Obama's Shameful Submission

President Obama’s recent bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito is nothing more than disgraceful.

Of course, we have seen this before.

Remember the president’s bow before the Saudi king in April?

The very idea of a man bowing before his leader, or any other man, seems completely outrageous.

Such is more in accordance with the theoretical underpinnings of the divine right of kings than with natural rights philosophy.

The United States was founded upon the principal of natural rights.

In fact, the opening line of the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” is a direct rebuttal of the notion of the divine right of kings.

If God directly empowers rulers, they certainly deserve to be bowed before.

However, if, as the Declaration of Independence claims, God gives certain rights to all individuals, it is up to them to give authority to rulers.

Fortunately, the Declaration of Independence tells us “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

As such, government officials deserve respect but not our complete reverence.

As far as his first bow is concerned, the president claims it was in fact no bow at all.

The most recent embodiment of bowing before a foreign leader was explained away as attempt to show cultural sensitivity.

Regardless of his claims, the act of bowing inherently shows more than cultural sensitivity.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “bowing” refers “to bend[ing ] the head, body, or knee in reverence, submission, or shame.”

So, was the president showing “reverence, submission, or shame?”

I can’t answer that, but I can say that bowing for any of these reasons is highly inappropriate, especially for the president.

The recent actions of President Obama are almost unprecedented, with exceptions made for the shameful bowing of both Clinton and Nixon.

Other than these deviations from tradition, American presidents have generally followed a protocol of not bowing to foreign leaders.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, the State Department’s protocol office has long advised that U.S. officials not bow to foreign leaders.

In fact, The New York Times reported that “the ‘thou need not bow’ commandment from the State Department’s protocol office maintained a constancy of more than 200 years.”

At least sense the Revolutionary War era, an apparent tradition of Americans rejecting deference to royalty has been in existence.

This can be seen, in part, through Constitutional prohibitions of “grant[ing ] any title of nobility.”

This rejection of the idea of deference to nobility is borne out in “The Shoemaker and the Tea Party.”

This book largely tells of the actions taken by a shoemaker, George Robert Twelves Hewes, during the Revolutionary War era.

Hewes recalls a time before the Boston Tea Party when he was forced to humble himself in the home of an elite Bostonian. By the Boston Tea Party, Hewes found himself dumping tea in the Boston Harbor alongside John Hancock.

Hewes’ recollections are not dissimilar to those of other contemporary men of modest means. These extraordinary events effectively caused Americans, especially those of modest backgrounds, to reject the idea that elites should ceremoniously be shown any degree of reverence.

Hewes makes this point when, in the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party, he said, “I doff my hat to no man on the streets of Boston.”

On top of rejecting American tradition, the president’s bow before the Japanese emperor promulgates the idea that both he and the United States are weak.

An academic source, with both sympathies for the Obama administration and great knowledge of the Japanese empire, told ABC reporter Jake Tapper that “The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms. The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.”

Why has the president chosen to bow before both the Saudi king and the Japanese emperor but no other world leader? Why did both he and the first lady break every protocol when meeting with Queen Elizabeth of England?

Only the president can answer these questions. Still, the American people deserve to know why President Obama has chosen to continually break American tradition and be the only world leader to bow before the Japanese emperor.

Without question, all men, world leaders or otherwise, deserve mutual respect. However, no man deserves our “reverence, submission, or shame.” Samuel West, a Patriot preacher, said as much in 1776 when he said, “Unlimited submission and obedience is due to none but God alone.”

May President Obama heed the words of Samuel West today!

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Wednesday, November 19, 2009

The Republican Party Isn't Dying

Just as Rush Limbaugh has been labeled the “titular head of the Republican Party,” I have seemingly been labeled the “titular head” of the conservative opinion staff by my colleague, Brennan Breeland.

Mr. Breeland seems concerned that I might be upset due to his quotation of Communist Party Chairman Mao.

As long as he does not share White House Communications Director Anita Dunn’s love of Mao’s political philosophy, I have no problem with the quotation.

However, I do take issue with Mr. Breeland’s assertion that the Republican Party is in danger because of conservative candidates, the success of talk radio, and its lack of liberals.

