What occurred in Newtown, Connecticut on that fateful December 14th morning was and remains heartbreaking. The sorrow being experienced by the families of the twenty innocent children killed, along with the loved ones of the other individuals slain must remain overwhelming.

This tragedy, purpetrated by a crazed, lone 20-year old gunman, has vaulted the debate over gun control to perhaps an unprecedented level. There is, without a doubt, some type of federal gun legislation on the horizon in early 2013, perhaps as early as Wednesday, January 16th. Liberals are calling for the further disarmament of the American people, which should come as no surpise, as they are on the wrong side of this issue and if they get their way, it will make America a more dangerous place and further reduce the independence of the American people.

You see, we’ve seen how strict gun laws affect crime. Take Chicago, for example, which has some of the strictist gun laws in the nation, and is a part of Illinois, which remains, at least for now, the only state in the Union that does not have a conceal and carry law.

During the first half of 2012, there were about 250 murders in Chicago. That represents a 38% increase over the same period of time in 2011. To make matters worse, the nation overall was experiencing a decline in murders over the same period. Therefore, Chicago was bucking the trend of the nation. Simply put, more gun control in Chicago has produced more deaths resulting in Chicago becoming one of the most dangerous cities in America.

Stricter gun control leading to greater homicides, and specifically homicides by firearm, is not a phenonenon relegated to the U.S. In fact, a Harvard University study titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence” found that the nine European nations with the lowest levels of gun ownership per capita had an aggregated murder rate three times that of the nine nations with the highest levels of gun ownership.

The plain truth is that gun control laws make those writing and passing the laws feel that they’ve done something meaningful, never mind the fact that they don’t deter crime by firearm.  In fact, it’s likely that none of the proposals that President Obama will lay out on Wednesday would have stopped the horrific tragedy in Connecticut.

So, given that the numbers are against liberals regarding more gun control and less violence, why do liberals hate guns? Why are they so adament over the need to reduce the total number of guns owned by Americans if it doesn’t make the streets safer?

What you have to understand is that, for liberals, the gun control debate isn’t actually about guns. It’s about supressing power. To be more specific, it’s about whether power should lie with the people or with the government. Liberals, of course, side with government.

Gun ownership puts power into the hands of the people and therefore they are less dependent on the government. Owning a gun at the time of need gives the law-abiding gun owner the ability to make the decision as to whether the use of force is lawful, right, and justified. The American Left doesn’t believe ordinary citizens have the ability to make such decisions, hence their love affair with gun control.

Liberals prefer major life decisions to be made by the government. Consider issues such as government-run healthcare, the redistribution of wealth via the progressive tax system, and the lack of school choice as just a few examples that run parallel to their “government knows best” mentality present in those calling for more gun control and less overall guns. Again, it’s not about the guns, it’s about whether the people or the government should have the power.

Owning a gun makes a citizen more independent from his government. Visit the more rural areas of this great nation, which with no coincidence less liberals live, and you will find high levels of gun ownership and rightfully so.

These folks may be several miles from a police station. They cannot rely on law enforcement to stop a would-be assailant in their homes when law enforcement officials may be ten, twenty, or more miles away. There just isn’t enough time.

That brings us back to the tragedy of Newtown. You see, the government failed to protect the lives of those twenty kids and the adults. Government, in the form of the police and the school district, did their best. The rules were followed in not allowing the killer easy access to the building and the area police arrived in only a few minutes. But, the police weren’t quick enough as is often the case in a homicide situation. By the time officers arrived to school grounds, the killer had shot dozens of times.

Government simply failed, though not because of a lack of effort. It was impossible for government in the form of the police, with the time limitations persent in this tragedy, to save those killed in the school building. Government could not have save those people. There wasn’t enough time.

In fact, the only thing that could have stopped the killer that fateful day was a mortal wound to the killer shot via a gun in the hand of someone in that school building. This is an undeniable fact. The killer, who obviously wasn’t interested in the law at the time of the killing, could have stolen the guns to do the horrible dead, or obtained the guns in some other illegal way. Banning some so-called assault weapons wouldn’t have stopped this tragedy. Only a bullet to the killer would have, but nobody in that building could have lawfully carried a loaded weapon.

