Watching the late election returns from California, 92-year-old conservative Harold Wilder Jr. sent an email message to his friends under the heading, “Oh My God.” He wrote what many conservatives feel, “I am embarrassed and ashamed to be considered a Californian, who apparently would rather be cared for than care for himself.

California, the state in which I reside, remains in fiscal denial and disconnected from the center-right country in which it resides. I, too, am saddened by the election results in California. With control of the governor’s office, majorities in both the Assembly and the Senate, and passage of Proposition 25 which allows budgets to be passed with a simple majority, Democrats will have unchecked control of the state.

It’s clear that in New York and California, the unions have a lock on political power. They are willing to mobilize their member and fund almost unlimited campaign ads to keep control. Now, they will have nothing to stop them from imposing their vision of the future for the state. But they do so in a different political environment.

Unlike Washington, state politicians do not have the power to print money. If they hoped to be bailed out by Washington as a state “too big to fail,” they will be facing a Republican controlled House of Representatives. The House is responsible for the budget and controls the purse strings in Washington. They will not get funds from a country that is crying for smaller government, less spending and lower deficits. 

Sadly, this could translate into even more CA budget shortfalls, more companies leaving the state for business-friendly incentives, lower bond ratings, and continued unemployment problems for the Golden State.

The battle is not over. The soap opera continues for another season. It will get much worse here before California voters wake up to the consequences of their election choices.

I want to end by applauding the loyal and out-numbered conservatives, Tea Party members and Republican faithful who have fought hard for change. I have every confidence that, though disappointed, we will press on to take a stand again to impact our next election. America and California are too important to leave the fight for conservative principles and fiscal sanity.  

Starting this Friday, I will be contributing a new Paulson On Politics column and video at the recently launched Rightnetwork. My first column and video talks about the importance of civil political discourse in making a difference in this mid-term election. If you haven't noticed, conservatives are taking back the Republican Party and are promising to hold their feet to the fire until they stand for the principles they claim to support.

It’s time to put down the signs and start conversations with your friends, family and neighbors about why this is the most important election in decades. It’s a chance to learn how to talk to independents and wavering Democrats who don’t realize that they actually support conservative principles.

The Right Network was launched September 8^th and has already exploded into becoming a primary source in support of conservative principles and alternative entertainment you can be proud to watch.

Kelsey Grammar is one of the few Hollywood celebs who has the courage to be an advocate of the right. His short video promotion and his willingness to speak for the cause has helped bring credibility to the site. Kelsey is proud to be a part of the new network. "RightNetwork is filling a big gap with entertainment programs that combine compelling content with a perspective we don't generally get from the media," Grammer said in the network's promotional materials. "We're bringing outstanding talent and production values to our television, internet and mobile platforms. I'm proud to be part of this team!"  

I’m proud to be part of the team as well. In addition to my columns on Townhall.com, I will be contributing bi-weekly columns and videos you can use to promote conservative values to the people you want to influence. They will be positive statements about conservative principles. You’ll want to forward them to your friends and colleagues who want to know what conservatives really stand for. Let them start the conversations you need to have to make a difference in November.

We can’t just rally the faithful. We need to expand the army in our efforts to save the American Dream. Join the discussion and enjoy the conservative entertainment on Rightnetwork starting today.

Christina Romer, head of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, will be stepping down and returning to her teaching post at the University of California. Her resignation will take effect on September 3.

I just wonder if she will teach her class with a little more humility. If she is not, I suggest that students take her insights on economics with a grain of salt.

Professor Romer is the one that crafted the report that fueled the wasteful, and as yet ineffective, stimulus plan. She said that the unemployment would not go above 8%. Today, as we continue to see that more jobs were lost than were created last month, unemployment remains close to 9.6%.

Could it be that our nation's least experienced president in decades has no idea what to do? President Obama has no business experience, and he has surrounded himself with people who have strong opinions and weak resumes when it comes to successful experience in the America's private sector.

A colleague sent me some information that might explain the mess our private sector is in after a year-and-a-half of a Democratic administration and Congress.

