In a recent speech at the University of Minnesota, President Barack Obama proclaimed, "This election is a choice - between the policies that got us into this mess and the policies that are leading us out of this mess. It's a choice between the past and the future; a choice between hope and fear; a choice between falling backwards and moving forwards."

But there's a problem.  Those inspiring clichés now must contend with the realities of his policies; realties that cripple the wings of his once soaring rhetoric and expose it for what it is...mere pandering.

To be sure, the president is right on several points.  This election is about a choice.  And it is about choosing between the policies that got us into our problems and the ones that will help get us out.

But consider: during a debate with Hillary Clinton, candidate Obama made clear what it was that got us into the mess when he pontificated, "you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren...And you don't increase spending, unless you're eliminating some spending or you're finding some new revenue. That's how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy. And it's going to change when I'm president of the United States."

Did it?  Yes.  It got worse.

With staggeringly large majorities in both houses of Congress, President Obama and the Democrats quadrupled the Bush deficits through a failed stimulus bill and proposed budgets for the coming years that (according to a studies by the Heritage Foundation and the Washington Post) would add twice as much debt as President Bush did in the same amount of time. 

Further, though President Obama loves to talk about how when Bush was in office the Republicans, "ran the car into the ditch," he conveniently forgets that during the last two years of Bush's tenure, Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wielded the gavel.  In other words, the economic policies that Mr. Obama inherited were the product of his own party's Congressional leadership.  Mr. President, if it's bad to sign those bills (as Bush did), how much worse is it to originate and pass them in the first place (as Pelosi/Reid did)?

Moreover, analysis of the President's own Treasury Department numbers reveals that under her leadership as Speaker of the House, Pelosi has overseen a $5 trillion increase in the national debt.  Put another way, the first 57 Speakers of the House in U.S. history combined racked up less debt than Pelosi heaped upon our children and grandchildren in just four years.

Understanding that she is the woman every Democrat representative (blue dogs and lap dogs alike) across the country unanimously entrusted to set their agenda, the choice we face on Election Day becomes crystal clear.

The President is also right that this election offers the stark difference between hope and fear.

While the Republicans - to their great credit - have largely selected a nationwide slate of candidates committed to ideas like limited government, balanced budgets, constitutional fidelity, and empowering the individual to pursue his or her own definition of happiness without the burden of over-regulation and over-taxation, the Democrats have tried a different tack.

Besides their biennial strategy of scaring seniors into the voting booth with wild and baseless accusations that their Republican counterparts will gamble away Social Security or destroy Medicare, Democrats have decided to spend their campaign dollars making personal attacks.

As ABC's Jonathan Karl noted, "As you watch this year's ads - and I've been watching all too many lately - you'll notice a striking difference between Democratic and Republican attack ads: Democrats are attacking over personal issues, Republicans are attacking over policy."

Karl wasn't alone in his assessment.  After viewing 900,000 of this year's political ads, a study from the Wesleyan Media Project concluded, "Democrats are using personal attacks at much higher rates than Republicans and a much higher rate than Democrats in 2008."

Perhaps the President could enlighten us as to how all this left-wing negativity coming from his party puts "an end to the petty grievances...that for far too long have strangled our politics," as he promised to do in his inaugural address?

Alas, he's probably too busy with his car analogies.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama's been cracking up his sycophantic supporters with ten-year-old recycled jokes like, "You want to go forward, what do you do? You put it in 'D.' When you go backward, what do you do? You put it in 'R.'" 

But if we really are in a ditch - as Obama has already told us - does it make more sense to reverse our way out of it, or drive ourselves deeper into it?  That's the choice before us.

Evidently his pay grade has gone up.  That was the astute observation of Keith Riler when he analyzed President Barack Obama's recent remarks at MTV's hour long campaign commercial for Democrats called, "A Conversation With President Obama." 

As an aside, imagine for a second MTV hosting such a conversation with former President George W. Bush.  Perhaps they could have booked Kanye West to emcee.  After slurring together a collection of incoherent ideas in his trademark fashion, West could have worked his infamous "George Bush doesn't care about black people" accusation into the presidential introduction.  It would have been far more entertaining than the Obama love-a-thon turned out to be.

But I digress.

Taking a question on sexuality (this is MTV after all), President Obama enlightened listeners with his dazzling grasp of prenatal development.  He was asked, "Dear President Obama, do you think being gay or trans[gender] is a choice?"  The President responded, "I don't think it's a choice. I think that people are born with a certain makeup, and that we're all children of God. We don't make determinations about who we love. And that's why I think that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong."

Given that such an answer is totally vacuous, dim, and void of anything even resembling rationality, it played well on MTV.  But for the rest of us, consider the implications of this foolish answer.