In the end, of course, it was a gun that ended the killer’s life. While the murderer used his own gun to kill himself, it was the threat of retaliation from the guns of law enforcement that caused him to take his own life. His life could have ended much earlier and perhaps two dozen or more lives saved if someone armed in the school would have had the capability to shoot him. However, they were absent the power since the school was a gun-free zone.

A lesson from the Newtown tragedy is that government is limited in its ability to protect the citizens of this nation. It always has been, hence the Founders placing the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution. In these cases, the people need to have the powere to protect themselves, a power that was sorely absent in Newtown.

Liberals are simply on the wrong side of this issue. They are putting their passion for government power and intrusion ahead of the safety of the American citizens, whether they be in their homes, schools, or anywhere else in which they are threatened with their life.

Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest. He can be reached at stafko@msn.com

Democrats are scurrying about like roaches when the light’s turned on, as panic is setting in among some top Democrats that President Obama may lose his reelection bid.  In fact, a recent report released by notable Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville was characterized by deep concern that Obama is in trouble.

That should come as little surprise given the continued high unemployment rate that has become a defining characteristic of the Obama presidency.  Perhaps, it might be said that Obama’s appeal is increasingly waning due to the overall weak economy or that Obama’s healthcare mandate, which was enacted against a majority of Americans’ wishes, could cost him the election.

Let’s face it and leading Democrats know, if the election is about the economy and jobs, President Obama will lose, and potentially lose by a significant and perhaps an unthinkable level.

The Obama campaign is, of course, well aware that the economy and jobs are Obama’s Achilles Heel in this election.  The best characteristic he has going for him as it relates to the electorate is that his likability factor is still exceptionally high.  That is why the Democratic Party and Obama officials are now, and will continue to, make this election not about the economy and jobs, or even ObamaCare.  Instead, the Obama campaign wants this election to be about race and to characterize any opposition to Obama and his policies to, at the very least, have a hint of racism behind it.

As you may recall, President Obama recently lost about 40% of the vote in the democratic primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia.  Cries of racism have filled the air.  After all, how could a sitting president who is running virtually unopposed possibly lose 40% of the primary votes?  And, in West Virginia, how could the President lose 41% of the vote in the Primary to a convicted felon who, ironically, could not even vote himself, and, who you might note, is Caucasian?  It seems Democrats believe racism against Obama is even prevalent within their own Party.

Add to the fray last week’s Presidential Executive Order in which President Obama essentially granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who are less than 30 years old and who came to America before they were 16.  While the White House denies that their motivation was political, the belief among some was that Marco Rubio was soon to propose legislation that granted a very limited amount of amnesty to some illegal aliens.  Were Rubio to do that and Romney also choose Rubio as a running mate, Obama’s huge voting edge with the Hispanic voting bloc could have been significantly reduced.

That move by President Obama, as recently noted in a Washington Post piece, allows a huge influx of eligible workers among the under-30 population.  This segment of the population, and especially those who are recent college grads, is experiencing atrocious levels of unemployment and this will only add to the percentage of unemployed.  One might see this as catastrophic in regards to the Obama campaign capturing the overall under-30 voting bloc. 

But, what President Obama is likely to do in order to mitigate the loss of voters among the under 30 crowd, is to cast this as a Civil Rights issue and compare it to when blacks were fighting to be treated equally.  He will appeal to the tendency for us not to appear racist in our own minds and by framing it that way, then only those who are “racist” will oppose granting citizenship to the millions of, mostly Hispanic, illegals in this country.  He will vault himself up as a Champion of Civil Rights, this generation’s Martin Luther King Jr. if you will, and a fighter on behalf of all people who live in America, citizens or not, so that all have a chance at greatness.  It’s a nice, emotional message which will be designed to make this election about “civil rights” versus jobs.  Again, Obama loses on jobs, but civil rights is an emotionally appealing issue.

