Has anyone else noticed that the "promises" continually given to us by Washington are just not working out? It amazes me how the Czar Obama is continually getting his agenda pushed through based on straight out lies. You think that someone would have said something by now.
The biggest problem with Obama is that everything gets passed through as an "emergency". He did it with the spendulous bill, he did it with the swine flu, and now he's doing it with healthcare. "If we don't get it done now the world will be destroyed," seems to be the attitude of Washington these days.
When the spendulous bill was being rushed through Congress Obama's "crack economic team" stated in a press conference that without the spendulous bill unemployment would reach 9%. They promissed that if we got the spendulous bill through in time it would never pass 8%. Last I checked we were at 8.9% unemployment, and the spendulous bill passed. Guess the crack economic team needs to go back and rework the numbers.
Obama exclaimed that we must bail out the auto-industry because they are "too big to fail". He stated that we must hurry and bail them out so that they can save themselves. Guess what? Even after all that help they still failed. Chrysler will soon be owned by Fiat, and GM's bankruptcy case is in the courts as we speak. I'm so glad we bailed them out.
There are now rumors flying around Washington that in order to maintain the President's budget, especially if they tack on healthcare, a national sales tax will have to be put in place. Now during the election the Obama camp promissed that taxes would not be increased on the poor, only on the rich. A national sales tax would be a greater demand on the poor than on the rich. Let me give an illustration.
If you make $25,000 a year, an average college student salary and you bought $400 worth of groceries a month you would end up spending about 1% of your total salary on sales tax just on food. If you were a Jazz starter you would make about $2,500,000 a year. Let's say you spent about $700 of food a WEEK or $2,800 a month. At the end of the year only .07% percent of your total income would go to sales tax on food. And we're not increasing taxes on the poor?
It's first days in office the Obama Admin. promissed a more transparant government. Instead we are getting an adminstration that uses lies and fearmongering to get its agenda through. Enough is enough people. It's time to send a message to our government that we are sick of their lies and want them to start slowing things down. If I handled my job the way they are handling theirs, I would have been fired months ago.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
California Supreme Court Ruling Gives Us Hope
Whether or not you agree with the decision it can still be viewed as a positive step forward for the country. Let's suppose that you are a voter preparing to vote in an important election in your state. You do your research and make your decision and cast your vote. Months later the Supreme Court of your country overturns your decision. Pretty discouraging huh? Now let's suppose that it happens over and over and over. What would you start to think? I know that I would start to wonder if my vote was really worth it. I would ask myself what the point of voting for something is if every time I vote on it the court overturns my decision. It would definitely make me less likely to vote in the future. This is what was happening in California.
If you know the history of Prop. 8 you know that this is not the first time that Californians are voting on this. They had already made the decision once, but it was deemed unconstitutional. Doing the right thing Californians moved to alter the State Constitution, which they succeeded in doing. An overturn by the Supreme Court would be a kicking Californians while they are down. It would be telling them that their vote doesn't matter. The California Supreme Court sent an important message to California voters today: that their vote matters.
I have heard a lot of arguments from opponents of Prop. 8 stating that the citizens of the country should not be allowed to legislate. That they don't have all the facts and therefore cannot make a decision of such importance. They accuse voters of being ignorant and easily manipulated. Arguments of this sort show the true ignorance of the American people. The purpose of our representatives is not to make the decisions we are too stupid to make. They are to represent us. They are to take our beliefs, platforms, and issues and represent them in their respective jobs. We are a democratic republic. We send people to represent us purely to make things go a little smoother.
The second thing that gives me hope about the courts decision is the federalistic character behind it. In the tenth amendment to the Constitution the founders declared their intent to give all power not given by the Constitution to the federal government are given to the states. The power to determine who can marry who is definitely not in the U.S. Constitution. Where should the power to lie? With the states. It appears that this case will not be taken to the national level which means the federal government is finally giving respect to the states. Something we need to see more of.
I had a good discussion yesterday about the Constitutionality of a ban on same-sex marriage. While I am a firm believer that marriage is purely between a man and a woman, I cannot, from a U.S. Constitution point of view, see how such a decision could be reached by the Government. The best solution seems to be exactly what is happening. Let the states decide. And that's exactly what happened in California. California decided, and now their decision will be respected. God bless the U.S.A.