A chart that showed past presidents and the percentage of each president's cabinet appointees who had previously worked in the private sector - a real life business, not a government job.

Roosevelt - 38%

Taft - 40%

Wilson - 52%

Harding - 49%

Coolidge - 48%

Hoover - 42%

FDR - 50%

Truman - 50%

Eisenhower - 57%

Kennedy - 30%

LBJ - 47%

Nixon - 53%

Ford - 42%

Carter - 32%

Reagan - 56%

GHWB - 51%

Clinton - 39%

GWB - 55%

And, of course, the Winner is.........................

President Barack Obama - 8%. Only one in twelve in the Obama Cabinet has ever run a private business. In November, we will be able to send them a message about how we feel about the free-enterprise killing taxes, regulations and entitlements that are holding back the engine of recovery--private industry growth!

Have you had enough? Take back America starting in November! I have little confidence in this President. I have rock-solid confidence in the courage, initiative and creativity of Americans when given the chance and the incentives to make the American Dream work.

The response of the "free world" to IDF's boarding of the "humanitarian aid" flotilla is sad to watch. They are denying the right of Israel to defend itself from the continuing bombing and missiles that are used to attack them out of Gaza. Israel provided other options to get aid to Gaza. Four boats in the flotilla were boarded without incident, and relief supplies got through.

This was an extremist setup to get more coverage in the liberal leaning press. They wanted to be attacked, and many were prepared to die.

When will the press to their job and provide the facts instead of their slanted coverage? That is why this Parody of "We Are the World" is so important to see. Nothing makes the point like making fun of our news mavens who love to make Israel look bad every opportunity they get. Enjoy... FLOTILLA: We Con the World

When visiting Israel, a member of the Israel's Knesset said to us, "The only hope for the world is the English-speaking west. If they do not take a stand against Islamic extremism, the world is lost." The people better start taking a stand for Israel, because our press never will. Now, in a rare compliment to this administration, my hat is off to Viced President Joe Biden who seems to get it when it comes to Israel's response--"They were defending themselves."  Keep talking Joe. Keep singing and standing tall Israel.

Is it any wonder that the markets have been spooked? You've got an inexperienced leadership in the White House. He's trying to drive a liberal transformation while the economy continues to stagger in the face of his reckless spending and uncertainty over the future.

I fear we are in for continued tough times. The $150 billion European Union/International Monetary Fund bailout of Greece has been signed, but it hasn’t been fully funded. It has to be approved by the German parliament in a vote scheduled for Friday. With the UK election suggesting a possible Cameron conservative coalition victory, the spend-borrow policies that have been in vogue may be changed. Since Merkel faces problems of her own in Germany, the parliament may not vote for the bailout for fear of setting off inflation.

Merkel is trying to sell Germans on the need for the bailout while saying that Greece's extravagant social-welfare entitlement system of bankrupt promises is a disgrace. Maybe citizens understand what politicians don’t want to face—fiscal-discipline is easy to promise and hard to pull off when citizens are taking to the streets demanding their  government goodies.

In today's column, Lawrence Kudlow states, “As Nobelist Robert Mundell has argued, while the unified and fixed exchange rate of the euro currency system, along with liberalized trade, has been good for economic growth, things have broken down with the failure of the so-called fiscal-stability pact that was never enforced.”

Margaret Thatcher used to say that the problem with socialist governments is that they finally run out of other people's cash. That may be coming to Greece. If the temper tantrums in the street result in politicians refusing to say no to extravagant spending, this will just spread to Spain, Portugal and Italy where the spend-and-borrow approach continues unchecked. In the US, we face our own challenges with states like CA stuck in deficit madness.

This spend-and-borrow debt mess will continue until financial-market forces and voter discipline force politicians to radically change course. Yet, maybe that is the most optimistic message possible. You can’t keep spending and borrowing your way out this.

This economic disaster may force governments to say NO may just unleash that free-enterprise creativity that is the only reliable force to turn things around. I think this is a sad chapter in what I hope becomes a more fiscally sound future for the global economy and for the US.