Obama has had plenty of leftists on his side of late in terms of stoking an aura of racism in the race for the presidency.  After President Obama was recently heckled at a news conference, Democratic strategist Julian Epstein quipped on MSNBC, “We’ve never had a white president been told by the opposing party to shut up in the middle of a major address to the Congress. We’ve never had a president like this heckled so disrespectfully.  We’ve never had this otherness afforded to any other president and I think the right wing has some explaining to do because to me it’s patently obvious.

Add to this a recent report from an economics doctoral student at Harvard, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, in which Stephens-Davidowitz claims that race, or better said racism, cost Obama up to five percentage points in the 2008 election against Senator John McCain and that he may well lose a similar amount of votes this November.  Among the states Mr. Stephens-Davidowitz claims has especially racist voters are the swing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio.  Interestingly and perhaps to no surprise, Mr. Stephens-Davidowitz has ties to the Obama administration.

For Obama, success in the November election will be be largely dependent upon the degree to which his campaign and his Democratic allies, both in politics and the media, can move the election judgement bar away from the economy and towards race, or as it will be called “civil rights”.  His will be a message that, for the good of the nation, civil rights trumps the economy.

Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest.  He can be reached at stafko@msn.com

He is perhaps the ultimate presidential candidate in the eyes of Republican insiders. He has plenty of his own capital to spend on the campaign and Romney has strong connections within the Republican establishment, including endorsements from current Senators John McCain (AZ), Scott Brown (MS), Roy Blunt (MO), former RNC Chairman and Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, along with current Governors Chris Christie (NJ), and Nikki Haley (SC). Romney is also considered a relative moderate in his positions.

In fact, Romney has far more endorsements from those within the Repubilcan Party than do the other candidates vying for the nomination.

“It’s his to lose”, some might say when speaking of Romney and therein lies the problem. It’s that idea which seems to be permeating among Republicans instead of an attitude, again of Romney, that “it’s his to win”. It’s as if Republican insiders are pulling for a candidate who won’t lose the election due to his moderate positions and that thereby Obama will beat himself with his atrocious economic record and lack of leadership. In other words, the GOP is calling for, in football terms, a Prevent Defense in order to win the Super Bowl of politics, the 2012 Presidential Election.

Ask yourself where the excitement is among non-establishment Republicans for the Romney campaign, an idea recently put forward by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show. The extent of the excitement over Romney seems to be that he is not Obama. The excitement is not over the candidate himself but who he is not. Sound familiar?

It appears similar to 2004 when the Left seethed in hatred towards President George W. Bush and he seemed vulnerable to follow in his father’s shoes and become a one-term President. The Democratic Party served up a rather dull Northeastern Democrat, Senator John Kerry, and to the shock of Democrats who thought Bush was incompetent and a failure in the White House, Bush escaped defeat and won a second term. Perhaps a more passionate and inspiring candidate would have defeated Bush. We’ll never know.

Who does Romney inspire? Santorum is able to fire up the social conservatives who dream that next year’s 40^th anniversary of Roe V. Wade will be the last such anniversary. Ron Paul excites those who are frustrated with the bloated federal government as well as the libertarians among the GOP. Even Newt Gingrich manages to ignite some passion with his tough and pointed jabs. The excitement, fervor, and enthusiasm on the Republican side seems to exist not in the frontrunner, but in the other aspiring candidates. That hardly seems like a recipe for success.

Furthermore, arguably the one issue that has ignited the most fervor among Republicans during Obama’s presidency, ObamaCare, is one in which Mitt Romney will have a difficult time fighting, as his healthcare plan in Massachusetts was eerily similar to that proposed by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

The concern for Republicans should be similar to those of us who are football fans when we see our favorite team turn to a Prevent Defense in order to close out a game in which they have a slight lead. Many times we see the opposing team accept the short gains given to them and suddenly they are at the cusp of the end zone and by that time it’s too late and our favorite team has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. As fans, we then look out onto the field in shock and dismay, perplexed and wondering how our team managed to lose when victory seemed inevitable.

