Since 1932, when Franklin D. Roosevelt announced his “New Deal,” the Democratic Party has stood for redistribution of power and wealth from “big business” to the workers. It signaled the beginning of the Democratic Party’s liberal agenda, which included government control of the economy, control of prices, the expansion of welfare programs and the increased importance of unions. Amongst other social issues, the modern Democratic Party has added to their platform, environmentalism, abortion rights, embryonic stem cell research, a national government health care system, a higher minimum wage and a progressive tax system that places higher tax burdens on those that earn more money.

After one wades through all of the hope and change rhetoric, Senator Obama’s positions are really no different than the rest of the Democratic Party. One only has to look at his voting record to see this. When he has bothered to vote (he has missed more than 38% of the votes during the current congressional session), he has voted with the rest of the Democratic Party nearly 97% of the time. For a candidate promoting change from the “politics of the old,” and “new hope” for the citizens of this country, Senator Obama has done little but to toe the party line.

Barack Obama has differed from his party’s positions on just one significant vote. In that one, he voted against a bill that provided funding to the troops for the war in Iraq, increased funding for hurricane relief to Gulf Coast residents, provided funding for increased port and mass transit security as well as increased funding for children’s health care, mine safety research and youth violence protection activities. This vote, to be sure, is in direct contrast to the views of the Democratic Party. Ironically, the majority of the programs that were to receive funding are ones that he purports to support.

One of the significant votes that he skipped was a bill that implemented recommendations by the 9/11 commission for changes to the Homeland Security Act. Specifically, this bill included provisions for the inspection of all cargo traveling on passenger aircraft as well as grants to improve the ability of first responders to react to and prevent terrorist attacks. One can only wonder why Senator Obama did not feel the need to vote on these issues, considered crucial in the country’s efforts to thwart terrorism.

There is very little difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in terms of their voting records. Like Senator Obama, Hillary also has voted along Democratic Party lines 97% of the time. She was one of only nine other Democrats to vote “no” to the same bill that Obama did. In addition, she also opposed the Democratic majority position when she voted against providing tax breaks to oil and gas companies for providing innovative ways of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The main difference is, that Hillary isn’t pretending to be anything other than a Democrat. She has made no false proclamations of being part of a new political order.

John McCain, on the other hand, appears to be the candidate most capable of bipartisanism. He deviated from the Republican Party’s position on bills 12% of the time. On bills of significance, he made waves in the Republican Party by voting for embryonic stem cell research and for voting for tighter border security with a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. He has, in fact, been labeled as a “maverick” for his unwillingness to toe the party line on several key issues.

Clearly, Barack Obama’s track record differs from his message of new hope and new politics. According to the “National Journal,” Senator Obama was the most liberal member of Congress in 2007. This is hardly in line with his rhetoric and shows that he is just another Democrat with a nice smile and a lot of empty words. If the country is truly seeking the candidate that is most likely to get things done; if we really want a President that can get Congress to work together, it seems clear that the Republican candidate is offering the only hope in that direction for a change. Who knew?

Creationism is not a subject that belongs in the science class. I can only imagine the disdain that a science teacher would have for the subject matter. When I went to school, back before the atheistic minority took over our public school system, the book of Genesis was taught as a work of literature in English class.

The Bible is, after all, a book. Like “The Canterbury Tales,” “Beowulf,” and “The Stranger,” we read the Bible and discussed it as literature during my senior year of high school. There were no sermons. There were no prayers. There was only thoughtful discussion as was the case with many other works of literature discussed in class that year.

I don’t know what happened to this country. I’m not sure how we got to the point where a vocal minority could hire a few lawyers and dictate policy for the majority. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the rights of true minorities who are being discriminated against. No one should be discriminated against because of race, creed or color. This includes the majority, however. Those without religious beliefs have their views represented in our school systems, where Darwinism is taught in science class. We learned the principles of Hindu and Buddhist religions in social studies classes. The majority of this country, however, are Christians and they are being discriminated against because of their creed.