If you know the history of Prop. 8 you know that this is not the first time that Californians are voting on this. They had already made the decision once, but it was deemed unconstitutional. Doing the right thing Californians moved to alter the State Constitution, which they succeeded in doing. An overturn by the Supreme Court would be a kicking Californians while they are down. It would be telling them that their vote doesn't matter. The California Supreme Court sent an important message to California voters today: that their vote matters.
I have heard a lot of arguments from opponents of Prop. 8 stating that the citizens of the country should not be allowed to legislate. That they don't have all the facts and therefore cannot make a decision of such importance. They accuse voters of being ignorant and easily manipulated. Arguments of this sort show the true ignorance of the American people. The purpose of our representatives is not to make the decisions we are too stupid to make. They are to represent us. They are to take our beliefs, platforms, and issues and represent them in their respective jobs. We are a democratic republic. We send people to represent us purely to make things go a little smoother.
The second thing that gives me hope about the courts decision is the federalistic character behind it. In the tenth amendment to the Constitution the founders declared their intent to give all power not given by the Constitution to the federal government are given to the states. The power to determine who can marry who is definitely not in the U.S. Constitution. Where should the power to lie? With the states. It appears that this case will not be taken to the national level which means the federal government is finally giving respect to the states. Something we need to see more of.
I had a good discussion yesterday about the Constitutionality of a ban on same-sex marriage. While I am a firm believer that marriage is purely between a man and a woman, I cannot, from a U.S. Constitution point of view, see how such a decision could be reached by the Government. The best solution seems to be exactly what is happening. Let the states decide. And that's exactly what happened in California. California decided, and now their decision will be respected. God bless the U.S.A.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Step by step to communism
I had decided to put politics on the back burner for awhile. I had decided that I just couldn't touch enough people to really make a difference. After a few months of exile though I have decided that it is once again time to raise my voice of warning and hope that someone will listen.
Slowly but surely our country is marching towards communism, and it's happening right under our noses. A little here and a little there, and it is slowly adding up. It started with some mild "healthcare reform" in the spendulus package and is slowly spending. Government controlled healthcare, one drop in the bucket.
Those big banks that were "too big to fail" are now owned by the government. They are being told who to lend to, how much they can lend, what salaries they can pay their employees and what interest rates they can charge. Does that sound like capatalism? Government owned banks, one drop in the bucket.
The big three in the auto-industry that were "too big to fail" are now owned by the government. The Czar Obama administration is firing CEO's, telling them what dealerships to close, (dealerships not owned by the auto-makers, but privately owned by investors) and they are now telling them what kind of cars they are have to make.
Now they are telling the credit card industry how to run it's business. Placing many restrictions on what the companies can do. Not that I agree with credit cards, but is it really the government's job to tell them how to run their businesses?
The question now is how many more companies are "too big to fail"? California is bankrupt. Are they too big to fail? What happens when the federal government uses our tax dollars to bail out California? Does that mean they own California? Some food for thought.
The thing that scares me most is that the government is not good at managing things. They want universal healthcare, yet they bankrupt medicare. They want extensive welfare programs, yet they bankrupt Social Security. They are going to save the auto-industry, but they can't balance their own budget.
While many of the things mentioned above do need help, do we really want the government "fixing" the problem? I don't think I do. They can't even fix themselves.
Slowly but surely our country is marching towards communism, and it's happening right under our noses. A little here and a little there, and it is slowly adding up. It started with some mild "healthcare reform" in the spendulus package and is slowly spending. Government controlled healthcare, one drop in the bucket.
Those big banks that were "too big to fail" are now owned by the government. They are being told who to lend to, how much they can lend, what salaries they can pay their employees and what interest rates they can charge. Does that sound like capatalism? Government owned banks, one drop in the bucket.
The big three in the auto-industry that were "too big to fail" are now owned by the government. The Czar Obama administration is firing CEO's, telling them what dealerships to close, (dealerships not owned by the auto-makers, but privately owned by investors) and they are now telling them what kind of cars they are have to make.
Now they are telling the credit card industry how to run it's business. Placing many restrictions on what the companies can do. Not that I agree with credit cards, but is it really the government's job to tell them how to run their businesses?
The question now is how many more companies are "too big to fail"? California is bankrupt. Are they too big to fail? What happens when the federal government uses our tax dollars to bail out California? Does that mean they own California? Some food for thought.
The thing that scares me most is that the government is not good at managing things. They want universal healthcare, yet they bankrupt medicare. They want extensive welfare programs, yet they bankrupt Social Security. They are going to save the auto-industry, but they can't balance their own budget.