With only ten months until the election, Republicans rightly see Obama as a vulnerable candidate. His favorability rating currently stands at 46% and the unemployment rate, though it has decreased lately, still remains historically high. While Obama is a weak candidate, he is the incumbent and victory for the Republican Party is far from certain.

Should Obama square off against Romney in a general election, certainly Obama lacks any big-gaining offensive plays (meaning policy successes in political terms). But by employing a class warfare strategy, placing Romney as the face of the 1% and Obama as the Defender of the poor and middle class, Obama may be able to slowly make his way down the Electoral College field. Then top operatives in the Republican Party will watch with dismay and shock when an election that was theirs to win instead results in a disappointing and unnecessary defeat.

Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest. He can be reached at stafko@msn.com

Social issues have lagged in importance among voters versus issues such as national defense and the economy over the past couple of presidential and mid-term elections. With less than a year and a half to go until the next election, the economy, jobs, and national defense continue to be front and center.

However, the major social issues of the day, abortion and same-sex marriage, have been in the news more of late and could conceivably become a bigger player in the minds of voters as the elections draw nearer. For example, in Texas, Governor Perry is expected to sign soon legislation requiring that pregnant women seeking an abortion first have a sonogram and wait at least 24 hours after seeing the results of the sonogram before having an abortion.

Texas in not alone. In fact, dozens of states have measures on the table to restrict abortions. The Guttmacher Institute, a New York not-for-profit research group, estimates that 49 states introduced 916 measures related to reproduction during the first quarter of 2011. A majority of those were designed to restrict abortion in some way.

Then on the issue of same-sex marriage, the Navy recently announced that its chaplains will be allowed to conduct marriages of same-sex couples. In New York, there is a major campaign underway to legalize same-sex marriage, while efforts are currently underway to block same-sex marriages in Indiana, Minnesota, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Therefore, with social issues garnering increased headlines, it conceivably puts these issues in the forefront of voters’ minds come next November. Given the increase then in the news of these issues, coupled with today’s delicate balance of the Supreme Court, where social issue debates tend to land, social Conservatives have good reason to be energetic about the 2012 campaign. The stakes are indeed high.

Of course, the big prize in 2012 is the Oval Office. If nothing else, the President nominates potential justices of the Supreme Court. Right now, Conservatives or better said “constructionists”, in context of the Constitution, hold a slim 5-4 majority on the Bench. Justices Thomas, Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Kennedy are among the majority, while Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagen, and Breyer represent the minority.

The status of the Court, however, could very well look quite different in the next four to five years, depending on who is in the White House. Right now, four of the seven justices are over 70 years old (Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer), with two from the Right and two from the Left. So there is the potential for a shift in the Court simply due to age.

If Obama were to win a second term and all four justices were to retire, pass away, or become unable to serve for any reason, liberals could enjoy a 6-3 majority, with potentially all liberal justices at 62 years of age or younger, as Sotomayor and Kagen are presently 56 and 57 years of age, respectively. That could present then a liberal majority for the next several years—a near impenetrable barrier for conservatives in their battle over social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

Granted, it is unlikely that four Supreme Court Justices would be replaced in Obama’s next term. The more likely scenario is that at least one Justice will be replaced and if the individual is a conservative-leaning member of the High Court, then so much for the conservative majority.

Conversely, should a Conservative Republican be the 45^th President of the United States and one or both of the left-leaning justices part ways with the Court, then Conservatives could enjoy a 6-3 or even a 7-2 advantage. With that level of margin, Conservatives could ramp up their efforts to overturn Roe V. Wade and make other judicial inroads into major social issues.

In the context of the Supreme Court, it is the Senate, of course, which ultimately has the power to confirm or deny the nomination for the Bench with a simple 51-vote majority. Democrats currently hold the majority, 53-47 and have held the majority throughout Obama’s term in office, thus allowing him to nominate and eventually have confirmed both Sotomayor and Kagen.. However, of the 33 seats up for grabs next November, 23 are now held by Democrats, while Republicans only have to defend 10 seats. That gives the GOP a clear edge in its efforts to recapture majority status in the Senate and, coupled with a presidential election victory, having complete control over any addition to the Court.