Essentially, my colleague, along with the Obama Administration, suggests that to be successful, Republicans should act like Democrats.

Why should we think that Democratic strategists desire a successful Republican Party?

Don’t they need Republicans to lose in order to win? In a two party system, this is the way these things work.

Apparently, my colleague has failed to examine Gallop’s latest breakdown of national and partisan ideology.

Forty percent of the electorate is conservative, 35 percent is moderate, and 21 percent is liberal.

Notably, the identification percentage levels for both conservatives and liberals are significantly higher than in the recent past.

The Republican Party is made up of 73 percent conservatives, 24 percent moderates and 3 percent liberals.

In contrast, the Democratic Party is much more divided in its ideological composition of 22 percent conservatives, 40 percent moderates and 38 percent liberals.

What do these numbers tell us?

To begin, it is evident that the United States remains a center-right country.

Given the Republican Party’s tradition of conservatism, it is not surprising that the overwhelming majority of Republicans are conservative.

Understandably, there is also a significant portion of conservative Democrats.

Predictably, a large percentage of Democrats are liberal, and almost no liberals are found among Republicans. Also, moderates make up large portions of each party.

If you haven’t noticed, the composition of each party mirrors almost exactly the ideology of the nation at large.

As far as elections are concerned, it seems Republicans would benefit from conservative to moderate candidates.

On the other hand, Democrats should likely run left-leaning moderates.

We have noticed these numbers and strategy in order to classify Mr. Breeland’s assertion that the Republican Party “continues to weaken and marginalize itself ” as a bit shortsighted.

To a degree, the Republican Party has weakened itself by moving too far to the left.

Before Mr. Breeland sucks all the air out of the room by gasping, let me explain.

It is not outlandish to assume that partisan candidates receive most votes from their party’s base.

Without support of these voters, a candidate would find it difficult to gather enough support to get elected.

This is why the Republican Party made a mistake when it selected Dede Scozzafava to run in the NY-23 special election.

Since both the electorate and the party’s base in the district are largely moderately conservative, it would seem most appropriate to have chosen a right-leaning moderate Republican.

Before you tell me, as many have, that Dede Scozzafava was this moderate candidate, let me inform you.

As an assemblywoman, Scozzafava compiled the second most liberal voting record in the entire state assembly. Only the Democratic speaker possessed a more liberal record.

This doesn’t sound like the moderate about whom I keep hearing. Oddly, the Democrat, Bill Owens, is likely much more conservative than is Scozzafava.

Even though Owens leans left, he probably comes closer to the district’s ideological preference than Scozzafava.

Undeniably, the conservative Doug Hoffman was hurt by having to split votes with Scozzafava.

The Republican Party has not become too conservative.

Its problem has been that it has often infuriated its own base by selecting left of center candidates.

This causes voters to become discouraged or uninterested.

Therefore, many voters hold their noses as they vote, vote for third-party candidates, or don’t vote at all.

Whatever the case, the Republican Party should not take advice from Mr. Breeland and the Obama Administration.

NY-23 aside, Republicans won major victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races.

They did this by running candidates who energized both their base and a majority of independents.

Truly, this is the formula for winning elections.

The party isn’t dead. In fact, its future is bright. The party will be successful in the future if it returns to its roots of solutions oriented conservatism.

This is exactly what worked for Christie in New Jersey and McDonnell in Virginia.

The words of President Reagan ring true even today.

The party must continue to “raise a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors, which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people.”

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Phasing Out the University One Resolution at a Time

Over my four years at this university, I have grown weary of the often successful attempts of the administration to eradicate time honored traditions.

The recent actions taken by the ASB, Faculty Senates and the administration are nothing new.

There exists a lengthy history of university officials distancing themselves from our traditions.

It is a mistake for us to imagine that each new controversy is a stand alone event. The truth is that each one is a battle in a larger war.

Thus, the latest controversy is only part of the war to rid our university of everything it has been since 1896, when the name Ole Miss was first applied to the yearbook.

A brief review of the history of the university’s vanishing traditions seems most appropriate.