The United States of America was founded on Christian principles. The founding fathers envisioned this to be a country where the power of the people was the rule. They wanted this to be a nation that protected each citizen’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None of these rights are being violated by reading a book in school. No one has oppressed anyone’s right to live a Godless life or to liberate one’s self from the masses. Teaching creationism has in no way obstructed anyone’s freedom to believe or not as they wish.

The atheistic few do not speak up when “The Iliad” or “The Odyssey” are taught. They have no problem with these literary works that deal with Greek gods and goddesses. The horror they express when their impressionable children are exposed to what they believe to be yet another work of fiction - the Bible - is another matter altogether. Could it be that these parents are too insecure in their lack of faith; that the shame they feel is too much of a burden to place upon their children? Methinks thou doth protesteth too much!

The people who want to take the Pledge of Allegiance out of our schools because of the mention of God are quite often the same ones who want to exercise their right to burn that same flag. Nobody is trying to baptize your child in school. There is no collection plate being passed around. If your child truly believes that there is no God, surely reading one section of a greater work is not going to upset their entire foundation.

I appreciated the concepts of Darwinism that were taught in both Science and English classes (”The Devil and Daniel Webster”). They were thought-provoking to be sure. I valued equally, the opportunity to explore the book of Genesis in school. Many of the discussions of biblical figures and events were engaging as well. What I enjoyed the most was the ability to look at both sides and make my own decision. That is what freedom is really about, after all.

It’s the bottom of the ninth, with two outs and the home team is at the plate. The score is tied and the runner on first, Andy Amphetamine has taken a wide lead off of the bag.

The pitcher, Henry (HGH) Humphries, glances over his left shoulder, decides his heat is enough to negate the runner’s big lead and he fires a rocket toward the plate.

The batter, Sammy Steroid, anticipating the star pitcher would be offering his famous, flaming, fastball, begins swinging as the ball is leaving the hurler’s hand. An explosive transfer of weight occurs as he pushes off of his back leg and begins his swing. Both dugouts feel the air from the pumped-up behemoth’s tremendous swing as he connects with the ball, launching it down the left field line over the leaping third baseman, Andy Alcoholic.

Left fielder Craig Cocaine, realizing he won’t quite make it to the ball, lets it whiz by, preferring to play the ricochet off of the wall. He gallops at breakneck speed toward the wall, fields the carom on the fly, pivots, and rifles a one-hopper toward the plate. It’s going to be a close play!

Wesley Workout, the gym rat catcher, senses the potential game-winning runner streaking toward him, just feet away from the plate, as he snaps up the one-hopper. The muscle-bound catcher braces himself for the inevitable collision, his body easily absorbing the brutal shock, as he holds onto the ball. Out number three, the game moves on to extra innings …

My apologies to baseball “purists,” but; as a fan of the game of baseball, I can’t imagine a more exciting play than the one illustrated above. I don’t care what these guys have done to get themselves into the shape they are in. I am only interested in seeing riveting action.

From the time that the first ball was thrown, players of the game of baseball (and all other walks of life be it other sports, academia or the business world) have been doing whatever they could to be the best. If a “magic pill” that could make a person jump higher, run faster and react quicker existed fifty years ago, I guarantee you that players would have been lining up to take it. We have no idea what players were doing in the “golden era of the game” because the media, both professional and amateur, was not the same as it is today.

“But steroids are illegal,” the purists say, conveniently forgetting that their hero, Babe Ruth, was downing more alcohol during prohibition than a body should be able to endure.

“It’s cheating the players who do it the right way,” they continue, and this is a valid point. I can’t help but wonder, however, where to draw the line. Is it “natural” to spend hours in the gym, sculpting each muscle of one’s body? Is it “natural” to take supplements that have not made it onto the banned list? How many cups of coffee or energy drinks constitute crossing that line between natural and artificial performance?

Each player must make his own decision. Does he have enough natural ability to keep up with other players? Does he have the work ethic to spend the hours in the gym necessary to keep each muscle at its peak? How many extra hours beyond the already countless road trip time is he willing to spend away from his family? Is it worth risking his reputation? Is it worth risking being caught by the law?

These are undoubtedly tough decisions to make. Decisions made tougher still, when a player sees the benefits that are being derived from players who are not “doing it the right way.” When a starting roster spot is on the line, how much is he willing to risk for that spot?