While there is the potential for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, or more probable, one banning same-sex marriage, these issues seem more likely to be decided by the Supreme Court. Control over the Court for many years to come may be determined by who wins in 2012. For Conservatives passionate about the right to life and the sanctity of marriage, victory in this election is vital.

Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest. He can be reached at stafko@msn.com

Now, again we’re back to some numbers.  Ours is a progressive income tax nation.  That means if you earn more, then you pay a higher income tax rate, or percentage of your income.  You also, therefore, pay a higher amount of actual money.  So, the individual who earns more than the other person and thus is in a higher tax bracket, pays more tax as a percentage of his income and pays more actual dollars, all things being equal.

Therefore, it stands to reason that if we want to jumpstart the economy by putting more money into the hands of consumers, the largest economic effect would come from reducing taxes on the higher tax brackets, both in terms of actual dollars and a percentage of their income. This is because, in theory, these folks pay the most dollars of taxes.

Not only is this theory, but it’s actually factual.  According to The Tax Foundation, the latest data available, which are reflective of 2008 taxes and income, show the following:

-The top 1% of taxpayers earned 20% of total adjusted gross income among all taxpayers and paid 38% of all federal income taxes.

-The top 0.1% (10% of the top 1%) of taxpayers earned nearly 10% of total adjusted gross income among all taxpayers and paid 18.5% of all federal income taxes.

-The top 5% of taxpayers earned 34.7% of total adjusted gross income and paid 58.7% of total federal income taxes.

Now, think of this in reverse.  Suppose someone was not interested in boosting the economy, but wanted to contract consumer spending and thus economic growth.  What might be the best way to do this?  The answer, of course, would be to raise taxes, especially those of the upper income tax brackets.

That is exactly what President Obama campaigned on and promised to do back in 2008 and what House Democrats still want to happen—that is for federal income taxes and a host of other taxes to rise for all Americans.

Were the “Bush Tax Cuts” to expire, the top tax bracket would have increased from 35% to 39.6%.  The next highest bracket would have moved from 33% to 36%, while the bracket below that would have jumped to 31% from 28%, and the next bracket down would have increased to 28% from 25%.  Furthermore, the 10% tax bracket, would’ve jumped from 10% to 15%.  That move from 10% to 15% would have been the highest tax increase, in percentage terms, of all the tax brackets!  So much for the liberal mantra of taking care of the working class and poor of this country, let alone everyone else.

Putting this altogether, how can President Obama and the Democratic Party say with a straight face that they are for a stronger U.S. economy when they have vigorously fought to contract the largest component of economic growth in this country, consumer spending?  They cannot. 

Their desires to increase taxes merely reflect a strong desire to redistribute the existing wealth and future wealth of this nation.  It is a lesson worth learning that if the GOP had not won the House majority in the last election and made major inroads in the Senate, then the redistribution of wealth would have most certainly occurred.

Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest. He can be reached at stafko@msn.com

The rich are often portrayed as evil, heartless, and swimming in greed, seeking only to make more and more money for themselves at the expense of everyone else without a hint of compassion.

Yet again, this stereotype is proving itself wrong, as some of the wealthiest individuals in the United States and abroad are coming together to form an unparalleled philanthropic effort.  This effort could result in millions of lives saved and billions of changed lives for the good for years and decades to come.

The effort, labeled “The Giving Pledge” is the brainchild of Microsoft founder Bill Gates and world renowned investor Warren Buffet.  The effort is designed such that ultra-wealthy individuals agree to donate a majority of their wealth to various philanthropic causes. 

Some of the more than 50 donors who have agreed to the pledge include investor Carl Icahn and AOL co-founder Steve Case.  The most recent addition to the group is the 26-year old founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg.  Over the course of the next several years, this could result in hundreds of billions of dollars being used for a variety of health and education causes, among other efforts, both in the United States and worldwide.  To get an idea on the impact that this could have, consider the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Foundation, which was created in 1994, gave away $3 billion in 2009 and, since its inception, has donated nearly $24 billion to various causes in America and abroad.  Of these efforts, some $14 billion has been given to support a number of global health initiatives, including the prevention and fighting of HIV/AIDS, primarily in Africa, tuberculosis, pneumonia, and malaria prevention and treatment, and other efforts to fight devastating diseases.  Thousands of lives have likely been saved by the Foundation’s vaccination programs against some of the most deadly diseases the world has ever known.