Since 1983, faculty and staff have been banned from displaying any Confederate images in their offices.

1997 saw the passing of an ASB resolution which encouraged students to forgo displaying Confederate flags. In turn, this request brought about an administration imposed ban on sticks and flags larger than 12-by-14 inches.

In 2003, Colonel Reb was banned from being the official mascot.

Of course, the current battle is quite familiar.

In early October, the ASB Senate passed a resolution encouraging fans to stop chanting “The South will rise again.”

Instead, it suggested that fans should chant “to hell with LSU.” This same language was later approved, in a resolution, by the Faculty Senate during an emergency meeting.

“From Dixie With Love” has already been altered at the behest of Chancellor Dan Jones.

If the words “the South will rise again” are not stripped from the vocabulary of fans at Vaught-Hemingway, the song will be thrown on the ash heap of now unapproved traditions.

Some say fans should simply acquiesce to administration demands. They say this is the only way to save a beloved song and tradition.

I don’t feel the same way.

Is something really still a tradition when it is being phased out? Don’t fall for it.

The administration is trying to hoodwink us into giving up our right to free speech and expression.

I support free speech and the right of someone being able to chant or say whatever they like in a public setting, so long as no laws are broken. Unless someone is breaking a state law, the administration should stay out of it. I agree they have the right to forcibly stop the playing of a song, but where does it go from there?

There has been more than a little talk of how to actually get students to cooperate.

The resolution passed by the Faculty Senate says that university officials should admonish students who continue to participate in chanting “the South will rise again.”

Depending on how the word “admonish” is used, this could mean that the administration intends to notify uncooperative students of their having committed a fault.

What would this mean: an escort out of the stadium, expulsion from the university or other possible penalties?

The administration is treading a fine line between exercising its authority and limiting free speech and expression.

What happened to a free marketplace of ideas?

Oh, that’s right; I forgot that at every turn university officials have been unable to produce any good ideas for replacing our now defunct traditions.

If the goal of the administration has been to improve our image by ridding ourselves of potentially offensive traditions, it has done a very poor job.

While the chant “the South will rise again” is offensive to some, there are those who find “to hell with LSU” equally offensive. When someone says “to hell with LSU,” how can one not conjure up the idea that the speaker wishes for LSU fans to be sent to the eternal “lake of fire burning with brimstone?”

Everything said or done in public will never be acceptable to everyone.

I am offended by swearing; however, this is a big part of game day at Ole Miss. Instead of demanding that the administration remove chants which contain swearing, I support the right of people to say what they want.

I do this because I hope these same people support my right to free speech. This is what living in a free society is all about.

No matter what happens with the current controversy, don’t expect the war to be over.

Administrators will never stop until the University of Mississippi no longer has a name, a nickname, a mascot, a chant, a song or anything else that will ever call to mind the time when “Ole Miss [was] calling, calling, to our hearts fond memories.”

At that time our student body will be full of students with no voice who attend a university with no name.

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Wednesday, November 4, 2009

The Downside to Obama's 'Beta Male' Personality

A recent article appearing in the American Thinker discusses whether or not President Obama displays the characteristics of a beta male.

Recall that alpha males display traits of dominance and power.

Conversely, beta males typically display a desire to avoid confrontation.

Does it matter if President Obama is a beta male?

Many Americans seem to have been drawn to him due to such traits.

Possibly, many have grown tired of the alpha male tendencies of most of our recent presidents.

President Obama, unlike the alpha male leaders of most other countries, does not go about demanding that the world conform to what is in his own country’s best interest.

Instead, he tells rogue world leaders “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Obama displaying his beta male characteristics might serve him well in his own life. In fact, some people might decide that avoiding conflict in their personal lives leads to a greater degree of happiness.

To be certain, I have no problem with people taking this course of action in their own personal lives.

However, when the leader of the free world exercises his beta male characteristics, many are forced to accept the consequences.

The potential negative consequences of President Obama’s beta male tendencies can be seen in his encounters with Iran.

Earlier this year, the president had a rare opportunity to support the Iranians agitating for more freedoms.

