal immigration: "It would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration."

Summation: "I believe today, as I believed twenty-five years ago, in small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense, judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are the true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and unborn". (John McCain, Feb. 7, 2008 at CPAC Convention) Now that you have considered all of this, ask yourself, what are Clinton or Obama's positions on these issues?