Bill and Melinda Gates, Warrant Buffet, and the other billionaire donors realize that this wealth can save and enhance lives around the world.  Granted they are extremely wealthy, but to agree to give away a majority of your wealth is still quite a gesture and it flies in the face of the often propagated notion that the rich just hoard all their wealth at the expense of everyone else.

In fact, according to a recent report from Barclays Capital, the wealthy of the United States are the most charitable individuals among a number of developed nations and were ranked number three among other countries in the time spent on charitable causes. 

The research shows that the rich, as a whole, are not what they are portrayed to be by the American Left.  Wealthy Americans are interested in giving back via philanthropic efforts to various causes in which they believe make a difference in their communities, nation, and the world.

So, when Democrats laud the necessity of taxing the rich because “they can afford it”, they fail to realize or more likely simply ignore the idea that increasing the taxation on the rich could and probably will result in less funds being donated to charitable causes.  Who, then is most disadvantaged by the drop in charitable giving?  It is none other than the poor who are the typical benefactors of charitable organizations.

Simply put, the wealthy of this nation want to help their fellow man and believe that this is best accomplished through philanthropic giving and involvement.  There is no need to continue expanding government services for those in need of help.  Would it not be more logical for the government to get out of the way and let the wealthy divert more funds towards philanthropic organizations and then let these organizations, which tend to be much more efficient than government programs, do what they do best?

Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest. He can be reached at stafko@msn.com

These changes include signing a law forcing Americans to buy health insurance.  Plans are to also push for a law that could shut down the primary source of business and communications, the internet, in the event that the President deems it necessary.  Add to these the unprecedented increase in government spending of which would make FDR and Woodrow Wilson proud, not to mention other potential government intrusions, and yes change has to come to our great country in most extraordinary fashion.

As we have seen, change for the sake of change is not always good.  What America desperately needs is change from within.

When our Founding Fathers broke free from the tyrannical rule of King George and declared their independence, they did so out of a thirst for freedom and disgust with a government that ruled against the will of the people.  Perhaps at no time since our country’s founding has the government ingrained itself into the lives of its people as it has today.

Imagine the outcry of men such as Sam Adams and Thomas Paine at the mere suggestion that the government force its people to purchase anything.  These and other founders would have been appalled at the belief that their newspapers, like is being proposed for talk radio and other forms of media, be forced to provide equal time and space for opposing viewpoints.

The words of a Founding Father and our second President, John Adams, ring true today, “The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”

Sadly, a growing number of us bow to the throne of government, fully dependent on it for our daily substance, thus it is growing difficult to protest the very hand that is feeding us.  By supplying the basis physical needs of so many, government is growing ever more powerful.  Soon, a majority of Americans will be voting for officials who will be the very people who supply all their physical needs—a frightening thought indeed.

We conservatives need to be a more vocal people regarding the increased government intrusion into our lives, to make our voices be heard.  We believe the words of Thomas Jefferson, “The government that governs the best, governs least.”  But why are we so silent?  Those who fought and died so that this great nation of freedom could be established and sustained were not quiet when their freedoms were challenged. 

How many of us mutter to ourselves or only to those with whom we have agreement when we are frustrated with the freedom-grabbing power and bankrupting policies of this administration?  Perhaps, we fear our government more than we care to admit.

This battle for our freedom does not take place with guns and ammunition, rather it is a battle of ideas and one we conservatives must win for the sake of our nation.  The undercurrent of anger needs to become visible and audible to those in office and those running for office.  This battle does not begin or end on Election Day, 2010.  It begins now with freedom-loving Americans sharing their convictions with a neighbor, friend, or coworker. 

