Many were shocked when President Obama said to an audience in Roanoke, Virginia this Sunday that, “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” But why the surprise? Didn’t the Obama campaign already show its opposition to individual success when it unveiled “Julia,” a picture presentation of how women are better off thanks to President Obama’s policies.

In a slideshow spanning her whole lifetime, Julia comes off less as a successful woman than as a poster child for big government bureaucrats who’d rather have a say in who succeeds and who fails. For every part of her life, there’s no question that someone else makes things happen.

It’s an insult to women everywhere. The campaign stands by their story line. The question is: why does the Obama campaign paint every American with the same brush? Does he think we’re all equally in need of his assistance?

Caution! Do not be fooled by rumors that China is softening its one-child policy. It’s not. According to People’s Daily, the Chinese communist party newspaper, China plans to soften its one-child policy slogans. Sadly, China has no plans to change its one-child policy. The communist party has merely instructed China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission to work to evoke “gentle reminders,” such as “Caring for the girl means caring for the future of the nation,” instead of what I call repulsive propaganda.

Thanks to BBC, we know that the despicable slogans currently circulating, especially in rural areas, include:

“Kill all your family if you don’t follow the rule.”

“We would rather scrape your womb than allow you to have a second child!”

“If you don’t receive the tubal ligation surgery by the deadline, your house will be demolished!”

“If you escape [sterilization], we’ll hunt you down; if you want to hang yourself, we’ll give you the rope.”

These slogans are beyond terrifying, which has been their point. Can you imagine the uproar in the United States if propaganda like this was scattered throughout our small towns? I imagine the depths of the underworld would have to freeze over first.

But sadly, for China’s younger generations these disgusting mantras are not upsetting. Right now, Concerned Women for America is hosting a beautiful and bright student intern from Shanghai. Though our intern holds all life to be precious, these slogans encouraging the one-child policy are unsurprising to her because she has witnessed firsthand the communist regime’s efforts to decrease its population. She took time to explain the perspective of her fellow countrymen. You won’t like what you read.

She explained that China’s government has taken drastic measures to fool its citizens. The communist government has intentionally made its cost of living, childcare costs, tuition fees, and even formula prices so expensive that families feel they cannot afford to have more children. China has worked hard to make its policy seem reasonable, even humane (much like the methods used by pro-abortion activists).  Sadly, so many Chinese citizens are being convinced that their country cannot sustain more people – that is, until they reach their golden years.

Older generations in China grow to regret not having more children. Once they grow old, parents realize they would have had more than one child to love, support, and care for them. Unfortunately, by this time, it is too late.

We must pray that this vicious cycle in China ends soon.

As the GOP primary race heats up, the latest bump in the road for some of the candidates is the Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List’s pro-life pledge. Mitt Romney and Herman Cain have both refused to sign it.

So why not? One of Romney’s key objections, based on his National Review article, seems to be his belief that the pledge would limit his ability to choose cabinet members and officials for his administration should he win the presidency.  SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser clarified to me – and the wording of the pledge is unmistakable – that the pledge applies only to “relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions,” such as department heads and cabinet officials only in agencies with direct impact on abortion policy.  Do we really want a president to appoint another Health and Human Services Secretary like Kathleen Sebelius, who was discredited from the start as an ardent abortion supporter with close ties to the late George Tiller, a notorious late-term abortionist? No, we certainly don’t. 

I understand pledges may not mean much when it comes right down to it, but Mitt Romney especially stood to gain a lot with a show of support for basic pro-life principles. Many social conservatives view his candidacy with skepticism because he was against pro-life freedom before he was for it.  Not to sign the pledge is a strategic error on his part if he means to solidify his support among pro-life Americans, a number that is growing.

Another sticking point is RomneyCare.  Mitt Romney says the state Supreme Court forced him to cover abortions and pay for it with taxpayer money.  But, a principled pro-life governor would not have surrendered to pragmatism.  He would have found a way around the problem.  This is exactly what tripped up the not-pro-life-after-all former Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) when he caved on ObamaCare on exactly the same pro-life issue.  He chose universal coverage over the lives of the unborn.

In short, conservatives find it hard to trust Romney’s pro-life protestations.  Any candidate who claims to be pro-life should be willing to commit publicly to appointing pro-life officials to the relevant federal positions.  By the same token, fiscal conservatives would never trust a candidate who was willing to appoint a tax-and-spend Treasury Secretary.  Defense hawks would never trust a candidate who they suspected might appoint a Code Pink Defense Secretary.  Bottom line:  Romney lost a great opportunity.  I wish him well, but he should have thought this one through.  In fact, every candidate in both parties should.

Bionics? Nope. Just good common sense and a calculator.

Washington and the nation are abuzz over Congressman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wisconsin) plan addressing the fiscal crisis and promising to cut $4.4 trillion in a decade.  The Democrats and President Obama have talked and talked about the crisis, offered to cut “millions of dollars” (a miniscule amount compared to the debt and deficit) and their “solutions” have only made the situation worse.  Now a crisis of Armageddon proportions looms just around the corner.  The nation needs someone to take the risk of providing leadership, and Congressman Ryan is stepping up to the challenge. 