Even ignoring the meaningless platitude that "we're all children of God" (do those with moral objections to homosexuality not believe this also?), the stunningly ignorant remark that we don't determine who we love (don't you bet Michelle loved hearing that?), and the impossibly relativistic condemnation of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (does Obama really want to defend the idea of sexual anarchy?), there is an appalling inconsistency in the President's position.

After decades of research and repeated attempts to attribute same-sex attraction to biological and genetic causes, the American Psychological Association (no bastion of right-wing conservative thought) was forced - for the sake of their credibility - to amend their literature on the issue.  Under the heading "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?" the APA writes,

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. (emphasis added)

Put another way, "despite our best efforts to help facilitate the homosexual agenda, we can't find a way to tie homosexuality to inborn, genetic characteristics...sorry."

Not that we needed the APA to tell us what is common sense.  The mere presence of thousands of ex-homosexuals disproves any notion that the behavior of homosexuality is something that cannot be changed or overcome.

But as he made clear on MTV, our President knows better than all that silly science stuff.  Or at least he does when it suits his ideological agenda.  When it doesn't, that's a different story.

Remember the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency hosted by Rick Warren during the 2008 campaign?  Asked there when a baby gets human rights, Mr. Obama demurred, stating, "Well, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

The cowardice of such a statement is breathtaking.  Here is a man who is so opposed to human rights that he voted against a law that gave life-saving treatment to babies who were born alive after surviving an abortion.  His entire public policy career is built around the supposition that what is conceived in the womb is not human.  But because he realized what an asinine argument that would be to make on national television, he ran away, claiming it was beyond his understanding.

So, for a demonstration of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of this man's leadership, merely juxtapose that response to the one he gave MTV.  If the irony doesn't beat you over the head, allow me to assist it: the same guy who claims he isn't enlightened enough to determine the humanity of what is conceived in the womb (something science unquestionably proves) simultaneously claims that he can determine the sexuality of what is conceived in the womb (something that science, to this point, disproves).

This begs the obvious question that Riler posed in his analysis, "Might science simply be a tool in service of the President's ideology?"

Yes it might.  In his inaugural address, President Obama proclaimed he would, "restore science to its rightful place."  It has become apparent that by "rightful place" he meant the toilet.

In light of the fact that an increasing number of Americans are questioning his faith, President Obama has apparently been told by his advisors to ratchet up the Jesus talk.  So at a staged event in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Obama complied by responding to a question about why he became a Christian.

"I came to my Christian faith later in life and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead," he explained, adding he was moved by the thought of, "Being my brothers' and sisters' keeper."

One has to wonder whether such an answer was really what his advisors were wanting.  After all, who would ever suggest the president use the Biblical phrase, "being my brothers' keeper," when his actual half-brother (blood related) resides in a shack in Kenya?

If I may be so bold, I think this strained proclamation of faith by the President is far more about a Machiavellian manipulation of the masses (trying to convince people he's something that he's not) than it is about a devotion to the teachings of Christ.  In other words, I call bull.

Anyone who has actually studied and taken the ?precepts of Jesus' to heart knows that Jesus taught us to be personally charitable.  This is fitting with Christ's testimony that his was not a political kingdom, but a spiritual one (John 18:36).  He came not to conquer earthly thrones, but the human heart.

Yet false teachers like Obama seek to confuse that point.  They tell us that obedience to Christ comes in the form of high taxes on the wealthy to fund social programs for the poor.  Even if these programs weren't as miserably ineffective as what they are, look at what they foster: envy, greed, bitterness and resentment.  Not exactly the motivations of love and altruism that Jesus said were to be at the heart of our goodwill.

In truth, there is not one recorded instance of Christ advocating the government confiscation and redistribution of wealth in the name of charity.

Jesus did say: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' (Matthew 25:40)

Jesus did not say: "The King will reply, ?I tell you the truth, whatever you forcibly took from the masses through taxation in the name of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

Jesus did say: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

Jesus did not say: "If you want to be perfect, go, get elected to high office and then use the law to confiscate the property of those who have, and give to those you deem more worthy of it.  Then claim you are following me."

You get the point.  Barack Obama's social gospel of government sponsored theft is a flat contradiction to what Jesus taught. 

So keeping in mind another Biblical precept that "by their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:16), perhaps it's time to put Mr. Obama's fruits on trial against the actual principles of Jesus he claims are so moving.  If these words of our Savior truly spoke to Obama about the kind of life he wanted to lead, the evidence should be manifest.

But oddly, according to the New York Times, "In 2004, before Mr. Obama entered the Senate, he and his wife gave $2,500 to charity, 1.2 percent of the taxable income.?Their charitable giving only went up when it looked like he was campaigning for the presidential office,' said Paul L. Caron, a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law."