On Friday April 23rd, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the U.S.’s toughest immigration law, a bill aimed at identifying, prosecuting and deporting illegal immigrants. The law has unleashed protests and complaints both in Arizona and across the country. reigniting the battle over immigration reform. President Obama strongly criticized the bill, saying that the Arizona law threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

Surveys indicate that this law is supported by over 70% of the citizens, even more than half of the Democrats who took the survey. It speaks to the frustration people have in coming to grip with illegal immigrants in their midst and the spillover of drug violence in states near the border. People have had enough. This could well spur the nation into immigration reform discussion in the coming months, but it will surely be a very divisive dialogue.

Surely, one of the results will be that many illegal immigrants will leave Arizona to avoid facing even the possibility of being deported. That will mean more jobs and possibly an influx of Americans without jobs to the state. What needs to be done?

Some want amnesty and a quick path to citizenship. Democrats want and need those votes in light of the current drop in the polls. Republicans are split. Some could accept a long path to citizenship from the end of the line for those who want to be Americans, but many fear, once passed, the requirements would be eliminated or legally challenged. Other conservatives want a hard line; illegal actions should not result in citizenship. They applaud new Arizona’s law.

There are no easy answers, but last night my wife and I saw a movie based on the true story of the Monterrey Mexico Little League team that walked across the border on a temporary visa to play their first baseball games. They went on to become the first international team to win the 1957 Little League World Series and win the hearts of millions here and in Mexico. The Perfect Game is a touching and inspiring film and it speaks to the power of a dream in any country.

This movie is a gift for all ages, and it deserves to be a hit. You cheer every step of their unlikely journey, and you hope this kind of story allows more to do the same today.

I also feel that the answer to the immigration problem may very well involve two things—making it harder for illegal immigrants to enter and find opportunity in America and more likely to find opportunity in Mexico. Mexico must find a way to reject the power of the drug lords and replace it with a free-enterprise engine that supports small business growth and jobs in Mexico. May this movie help honor and encourage the potential of the Mexican Dream through the lives of these young boys who captured their dream in 1957.

See and enjoy this movie. Even more important, let’s make sure that our conservative vision doesn’t just make our neighbors “illegals” to keep out. Let’s keep them neighbors who we want to be successful. By embracing the conservative principles that have worked in America, they can stay in the country they love and do their part to invent a better future for their own families and for Mexico. As I explore in my newest book, The Optimism Advantage, there is room for the American Dream and the Mexican Dream.

One of the principal Constitutional responsibilities of the President is to take seriously his role as Commander in Chief in defending our country. While he has worked with Congress to pass new entitlements costing trillions that go beyond anything the Constitution authorizes, President Obama has now systematically worked to decrease the technological superiority of America’s military.

During the Cold War, American technological superiority was an integral part of ensuring victory. After President Carter’s conspicuous neglect, President Reagan launched a military buildup, particularly the development of weapons systems and concepts decades ahead of what the Soviet Union was capable of producing. He forced the Soviets to reform their economy in an attempt to catch up; that race helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

While the US still maintains this technological edge, the gap will soon be closing in some key areas—our next generation fighter jets and our nuclear weapon systems. In October 2009, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 killing the funding for F-22 fighter production. By ending funding for the F/A-22, the President and Congress have jeopardized the US’s ability to achieve and maintain air superiority.

China, a nation whose own imperialistic ambitions are well know, is rapidly buying and recapitalizing its air force with the next generation of fighter aircraft. In January of this year, Russia test flew their next-generation fighter, the T-50, which incorporates the latest stealth technology and weapons system. In fact, Russia is expanding its fighter forces more now than at any other time since the end of the Cold War. The Russians plan to field 300 Su-Fullback strike aircraft by 2022 and an additional 300 Sukhoi Pak fifth-generation fighters. Meanwhile, China has ordered an estimated 76 Su-30MKK Flanker-Gs and can produce an additional 250 under license, including at least 100 “knock-down kits” to be assembled in China. If China modernizes its 171 Su-27SK/UBs to the Su-27SKM standard and assembles another 105 Su-27SKMs under license, it will have roughly 626 multi-role fighters available for air superiority missions. This would place China in the same league as the U.S., which has 522 F-15A/B/C/Ds, 217 F-15Es, and a planned end strength of 186 F-22s.