While many of the things mentioned above do need help, do we really want the government "fixing" the problem? I don't think I do. They can't even fix themselves.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Spendation Without Representation
(This was originally posted on Facebook on February 10, 2009)
The passage of this "stimulus bill" today brings some real questions to my mind. One of the main reasons that drove the Founding Fathers towards indepence was the notion of "taxation without representation". The colonists had no problem paying taxes, they just wanted a say in what was being taxed. They felt that this was such an important neglect on the part of parliment that they declared indepence and fought a war. One of the main things that the founding fathers were concerned with was that the people would be represented. They wanted to ensure that every citizen of this great country felt that their elected officials represented their best interests.
What does this have to do with the stimulus package? Everything! Two out of the three "conservative" senators who voted this bill are from Maine, a state where only 35% of the people support the stimulus package. Now if you were the founding fathers how would you expect these senators to vote if only 35% supported a bill? Obviously they should vote for it. I mean 35% is a clear majority! The offices of these two senators have been swamped with calls, emails, and letters from all over the country asking, nay begging, these two senators to be "conservative" and vote down this bill. The founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves.
I think that the government has forgotten exactly where their money comes from. I have no problems with paying taxes, but I want them to benefit me. Does that sound selfish? It shouldn't. What is the purpose of government? According to the founders it's to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquilty, etc. Do you sense a pattern in thier words? Words like common, general, justice for all, tend to suggest that the govenrment's job is to do things that will benefit everyone. Entitlement programs, big business bail-outs, and 87 million dollar ships to break ice in the Artic are hardly my idea of promoting the general welfare. Included with taxation without representation should be spendation without representation.
The Obama administration seems to have forgotten who keeps them in business. The Congress of this nation seems to forget where their money comes from. Maybe we should all stop paying taxes to show them, we would fit right in with the current cabinet. Oh wait they would just borow the money from China.
The passage of this "stimulus bill" today brings some real questions to my mind. One of the main reasons that drove the Founding Fathers towards indepence was the notion of "taxation without representation". The colonists had no problem paying taxes, they just wanted a say in what was being taxed. They felt that this was such an important neglect on the part of parliment that they declared indepence and fought a war. One of the main things that the founding fathers were concerned with was that the people would be represented. They wanted to ensure that every citizen of this great country felt that their elected officials represented their best interests.
What does this have to do with the stimulus package? Everything! Two out of the three "conservative" senators who voted this bill are from Maine, a state where only 35% of the people support the stimulus package. Now if you were the founding fathers how would you expect these senators to vote if only 35% supported a bill? Obviously they should vote for it. I mean 35% is a clear majority! The offices of these two senators have been swamped with calls, emails, and letters from all over the country asking, nay begging, these two senators to be "conservative" and vote down this bill. The founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves.
I think that the government has forgotten exactly where their money comes from. I have no problems with paying taxes, but I want them to benefit me. Does that sound selfish? It shouldn't. What is the purpose of government? According to the founders it's to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquilty, etc. Do you sense a pattern in thier words? Words like common, general, justice for all, tend to suggest that the govenrment's job is to do things that will benefit everyone. Entitlement programs, big business bail-outs, and 87 million dollar ships to break ice in the Artic are hardly my idea of promoting the general welfare. Included with taxation without representation should be spendation without representation.
The Obama administration seems to have forgotten who keeps them in business. The Congress of this nation seems to forget where their money comes from. Maybe we should all stop paying taxes to show them, we would fit right in with the current cabinet. Oh wait they would just borow the money from China.
Wake Up America
(This was originally posted on Facebook February 9, 2009)
This is going to become my new phrase. It's time we stopped being so doggone lazy! I haven't written in a while because I didn't think I was making a difference, but I can no longer be silent.Did you know a vast majority (60-70% depending on the poll) of Americans oppose the stimulus package proposed by the Obama administration? That's quite a large portion of the population, yet the Obama administration continues to push it. Why? According to Obama, "Because in November this nation voted for change." What a clever dude! He tricked us! He promised change, just not the change we would want! We were so eager to get rid of Bush that we let him lead us on. I could get hit by a car tommorrow and become paralized. That would be a change, though it would not be a welcome one.