Instead, the president remained silent in an attempt to avoid confrontation with the leaders of Iran.

The president has told us he strongly believes in international law.

In fact, before the UN General Assembly President Obama said, “The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.”

The president apparently forgot UN Security Council Resolution 1696 which requires Iran to “suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development.”

You might recall that representatives of both the United States and Iran met October 1 in order to discuss the threat posed by increasing Iranian nuclear capabilities.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the two nations had reportedly come to a preliminary agreement.

The “agreement in principle” would allow Iran to send low enriched uranium to Russia in order to be processed.

As can be seen, this agreement actually breaks Resolution 1696.

That sounds like international law really is an “empty promise.”

It certainly isn’t the enforcement of international law.

Not even the fact that Iran has admitted to operating a previously unreported nuclear facility has caused President Obama to take a firm stance against Iran.

Without question, the president tries to talk tough.

Concerning the new nuclear facility, Obama said, “The existence of the facility underscores Iran’s continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions and IAEA requirements.”

Once again, the president deflected conflict.

He tells us that this proves that Iran has consistently failed to meet its obligations; however, he will do next to nothing to stop it.

If President Obama hoped to bargain with the Russians in order to gain their aid in stopping Iran, he certainly did not do himself any favors.

The best potential bargaining chips were given to Russia for nothing.

The bargaining chips, of course, were the missile defense shields which were slated to be placed in both the Czech Republic and Poland.

In prototypical beta male fashion, President Obama tried to avoid potential conflict with Russia by forgoing missile defense.

In order to pacify the leaders of Iran, he has not supported dissidents.

Perhaps most dangerous to the security of the United States is the president’s unwillingness to take a tough stand on keeping nuclear weapons technology out of the hands of the Iranians.

At some point, the president must realize that avoiding conflict with other countries will not necessarily make them like us.

Many countries will never like us no matter what we do. It is not that their leaders hate us simply because of how our leaders conduct foreign policy.

Instead, leaders of rogue nations, such as Iran, are fearful of the United States because of our numerous freedoms.

It seems as though an alpha male would demand that Iran give up its nuclear program since it is against both international law and what is best for the United States.

Such a leader would also support doing whatever is necessary to ensure that the Iranians do not gain such technology.

Unfortunately, President Obama will continue to appease our enemies by avoiding and deflecting conflict.

The president’s beta male characteristics may have made him an attractive public figure.

However, these same characteristics will continue to put our country, as well as the entire free world, in grave danger.

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Thursday, October 15, 2009

Disagreement Is Not Racism

From the moment Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “You Lie!” during President Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress, a firestorm began to brew.

Of course, the extent of the fallout from those two words could hardly have been predicted.

I, like Rep. Wilson, did not believe the president was being fully honest in his assertion that illegal aliens would not be able to take advantage of “healthcare reform.”

I understand some are concerned with upholding the decorum of the House.

However, taking time to pass a resolution of disapproval was senseless, as well as unfair.

After the speech, Rep. Wilson apologized to the president.

Added to this is the fact that decorum rules were broken, without penalty, in 2005 when President Bush was booed by many Democrats.

By passing this resolution of disapproval, Congress did nothing more than waste the time of the taxpayers. Considering our own Rep. Travis Childers voted for this resolution, we should ask him what good it did.

Unfortunately, the wasting of taxpayer time and money is not the worst thing which has come from this situation. Many Democrats, have declared that by shouting “You Lie!” Rep. Wilson was spewing forth racism.

Referring to Wilson’s comment, Rep. Steve Cohen said, “I think there was a racial element.”

Rep. Hank Johnson, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, went so far to say that because of Wilson’s shout, “We will have people with white hoods running through the countryside again.”

Former President Jimmy Carter agreed that Wilson’s outburst was racially based by responding, “I think it’s based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

I never knew disagreeing with the president equaled racism.

In 2005, the Democrats, by booing, obviously made known their disagreements with President Bush. Were they racists? If not, they must have booed the president because they hate people from Texas. That makes sense right?

They booed President Bush because they didn’t like his opinions. Rep. Wilson shouted “You Lie!” because he disagreed with what Obama had just said. That’s the beginning and ending of the story. Why must politicians make such a big deal out of it?

As Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, said, “It’s very destructive for America to suggest that we can’t criticize a president without it being a racial act.”

You heard it here first—every criticism leveled at the Obama Administration is not due to racism. People have different world views. His view doesn’t fit with almost half the country.

What, then, do you expect?

I fully agree with what then Senator Hillary Clinton believed when she said, “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

She hit it on the head.

I’m tired of people saying that half the country is racist because it disagrees with Obama.

Last time I checked, we still live in a country where we possess a right to speak freely. I didn’t agree with Senator Clinton’s opposition to President Bush, but I definitely supported her right to declare her disagreement with him.

Those of us who disagree with the current president should be allowed the same leeway.

It is fine if you have a problem with Rep. Wilson having gone against rules concerning House decorum.

At the same time, it was outrageous to “discipline” him. The rules he broke have been largely ignored in recent years, as noted in the case of the booing Democrats.

On a deeper level, I have a great problem with anyone claiming that Rep. Wilson’s comments were either racist or racially charged.

Neither Senator Harry Reid nor Rep. Donna Edwards, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, agrees with this assessment.

More importantly, the president has accepted the apology offered by Wilson and has not considered his remark to be racially motivated.

Our leaders need to grow up and get to the business of discussing important issues.

Instead, all they can do is waste our time arguing over this while the economy suffers, the dollar weakens, the status of our health insurance remains up in the air, and our soldiers remain at war.

Ask your representative why he thought it was such a good idea to start enforcing decorum rules now.

Ask him why he decided to support the wasting of taxpayer time and money.

Most importantly, ask him why he is so quick to condemn Rep. Wilson for uttering two words at an inappropriate time but is so slow to condemn outrageous charges of racism being hurled at the same man.

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, September 21, 2009

Obama and Indoctrination

On Tuesday, President Obama spoke to children in schools across the nation. His supporters tell us that the president had no intention of indoctrinating America’s students. A look into the time warp of history should tell us a great deal about Obama and his beliefs concerning education. This should help us determine whether or not people have a right to be outraged over the fact that the president addressed school children.

Do you remember William Ayers? He is an avowed radical, left-wing terrorist. Maybe you also remember that the president was once chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). Who do you think started this organization, which was founded to improve the educational quality of Chicago schools? That’s right, Bill Ayers.

At the outset, in what kind of educational instruction do you think a radical, left-wing terrorist believes? If you guessed “radical, left-wing educational instruction,” you are correct.

The CAC was founded upon the idea that achievement scores are not very important. Instead, teachers should focus more upon instilling in both students and parents a desire to become politically radical. This is due largely to the fact that Ayers believes the American system is totally corrupt and oppressive. In fact, he said, “capitalism promotes racism and militarism.”

You are probably thinking, “Okay, Bill Ayers is a left-wing kook, but what does that have to do with the president talking to school children?” The connection between these two men and educational philosophy is so strong that you would have to overlook it on purpose in order to miss it.

Most of you are probably aware that President Obama has written two autobiographies. The only real executive experience of his life came during his chairmanship of the CAC from 1995 to 1999. Would it surprise you if I told you that he never makes mention of this in either of his two books? It shouldn’t.

He hasn’t told us about this experience because he doesn’t want us to know about his educational philosophy. While chairman of CAC, Obama conducted leadership seminars for ACORN, whose representatives then worked for him. All the while, money from CAC was being funneled to left-wing groups such as ACORN. However, money was denied groups who promoted more traditional approaches to math and science education. Obviously, this money disbursement strategy fits with the overall noted educational philosophy of both Ayers and Obama.

Don’t parents have the right to be concerned about the president speaking to their children? First of all, the majority of Americans believe that the public school system is not a place for politics. Civic instruction should be left to talking about the importance of voting and being involved in your community. The details of voting and community service should be left for discussion in the homes of the students. In other words, this should be the prerogative of a student’s parents—not his teachers.

Secondly, the president’s educational philosophy is one of a radical nature. As noted, Obama, as chairman of the CAC, promoted a view of teachers as community organizers. He wanted teachers to focus more on teaching kids about the evil nature of their communities, culture, and country instead of focusing on traditional instruction.