Now, President Barack Obama has taken a stand for a new nuclear strategy. He has narrowed the circumstances in which the U.S. might launch a nuclear strike, and he has unilaterally stopped development of new nuclear warheads. He wants even deeper reductions in American and Russian arsenals. But the critical issue is his unilateral decision to stop development of new nuclear warheads without an agreement from Russia or China. This president is stopping the very advancement in military technology that will protect us for generations to come. Evil won’t stop in its development of weapons of destruction.

When at the Constitutional convention proposed limiting the U.S. standing army to 5,000 men, George Washington responded requesting a clause that would limit the size of the invading army to 3,000 troops. Laughter followed and the proposal was dropped. As Ronald Reagan told the Republican National Convention in Dallas in 1984: “There are some who’ve forgotten why we have a military. It’s not to promote war; it’s to be prepared for peace.”

Weakness is provocative. We must continue to invest in staying strong. Former Secretary of Defense Cap Wienberger put it best, "You don’t just go out to the store and buy high-tech weapons on the day you need them."

In a world with more rogue countries and terrorist groups capable of attacking our homeland or vital global interests, America, in order to defend its freedom and way of life, must invest adequate resource to remain strong, progressive, and technologically sophisticated. To maintain our world leadership role independent of UN control, we must continue to walk softly but continue to carry a big, technologically-advanced stick that is positioned to deal with new, smaller engagements wherever necessary. The new realities in a free world open to terrorism, investing in homeland security is a necessary and expensive priority we must fund.

If we do not change course and continue to fund the technological advantages that keep us ahead of our enemies, we will face increased American casualties in conflicts and a decrease in American influence abroad. This is but another reason to change course in November.

After President Obama's incoherent and endless answer to the question on why he is raising taxes during a continuing recession, it's obvious he needs some help.

I've suggested that in a spirit of bipartisan support, that Sarah Palin send him notes on how to write key points on the palm of his hand. He obviously gets lost when a teleprompter is unavailable. With the length of his answers, he may need notes on both hands!

His recent gaffs in coherence make President Bush's misstatements seem insignificant in comparison.  

After reading Forbes.com's post on Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker, I am encouraged by his comment on what makes America work. Mr. Becker believes the current outrage over the actions of the Obama administration stemmed from a "belief in individual responsibility--the belief that people ought to be free to make their own decisions, but should then bear the consequences." He said this underlying philosophy "remains very powerful," and added, "The American people don't want an expansion of government. ... They want limited government. ... I expect them to say so in the elections this November."

Gary Becker is right on. America has been built and is sustained by its commitment to individual responsibility and opportunity, free-enterprise with minimal regulation, and the belief in the American Dream.

There are many to blame for the economic collapse we faced in 2008: Democratic pressure for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to force banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them; the mark-to-market changes that inflated value and accelerated the collapse; and investment firms who pushed derivatives no one really understood.

But the strong push to the left by Obama is trying to sell Americans on government being the source of our optimism. Reagan had no stimulus package but rallied belief in Americans and small business to turn the economy around. Americans are getting a wakeup call and are eager to make a statement in November. I've never seen people more angry at the arrogant push to entitlements. President Obama has taken on a European flavor. These aren't Democrats; they are now Social Democrats. I end with Will Rogers great line, "I remember when being liberal meant you were loose with your own money!"

It’s clear that locking up politicians in Washington until they eventually vote leaves them subject to the beltway fumes that disconnect them from reality. They are on the verge of passing a rule change that will allow them to pass a reconciliation healthcare bill and change 1/6th of our economy in a way that will surely increase government control and intrusion into your life and drastically increase the deficit that future generations will face.