Has anyone noticed how eager Obama is to push this through? Everyday he gets pushier and pushier stating that we have to get this passed before it's too late. With the stimulus package approaching 1 trillion dollars many people are starting to worry we're rushing into it. That there are too many pork-barrell policies involved. Obama's excuse? "No stimulus package will be perfect, we just need to get one through." Wait a second! Hold the phone! Let's translate this real quick." So what if the stimilus spends billions of dollars on programs! Who cares if most of the programs really won't create more jobs! I promised change and if you don't want it I'm going to shove it down your throats!"
I keep asking myself why he is pushing so hard to get this through. It finally dawned on me today. Americans are starting to wise up. People like you and me are starting to say, "Hold the phone! Deficit spending and pork-barrell spending got us in this mess in the first place. Why would more deficit spending and pork-barrell politicing get us out of it." Obama has to get his change through before we can stop him! He promised change and by golly he's going to give it to us. So far this administration's theme has been let's git her done! Closing Gitmo without a back-up plan while every day there is a new report of a recent Gitmo release performing some act of terrorism. I don't necessarily agree with Gitmo, but let's have a plan before we close it!
My man Glenn Beck is working on a project that I would like to endorse. He's hoping that you and me realize that we are not alone. He made an invitation to anyone who agrees with good conservative morals ( not republicans conservatives ) to email a photo to Wesurroundthem@gmail.com. Please read this story if you want to learn more. http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/21018/. Together we can make a difference. Together we can take a stand. Together we can make a change, but the kind of change we want.
This is going to become my new phrase. It's time we stopped being so doggone lazy! I haven't written in a while because I didn't think I was making a difference, but I can no longer be silent.Did you know a vast majority (60-70% depending on the poll) of Americans oppose the stimulus package proposed by the Obama administration? That's quite a large portion of the population, yet the Obama administration continues to push it. Why? According to Obama, "Because in November this nation voted for change." What a clever dude! He tricked us! He promised change, just not the change we would want! We were so eager to get rid of Bush that we let him lead us on. I could get hit by a car tommorrow and become paralized. That would be a change, though it would not be a welcome one.
Has anyone noticed how eager Obama is to push this through? Everyday he gets pushier and pushier stating that we have to get this passed before it's too late. With the stimulus package approaching 1 trillion dollars many people are starting to worry we're rushing into it. That there are too many pork-barrell policies involved. Obama's excuse? "No stimulus package will be perfect, we just need to get one through." Wait a second! Hold the phone! Let's translate this real quick." So what if the stimilus spends billions of dollars on programs! Who cares if most of the programs really won't create more jobs! I promised change and if you don't want it I'm going to shove it down your throats!"
I keep asking myself why he is pushing so hard to get this through. It finally dawned on me today. Americans are starting to wise up. People like you and me are starting to say, "Hold the phone! Deficit spending and pork-barrell spending got us in this mess in the first place. Why would more deficit spending and pork-barrell politicing get us out of it." Obama has to get his change through before we can stop him! He promised change and by golly he's going to give it to us. So far this administration's theme has been let's git her done! Closing Gitmo without a back-up plan while every day there is a new report of a recent Gitmo release performing some act of terrorism. I don't necessarily agree with Gitmo, but let's have a plan before we close it!
My man Glenn Beck is working on a project that I would like to endorse. He's hoping that you and me realize that we are not alone. He made an invitation to anyone who agrees with good conservative morals ( not republicans conservatives ) to email a photo to Wesurroundthem@gmail.com. Please read this story if you want to learn more. http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/21018/. Together we can make a difference. Together we can take a stand. Together we can make a change, but the kind of change we want.
An alternative Stimulus Plan
(This was originally posted on Facebook on January 29, 2009)
I just had a rather enlightening experience in my social problems class. It presented an idea to me that I had never previously considered. We watched a movie called "Demographic Winter" which presents an idea that will probably seem foreign to most people. It asserts that most of the problem we are seeing today are a result of a decreased fertility rate. In order to maintain a replacement population female has to have 2.1 children ( a little Jacob 2 for the lds crowd ). Currently the U.S. is averaging 1.9 children per female and this is in steady decline. One of the professors in the film- I wish I had his name, but he won a Noble Peace prize in economics- stated that the average spending age is 48-50. It is during this age period that people, on average, spend the most money. He took a population chart from the year 1900 and set it 48 years back from an economic growth graph that followed the same period. Guess what year the largest population (baby boomers) reached the highest spending age? About 2002-2008. Guess what year the population between these high spending ages dropped? 2010. This professor predicted years ago that we would have an economic downfall in 2010. So he was a year off? It was almost pefect.Another high ranking sociologist, Professor Poponoe, stated that the best economic situation is a typical nuclear family- a mother, a father, and children. Isn't that interesting. The best economic situation would be a society entirely composed of "the golden family." Hmmm. So would passing a constitutional amendment to not allow homosexual marriage and adoption help the economy? Yes! Would anti-abortion laws and programs that encouraged adoption in to good families help the economy? Yes! And we're spending $37 million on a boat that can break ice in Antartica! Boy howdy will that stimulate the economy.I would now like to take a look at the Obama solution to the economy. The following ideas are from a good friend- well I'd like him to be- Glenn Beck.