We stand at a pivotal time in our nation’s history.  The outright stripping of our freedoms and the bankrupting of our nation has been appalling under this administration – and it’s only been in power for 18 months.  Imagine how many more freedoms and how much further unabashed government spending will occur in the next two and a half years of this President’s rule.  Dare we even consider what we might experience if President Obama won a second term?

Just imagine and it should motivate us to help steer this nation back on course, a course that began over 230 years ago.  We freedom-loving Americans can take back this country with undaunted effort and unquenchable passion.  The words of a founding father, Sam Adams, are as appropriate today as they were then, “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”

Let us be a people as Sam Adams described and right this ship.  Our country is better than this.  We are better than this.

Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest.  He can be reached at stafko@msn.com

Obama Administration—An Experiment in No Experience

It wasn’t supposed to be this way.  When 52% of American voters cast their ballots for Barack Obama in November 2008, they were voting for a candidate who was unique—a Washington outsider, who promised change.

In fact, Obama was a political experiment.  All of us have wondered what it would be like to pick a man off the street and stick him into the Oval Office as our nation’s president.  Many movies have been made and fictional books written on just such a subject.  We’ve wondered if perhaps a common man with little experience might serve as president just as well as anyone else.  Obama has proved that such is a woeful idea.

After serving three terms in the Illinois Senate, Obama was in the midst of his first term as a U.S. Senator when he was elected President of the United States.  Obama came to the presidency without executive experience in business, not-for-profit, or government.  His leadership experience consisted of leading small groups of individuals in protest towards various entities. 

It is this lack of experience both from Obama and his administration that is causing a devastating effect upon this nation.  What we have learned from the Obama presidency is that eloquence does not trump experience and that leadership is found in actions rather than words.

Consider Obama’s disastrous handling of the BP oil spill and how he appeared to be disengaged from the entire fiasco until several days following the spill. Add to that his hasty reactions on race relations during the Henry Louis Gates episode and most recently regarding Shirley Sherrod at the USDA. Quick to react and quick to speak with little knowledge of the situation are far from ideal leadership qualities.

Then there was the President forcing through health care reform legislation earlier this year when poll after poll showed that a majority of Americans believed the program to be unnecessary and too expensive. Furthermore, we’ve seen reckless and irresponsible squandering of the people’s money and unprecedented government intervention into business such that even members of his own political party are leery of following their leader.

This president simply appears to never know if a wound needs a band-aid or stitches. Perhaps this is due to the fact that he is new at all this leadership and decision-making stuff.

Before Barack Obama was elected President, experience was believed to be an important characteristic of the man who would lead the free world as President of the United States.  A number of our nation’s presidents were first leaders in the military, including George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower.  Decisions these men and others with similar experience made were matters of life and death even before they became president. 

Still others, in fact many in recent history, honed their leadership skills and gained their executive experience as governor of a state first before becoming the Commander-in-Chief of our country. 

President Reagan gained valuable knowledge and wisdom governing the state of California, while Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also first served as a governor before occupying the Oval Office.  They dealt with fiscal matters of taxation and government spending on the state level and they gained experience in commanding the military when mobilizing the National Guard. 

Barack Obama had no such experience.  His rise to the presidency is akin to having a cafeteria manager suddenly elevated to Chief Executive of a large food-service company. 

One might reason that surely such an inexperienced president would then have within his Cabinet individuals with much hands-on experience in their respective disciplines. However, even this is not the case, as the inexperience vacuum even permeates into the Cabinet. Nearly all the Cabinet members are ex-politicians and members of academia.

Look at the head of the Commerce Department for example. Gary Locke is the Commerce Secretary. Secretary Locke has no executive business experience. Here we have a man without business experience who is in charge of the nation’s business and industry in what have become difficult economic times. Were there no former or current CEOs available who had actually run a successful business?

America has a President who is essentially winging it, going about his duties by trial and error because, aside from the Ivory Tower theories of is advisers, he has nothing else from which to base his decisions. It is an experiment gone horribly awry.

Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest.  He can be reached at stafko@msn.com

Chad Stafko

1205 South State

Freeburg, IL 62220

618.977.6683