Ah, but what about the CBO cost estimates that Democrats are saying will save us money and give more Americans expanded healthcare coverage. Even CBO Director Doug Elmendorf knows that the CBO numbers reported are VERY preliminary. In his blog post yesterday, Mr. Elmendorf writes: “Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.” What a comforting disclaimer until you actually take note of the CBO’s track record of making sound cost projections.

A quick Google search unearthed a documented report from Freedom Works’ Matthew Clemente. Let me summarize the findings on government’s ability to project the cost of their lavish entitlements from this Freedom Works December 14, 2009 post:

• When Medicare was instituted in 1965, there was no Congressional Budget Office. Instead, in 1967 House Ways and Means analysts predicted it would cost $12 billion in 1990. They were wrong—by a staggering factor of 10 with actual spending topping $110 billion. Medicare costs continue to skyrocket growing by 10%. So if the CBO estimate for the Senate health care bill is off by the same percentage, then the price of reform may be as high as $7.74 trillion.

• In 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare Part A, the hospital insurance part of the Medicare program, would cost $9 billion in 1990. The actual cost of Part A in 1990 was $67 billion. The government estimate was off by 165%. If the CBO estimate for the Senate health care bill is off by the same percentage, then the price of reform may be as high as $2.24 trillion.

• In 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the Medicare Home Care Benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was $10 billion, off by 150%. If the CBO estimate for the Senate health care bill is off by the same percentage, then the price of reform may be as high as $2.1 trillion.

• When the Social Security Act of 1935 was being debated in Congress, the cost projections for the program extended all the way to 1980. At that time, it was estimated that the federal government would pay out $4 billion in Social Security payments in 1980. In reality, it paid out a staggering $108 billion; estimates were off a massive 2,600%. If the CBO estimate for the Senate health care bill is off by the same percentage, then the price of reform may be as high as $22.89 trillion.

Where is the responsible reporting on the poor track record of predicting the cost of any government entitlement. They couldn’t even predict the simple financial impact of the Cash for Clunkers program. What gives you or any American confidence that they can do better with the complexity of this massive plan?

No matter what happens in the vote in Washington this week, the fight for the future of America is far from over. This assault on our freedoms will be a rallying cry and a wakeup call for more Americans. The battle is just beginning! The cost of losing is too much for future generations. We must fight this to our last breath.

Roger Ebert, the well known movie critic, has recently returned from his fight with thyroid cancer to use his technologically enabled voice to emerge from four years of silence.  What’s the focus of his reviews now? Not just movies. No, Scott Collins reported in the Los Angeles Times that has taken to Twitter to give tea part followers the thumb’s down. He’s been attacking Sarah Palin and other right-wing politicians in between his movie reviews. Over the last few weeks, he’s been giving tea party followers belittling nicknames. Assuring his readers that the movement will quickly fade. As he states, "…a loud movement is not the same as a mass movement."

In the patronizing tones that he was known for as a film critic, he tweets, "I write about the TeePees because it's so sad how they've been manipulated to oppose their own best interests."

Ebert may be the only critic in America who is a household name, but for over half of America, that name is rapidly losing support. I never liked his movie reviews, and I certainly don’t appreciate his political position on the tea party movement.

Critics don’t make a movie successful; people buying tickets is what delivers the results. What pundits and aging film critics say about politics doesn’t win elections; the people do when they cast their votes. People power trumps pundits…and columnists like me. Humbling but true.

God bless Roger Ebert in his fight with cancer. I pray for his health and that he lives long enough to be able to eat his words in November.

As for me, I believe in the power of people and the American Dream. If you want to choose optimism, read my newest book, <a href="http://www.terrypaulson.com/optimism"><em><i>The Optimism Advantage: 50 Simple Truths to Transform Your Attitudes and Actions into Results.</i></em></a>. Tea party followers are exercising their rights and assertively calling for true change and hope. If you want to be more optimistic, read this book available March 22nd!