Moreover, cited and notated research of conservative writer Ann Coulter reveals something truly astonishing: "For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million - more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 - but they both gave about the same amount to charity.  That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity."

In other words, while Mr. Obama is very interested in being charitable with your money, he's pretty stingy with his own.  While you may find that in the teachings of Marx, you won't find it in the precepts of Jesus.

As I watch Mr. Obama's persistently arrogant, sanctimonious sermonizing to a nation of citizens far more personally charitable than him, there's another phrase of Christ that comes to mind.  Perhaps the President would be wise to familiarize himself with it...whitewashed tomb.

According to Politico, Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown is concerned.  At a recent closed door session of Republican lawmakers, Brown worried that conservative Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell's upset win in the Delaware Senate primary over establishment Republican Mike Castle was sending the message that the Republican Party is pitching a small tent with no room for moderates. 

It's good to know that Mr. Brown is apparently receiving his talking points from the Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine, who recently told the Today Show the exact same thing.

In fact, this is a meme that works its way through liberal channels every time conservatism begins an ascendency.  It was used to challenge the rise of every modern conservative from Goldwater to Reagan to Gingrich.  It's the rhetorical club that scorned liberal Republicans employ to exert superiority over their conservative counterparts: "they can't win...they're too far out of the mainstream."

But if the Tea Party movement has revealed anything, it is that the conservative base is much larger than previously thought...it is the mainstream.  Thus, the temper tantrum being thrown right now by left leaning Republicans is predictable, if not expected. 

A major impetus behind the internal purge of these so-called moderates is their fascination with power, and their obsessive sense of entitlement to it.  Therefore, it is not surprising that when the real power brokers - the people - wrest it out of their clutches, they react with the maturity of two year olds.  To wit:

When "moderate" Republican Arlen Specter saw that his betrayal of conservative principles was going to cost him his grip on power, he switched parties with no hesitancy.

When "moderate" Republican Charlie Crist saw that his fair-weathered commitment to conservatism was going to obstruct his political ambition, he scrubbed his website and left the party to run as an independent without reservation.

When "moderate" Republican Dede Scozzafava saw her support drain away in favor of the more conservative Doug Hoffman, she suspended her campaign and endorsed the Democrat candidate.

When "moderate" Republican Senator Bob Bennett lost his position of authority to a more conservative Republican, he mulled a detrimental independent candidacy, rather than supporting his constituents' choice.

When "moderate" Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski lost her primary race to the more conservative Republican Joe Miller, she refused to endorse him and took the plunge Bennett wouldn't, embarking on a foolish write-in campaign.

When "moderate" Republican Representative Mike Castle lost his bid for the U.S. Senate to the more conservative Republican Christine O'Donnell, he announced he couldn't support her and is considering pulling a Murkowski himself.

And therein lies the real story.  For years, the moderate and left-leaning Republican establishment demanded that the conservative base support them.  Failure to do so was regarded not only as a contemptuous betrayal of Republican Party fidelity, but an egregious violation of conventional wisdom.

After all, they lectured, expecting ideological purity from your candidates is fantasy and ignores the hard truth that there are several areas of the country - Delaware, Maine, Vermont, New York, Massachusetts - where conservatism won't sell.

To fully grasp the nonsense inherent in such a conclusion, one needs only to look at an electoral map from 1984.  Ronald Reagan's audacious brand of in-your-face conservatism (not just economic, mind you, but social and defense conservatism as well) carried the entire Northeast.  In fact, save the socialist enclave of D.C. and Walter Mondale's home state of Minnesota, Reagan's "dangerously divisive, small tent, right-wing ideology" brought majorities of 49 states into the Republican fold.  Pray tell, when has the Republican Party tent ever been so large?

Compare Reagan's results to those of virtually every "moderate" Republican presidential candidate in recent history: Ford, Bush 41, Dole, McCain.  Each of them not only failed to energize the conservative base, they couldn't even win over the great center - the very reason they were touted as the best choice.  This comedic charade was perfectly encapsulated in the iconic image of Colin Powell - long a proponent of moving the Republican Party leftward and supporting more moderate candidates like John McCain - endorsing McCain's Democrat opponent for President.

Looking at the raw numbers, it's peculiar how narrow of an appeal the Republicans' big tent strategy has had as opposed to the broad appeal of the allegedly small tent approach.  Perhaps we have some term confusion that needs clarification.

Here's the truth: Republican support swells when the Party faithfully articulates a clear rightward conservative agenda.  Republican support contracts when it offers the electorate a milquetoast, watered down version of the Democrats.  This isn't high minded political scientist thinking here.  It's common sense.

It's time for the so-called moderates within the Republican Party to be the good little foot soldiers they've demanded conservatives be for years.  Just smile and dutifully give us your votes.  You are welcome inside the tent, but for the sake of the Party and the country, we'll decide where the stakes go.