For years, politicians have paid lip service to the fact that something needs to be done — that something has to be done to preempt the crisis.  The President and Congress bloviated about cutting spending, but the most it ever translated to was just slightly trimming the proposed increases being touted as absolutely essential; nobody was ever willing to actually cut the level of out-of-control spending and certainly not come close to touching entitlements.

Congressman Ryan’s plan wondrously changes the debate in profound ways.  The most obvious new aspect of the debate is that the amount of proposed cuts has jumped from a head-fake of mere millions in cuts to an amount in the trillions with the heft to make a real difference.  Ryan’s formal proposal — a budget resolution for 2012 — reduces the deficit by $4.4 trillion in a decade and cuts spending by more than $6 trillion.  The Ryan plan would cut federal spending to 20 percent of the GDP by 2015.  Even with such drastic budget reductions, the federal budget would not be balanced until 2030.

While his critics wail about draconian cuts — they are large, but only because they return us to the level of spending before Obama took office (hardly a conservative level) and drove spending through the roof — Concerned Women for America (CWA) believes that the crisis can be averted only by reigning in the bloated federal government.  We think that the American people are ready to trust politicians who will be honest with them and talk about the situation in realistic terms about what it is going to take for us to avoid complete financial ruin.  We also believe that our elected officials should be willing to do something, rather than burden our children and grandchildren with a mountain of debt and destroy the financial future of the nation. 

CWA applauds Congressman Ryan’s efforts as a firm step in the right direction.  As the Congressman noted, “This is not a budget, this is a cause.”  That cause is to get America to confront the fiscal threat facing the nation before it is too late and motivate Congress to act on ways to get the nation back on a secure financial foundation.

The latest Rasmussen poll indicates it is not 1995 all over again and that this time around a solid majority, 58 percent of the American public, prefers a government shutdown over continued business as usual.  Voters are demanding that Congress to do something about the fiscal crisis by cutting the budget, ending out-of-control spending, and reducing the nation’s mountain of debt — even if it means shutting down the government to force the President and Congressional Democrats to “get it” and get on with the business of scaling back government.

• How is it that the average American understands that record spending is unsustainable, but the Democrats do not understand?
• How can business leaders and economists warn against government overspending and speak out vehemently about the current threats and inevitable crisis without the President and the Democrats in Congress hearing their message?
• How can the experts point out that the fiscal crisis is hurting private sector job growth without the President and Democrats facing up to the fact that the stimulus didn’t work and unemployment must be addressed?
• How can millions of Americans lose their jobs and millions lose their homes without the President and the Democrats understanding that they are destroying middle-class America?
• How can the voters in 2010 have sent such a loud and clear message that they will no longer put up with reckless spending without that message being heard on Capitol Hill and in the White House?

This needs to be the year when the federal budget is smaller, not just frozen at last year’s bloated level.  This needs to be the year when last year’s outrageous level of spending gets deflated.  This needs to be year when we stop making larger and larger additions to the national debt and roll back the tide of red ink that gushes and sloshes through the budget projections.  This MUST be the year when we soundly reject the foolish notion that it is okay to spend more money than we have.

As Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said, “When you add it all up, the [national debt] numbers are staggering.”

As House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said, “We’re broke!”

And just as Maggie Thatcher warned about socialism: We’ve reached the point where we’ve “run out of other people’s money.”

Though not meant as an “official” response to the State of the Union, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann’s (R-Minnesota) address to the Tea Party following President Obama’s speech turned out to be exactly that.  Where the president spoke in generalities and used ceremonial, presidential-sounding rhetoric to sell his big government programs, Rep. Bachmann laid out the reality in rather stark terms.  She showed graphs dramatically illustrating the vast expansion of government spending and debt, as well as the contrast between the low levels of unemployment during the Bush years and the high levels during the Obama years.

Mrs. Bachmann’s remarks stood out for providing very solid suggestions for fixing the economy.  She advocated stopping the cap and trade system, support for a balanced budget amendment, reducing dependence on foreign oil, turning back 132 Obama regulations that cost more than $100 million, repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with free market solutions, reducing tax and regulatory burdens on job creators, and reducing the corporate tax rate.

Bachmann ended with a soaring peroration about the miracle of America, the greatness of our country, and the liberty that is the foundation of our government.  Of course, a major aspect of the power of Bachmann’s speech was the integrity of the ideas and the consistency with which Congresswoman Bachmann and the Tea Party Movement have held those ideas and embodied them in recommended legislation.

One of them is Reagan. The other one would like to be.

After the “shellacking,” what will President Obama have to say about the State of our Union?  He gives his annual report tonight.

President Reagan made Americans feel proud of our country.  President Obama makes Americans feel obliged to defend our country (from him).  In his inauguration speech, his stated vision was to “remake America.”  Since then, we’ve gotten a glimpse of what he wants to make us into — and Americans rejected his view of America this last election.

While his messaging since then gives the appearance that he gets what Americans want, his policies and agenda have yet to change.  People are more savvy now and won’t be fooled by a cloak of rhetoric that covers the old agenda of big-government-by-regulation, disrespecting American Exceptionalism, promoting sexual identity politics, or empty words about “reducing abortion.”