The BBC is reporting from London that Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri, A Pakistani scholar, will issue a “fatwa” prohibiting terrorism and suicide bombing. , The Media Line reports that the Fatwa issued is intended to “dismantle Al-Qaeda’s violent ideology.” This scholar has produced a 600-page document. The killing of innocent citizens and the use of suicide bombings are singled out as being unacceptable to Muslims. He includes a point-by-point refutation of Al-Qaeda’s philosophy using theological arguments.

My questions: Will CAIR endorse his statement or remain silent? Will a counter Fatwa be issued against the good doctor? Will Muslims march against bombings and terrorism? Will Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri be alive in a year?

For now, just let me applaud his work. May more Muslim leaders and followers join his cause.

The Heathcare Summit provided quite a lesson in polarized politics. And there was good reason. When President Obama calls on Republicans for a bi-partisan dialogue, he intends to do far more talking and persuading than dialoguing. And there was very little balance. A time analysis indicated that the President spoke one hour and fifty-three minutes. The Republicans spoke for one hour and fifty-nine minutes. The Democrats present took the lion’s share of the time talking for 3 hours and fifty-three minutes.  Yes, it was civil, but there was no goal convergence. It was clear that the president’s goal was to convince Republicans that there was enough common ground in the existing Senate bill that he has proposed that they should support it. Even if they refused to accept it; Republicans would be seen as the “Party of No.” The Republicans wanted to start over taking in steps what could be agreed on.

The Republicans missed a great opportunity to challenge the President to allow them to present a bill combining the common ground that surfaced from the summit. If they were going to vote on his plan; allow a vote on the Republican first step of common ground agreement. Of course, it is not too late. They should study the comments made and present a consensus first–step healthcare bill for consideration before the March recess. By doing this, they take the initiative to move beyond the “Party of No” to the “Party of Progress.” That would force Democrats to say “no” to the bill or to even allowing it to be considered.

Hold the line because the Democrats don’t have the votes to get this through. Compliments to the Republicans for using their time well to present their concerns and suggestions. Now, it is time to present an option that lets them be the “Party of Progress.”

Hal Wilder, a passionate, conservative warrior at 91, sent a number of his network colleagues a heartfelt plea this morning. If you don’t share his concern, you should:

“Next fall we will hold another election. It may prove to be the fork in the road. I lie awake worrying that the Conservative Tea Party vote plus the moderate Republican vote will grossly exceed the liberal Democratic numbers, yet the liberal Democratic numbers will exceed either of the others, and will prevail. Dear God, please let that not happen. Let there be only two candidates. Our goal must not be to elect a Republican candidate or Tea Party candidate, but rather to defeat a liberal Democrat.”

Hal, you certainly aren’t alone in this fear. If the goal is focused anger to end what is happening to the America we love, the growing Tea Party patriots can try to take on both parties and lose everything, or they can take on the goal of taking back the GOP and secure a strong foothold of conservative Republicans who owe their victory to Tea Party Power.

The Perot experience should be enough to remind patriots about the importance of making votes count for progress instead of allowing another liberal Democrat getting a second term. The stakes are too high for future generations. We must all work to channel the growing anger in America into a true force for change and hope. We need to produce a victory for liberty and smaller government.

What must be done to make this happen?

Michael Medved’s column on Hollywood’s assault on business (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/02/letters-hollywoods-businessbashing-biting-the-hand-that-is-you-.html  is right on the money. When you search for a politically correct enemy to use, Hollywood is left with those “radical” Christians and unethical, greedy business leaders. It plays into President Obama’s ranting about executive pay as a justification for raising taxes on corporations, wealthy Americans and entrepreneurs.

Yes, some business leaders are unethical, and they should be held accountable instead of being rewarded by being “too big to fail.” But rest assured that the majority of leaders and corporations stay in business by serving their customers and providing quality services and projects. They are the backbone of our American economy and the very people who hire the majority of Americans.

Making them evil helps envious Americans justify voting to increase the taxes on the wealthy and successful businesses as they did last week in Oregon. The President wonders why the private sector is not contributing to his desired economic recovery. As long as business leaders continue to be attacked, taxed, blamed, and portrayed as the problem, they won’t be part of the solution that they have always been. It’s time we honor them instead of bash them.