This is a game. It is entertainment. I find it so unbelievably offensive that 20 million dollars of taxpayer’s hard-earned money was spent on the Mitchell Report. I find it incomprehensible that our government officials felt that there were not things in this country that the money could have been better spent on.

I realize that there are those who believe that our impressionable youth look at some of the record-breaking players of today’s era of baseball and think “if it worked for them, it may work for me!” I also believe that if the higher-and-mightier-than-thou media and government officials did not focus so much effort on exposing those players, the youth of America might not even be looking at steroids as a potential performance booster.

As is the situation with many of these “role model” cases, it is up to each parent to raise their own kids. It is up to them to instill the moral values that will shape the decisions their children make as they leave the nest and face the tough decisions in life. It is far too convenient in today’s society to always pass the buck, blaming others for the problems that each individual is surely responsible for.

I, myself, choose free will. I have the power to make my own decisions and the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of those decisions. For instance, should I watch another re-run of Seinfeld or the game tonight? If it’s as exciting as the fictitious game referenced above, I’ll take the baseball game every time!

On February 29, 2008, when Hillary Clinton told a Waco audience her harrowing tale of a corkscrew helicopter landing and how she had to avoid sniper fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia, we could almost hear the pings of bullets bouncing off of the tarmac amidst the thudding pulse of helicopter blades. “I remember landing under sniper fire,” Senator Clinton said. “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Hillary began the ill-conceived speech with “We used to say in the White House, that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady.” Shame on Bill, for shipping Hillary off to a faraway land and putting her in such a life-threatening situation! Whatever would he have done if he had lost his beloved wife? I can’t imagine who what possibly could have been on his mind!

It’s too bad that newsrooms keep film lying around - footage that shows what really happened on that dramatic day in 1996, when Hillary’s plane touched down at a Tuzla airstrip in Bosnia. Film of the landing shows Hillary and her daughter Chelsea casually strolling off of an airplane, all smiles. Country singer Sheryl Crow and comedian Sinbad, who were on the flight as part of a USO tour to entertain the troops, recall no threat at all. The video clearly confirms this, showing an extended greeting with the acting Bosnian President and a lengthy discussion with a little Bosnian girl, who gave Mrs. Clinton a hug, a kiss and a bouquet of flowers. How terrifying; it’s a wonder Hillary survived!

So, is Hillary Clinton a liar? That all depends on what your definition of “is” is. Like a page that was ripped from her husband’s book of fables, Hillary Clinton explained the misrepresentation of the facts by stating that she misspoke, adding “So, I made a mistake; it proves I’m human - which for some people is a revelation” (insert fake laugh here).

After hearing this, I couldn’t help recalling the times that others had misspoken: George H.W. Bush’s “read my lips: no new taxes,” Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook,” Bill Clinton’s “I believe that’s an ice cream stain” and Ted Kennedy’s “Mary Jo Who? (Okay, I made those last two up … oops, I mean I “misspoke.”)

As far as the claim goes, that her misstatement proves she is human, she has a point. Her Democratic opponent, Barack Obama (another human), knows the perils of misspeaking all too well by now. He must also have misspoken when he said that the sermons of Reverend Wright were never anything but religious in nature. I’m sure the esteemed Reverend misspoke too, when he said “God damn America” and a myriad of other hateful things about this country and the white race. Hate is a very human emotion, after all.

Come to think of it, Senator Clinton, I did just have a revelation! It doesn’t bother me that you have misrepresented the sniper incident. You are just a politician. We are very accepting here, in the good old USA. We expect our politicians to misspeak. They are our graduate-level lawyers, after all.

I really like the fact that you decided to drag the entire human race down with you as justification for your fabrication. I mean, it worked so well for me as a kid when I told my mother that I had done something wrong because Johnny had done it, too. Oops, I misspoke again; that excuse never did work! What was it she used to say? I think it went something like “Just because Ted Kennedy drove off a bridge, it doesn’t mean that …”

I know that, as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter if Senator Clinton’s recollection of the events in Bosnia were incorrect. It doesn’t change how I feel about her at all. I’d be proud to misspeak by endorsing Hillary as my favorite candidate any day!