President Obama will face a new Congress and public, both who are extremely sensitive to Constitutional limits and fearful of government spending.  Americans are unified, and ready for politicians to cut spending, reduce government, and quit vilifying political opponents — three items, by the way, of which the opposite mark President Obama’s career and his last State of the Union, when he pushed ObamaCare and unfairly criticized the Supreme Court justices sitting in front of him.

President Obama has an advantage this year in that it is no secret what Americans want and what the majority in Congress recognize is their mandate.  But like Reagan, his audience will not trust without verifying.

President Obama will have to prove through his actions that he will reduce government spending, promote and defend America to the outside world, stop funding abortion, and respect the Constitution and our religious heritage.

Liberals are the self-proclaimed champions of social justice and redistribution of wealth in the name of fairness and equality.  But is their ideology consistent with their lifestyle?

Last September, Roll Call released a list of the 50 richest members of Congress.  Lo and behold, the top ten members on the list were all liberals!  In fact, Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) tops the list.  How could this be?  The advocates of the working class?  I don’t think so.

Conservatives are lambasted as being the rich and entitled and are guilted into describing themselves as “compassionate” conservatives just to emphasize the fact that they are not out of touch with the middle and lower classes.

There is obviously a mischaracterization of conservatives and what motivates the policies they promote.  For instance, conservatives don’t advocate free health care for all.  However, the reasoning behind that doesn’t come from a desire to withhold care from those who need it, but from a desire to avoid low quality of care and rationing of care for all.  And these things are inevitable with “free” health care — in fact, they’re a couple of the “hidden costs.”  We’ve already seen evidence of this in the health care systems of Canada and Great Britain.

True conservatives also oppose the welfare system, but not out of a lack of compassion for the underprivileged.  Rather, they are driven to compel people to work hard and reap the financial benefits of that work.  This is the philosophy on which our capitalist society was built.  To promote a society that encourages dependence on the government for income undermines capitalism and demeans the individual.

Liberals consistently paint an image of their congressional opponents as elitist, wealthy, upper-class citizens who are unable to relate to the common American.  It’s sadly ironic to find out that the very members who point fingers at the right wing and characterize them as “entitled” and “out of touch with the American people” are actually the wealthiest and most elite legislators in town.  You will not find a true conservative complaining about anyone’s wealth or saying that someone does not deserve to be as wealthy as they are — or that they’ve probably earned enough.  

Seems to me the liberals paint a false image of themselves while promoting a big government agenda under the guise of helping the average American.  But are they really in touch with the American people?  I think it’s entirely unfair that they would lie in order to hijack issues like social justice and health care, because it looks to me as if they have a lot less in common with the average American than they’d like you to think.

Although the Washington media elite would like nothing better than to dismiss those who attended this past weekend’s Glenn Beck rally as single issue “racist Tea Party” folks, I think what transpired on Saturday left them smarting and scared to death about November.  Chris Matthews and others tried to marginalize the event in an interview with my good friend Colin Hannah, but Colin got the last laugh when hundreds of thousands of regular, small government, God-fearing folk descended upon Washington, D.C., like a couple from North Carolina who stayed at my own house during the weekend who came specifically for the event.

The Pattons own a dry cleaning business and work hard all week to build their business in a tough economy.  Lord knows they could have used the rest rather than drive six hours each way to Washington to stay just one night.  But they, like most of the others who came to the nation’s capital, desperately wanted their elected officials to hear their angst and to understand the seriousness of the situation.  They came to reaffirm the nation’s fidelity to founding principles, both from fiscal and social issue standpoints. 

The Beck rally was supposedly just about the economy, but the end result was a revival of sorts.  It was regular people joining each other to pay homage to their God and to show love for their country.  All of those ideas work in perfect harmony because it is from this same perspective that our nation was founded by similarly brave men and women. 

I think George Washington summed up the message Saturday when he said in 1789:

The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained. – George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

In today’s world, many women not only work to balance the family finances but, according to the Small Business Administration, 6.5 million of us also work to keep a business afloat.  The vast majority of these, eighty percent, have receipts of less than $50,000.  So it is fascinating to realize that these same women, many of whom are independents and voted for Obama, have become disenchanted with our winsome president.

Democrats and Republicans are scratching their heads and commissioning focus groups to understand why, but I think it’s clear.  Women are the chief operating officers of the American family and often of a small business as well.  Women understand what it means to live within our means and thus find it outrageous that Congress refuses to live up to the same standards. 

Sixty-three percent of such women say that the longer a politician is in Washington, the less he or she listens to voters, and the more they become part of the problem — and the health care bill is a good example of the kind of “problem” women are fed up with.  The same women who voted for Obama are very displeased with the president’s health care overhaul.  Fifty-two percent oppose it, with 42 percent saying it will make things worse in their personal or family situation.

And the fact that our government has chosen to saddle our kids with a $13 trillion debt — $1 trillion of which was run up in the last six months — is unconscionable to American moms.  That’s why CWA has joined SpendingRevolt.com.  Join us on the bus tour when it comes to your area, and let Washington know it needs to stop the spending spree!