With these things being true, how could anyone disparage a parent, or any other concerned citizen, who didn’t want the president to speak to America’s school children? The educational philosophy of the president and his top aides at the Department of Education seemingly go against those of the majority.

To be certain, I support Obama’s right to have his own opinion concerning education. I just wish he would come to understand that people are exercising their freedom to disagree with his philosophy.

The federal government has already come to own several banks, not to mention two automobile manufacturers. It now desires to completely control the nation’s healthcare system. Enough is enough! It isn’t Obama’s “stay in school” message that scares people. Instead, it is the combination of our nation’s rapid leftward lurch and Obama’s radical, left-wing educational philosophy. The fact that Obama’s aides at the Department of Education originally developed an extremely questionable curriculum to accompany his speech only made things worse.

I personally don’t like the idea of any president addressing all of America’s school children. As I said, politics is something for children to discuss with their parents at home. Even if a political discussion does occur at school, it shouldn’t be “led and directed” by the president.

The president and the federal government are involved too much in our everyday lives, as evidenced by the president speaking to a captive audience of school children. President Obama needs to leave educational instruction “to the States respectively, or to the people.” For that was the original intent of the Framers of our Constitution.

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Friday, September 11, 2009

Obama Favors Single-Payer Healthcare

Throughout the summer, the entire country has been almost singularly focused upon the subject of healthcare.

Without a doubt, there has been much debate over how the bills being formulated in Congress would change the healthcare experienced by all Americans.

It should come as no surprise that it has been difficult for the truth to come to light. Instead of reporting Obama for his “fishy” comments, it is in this setting that I will reveal the true stances of the president and his cohorts.

Recently, the president has told us that he does not want a single-payer system to be instituted in the United States. In other words, he claims he does not wish for the federal government to become the insurer of all Americans. In order to find the truth, we should look much more closely at the president’s position on this particular issue.

In order to dispel the idea that the proposed public option is a means by which to obtain a system of nationalized healthcare, President Obama said, “Let me also address an illegitimate concern that’s being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system. I’ll be honest; there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe…that it’s important for our efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States. So when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They’re not telling the truth.”

This quotation alone should immediately raise flags of caution in the minds of Americans. President Obama flatly rejects the idea that he adheres to the notion of nationalized healthcare and argues that anyone who is concerned that he might hold this position does so in an “illegitimate” fashion. The fact that Obama believes “there are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well” should, at the very least, cause one to question the president’s honesty.

After examining the previous comments of the president in regard to this topic, the statement previously noted should cause us to react just as our fellow citizens have done all over the country at various town hall meetings.

In 2003, as a state senator, Obama said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on healthcare, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody…But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately.”

During the campaign, the president told us that it would be his commitment “to make sure that we’ve got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president...I would hope that we could setup a system that allows those who can’t go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort…I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out…”

Congressman Barney Frank said, “I think if we get a good public option it could lead to single-payer and that’s the best way to reach single-payer.”

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky revealed the true intention of the public option when she related the concerns of an insurance company employee who stated that “a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer.” Schakowsky emphatically responded to this comment by shouting, “He was right! The man was right!”

It can clearly be seen that the president, by his own admission, is a proponent of a single-payer healthcare system. Without a doubt, Obama’s falling poll numbers have led him to be less than genuine about his true feelings on the subject of single-payer healthcare. If he were to tell the American people the unadulterated truth, his presidency would be in grave danger.

President Obama didn’t count on the American people seeking the truth. Regardless, we have identified the true positions of the president and his colleagues. The words of Obama, Frank, and Schakowsky are more than enough for us to know the truth.

Don’t be fooled into believing the public option is not “a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.” This is exactly what the public option is. If instituted, we will be on a seemingly irrevocable march toward a single-payer healthcare system.

Stand against the socialistic intentions of the president and the liberals in Congress. Your concerns are legitimate. Write, call, e-mail, or protest in order to make your feelings known to your elected representatives.

--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Wednesday, August 26, 2009