•President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save 3 million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $42,000 a year.
• This bill provides enough spending to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700.
• This bill will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.
• Although this legislation has been billed and described as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, but only three percent ($30 billion) of this package is for road and highway spending.
• Deficit spending will not expand the economy. If that were true, then the current $1.2 trillion deficit -- the largest in history -- would already be rescuing the economy.
These are a few other ideas I found:
* There is a proposed 37 million to be spent on a ship to break ice in Antartica. ( You thought I was joking. )
*The stimulus bill will give ACORN and other special interest groups access to some of the money. (ACORN is being investigated in several states for voter fraud.)
*The stimulus bill will spend several million dollars building ATV trails.
*Illegal immigrants and other non-tax paying peoples will have access to stimulus money.
*3 billion dollars or so will be spent on new computers, light bulbs, and cars for government officials.
*The stimulus bill is several hundred pages long. Obama's biggest complaint about the Patriot Act (I'm not saying I agree with it) was that it was rushed through. This bill is just as long and is going through just as fast. How many more earmarks and pork-barrell items does it contain?I could go on and on, but I'm not going to. I hope you get the point. Two more points brought up by Glenn. The size of the stimulus is sufficient to give every family in the U.S. $17,000, gas in their cars for two straight years. Could you use that kind of money right now?With so many other ways to fix the economy more deficit spending is not the answer. It's fascinating to me that something as simple as living a morally consertative life could fix the economy.
I just had a rather enlightening experience in my social problems class. It presented an idea to me that I had never previously considered. We watched a movie called "Demographic Winter" which presents an idea that will probably seem foreign to most people. It asserts that most of the problem we are seeing today are a result of a decreased fertility rate. In order to maintain a replacement population female has to have 2.1 children ( a little Jacob 2 for the lds crowd ). Currently the U.S. is averaging 1.9 children per female and this is in steady decline. One of the professors in the film- I wish I had his name, but he won a Noble Peace prize in economics- stated that the average spending age is 48-50. It is during this age period that people, on average, spend the most money. He took a population chart from the year 1900 and set it 48 years back from an economic growth graph that followed the same period. Guess what year the largest population (baby boomers) reached the highest spending age? About 2002-2008. Guess what year the population between these high spending ages dropped? 2010. This professor predicted years ago that we would have an economic downfall in 2010. So he was a year off? It was almost pefect.Another high ranking sociologist, Professor Poponoe, stated that the best economic situation is a typical nuclear family- a mother, a father, and children. Isn't that interesting. The best economic situation would be a society entirely composed of "the golden family." Hmmm. So would passing a constitutional amendment to not allow homosexual marriage and adoption help the economy? Yes! Would anti-abortion laws and programs that encouraged adoption in to good families help the economy? Yes! And we're spending $37 million on a boat that can break ice in Antartica! Boy howdy will that stimulate the economy.I would now like to take a look at the Obama solution to the economy. The following ideas are from a good friend- well I'd like him to be- Glenn Beck.
•President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save 3 million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $42,000 a year.
• This bill provides enough spending to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700.
• This bill will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.
• Although this legislation has been billed and described as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, but only three percent ($30 billion) of this package is for road and highway spending.
• Deficit spending will not expand the economy. If that were true, then the current $1.2 trillion deficit -- the largest in history -- would already be rescuing the economy.
These are a few other ideas I found:
* There is a proposed 37 million to be spent on a ship to break ice in Antartica. ( You thought I was joking. )
*The stimulus bill will give ACORN and other special interest groups access to some of the money. (ACORN is being investigated in several states for voter fraud.)
*The stimulus bill will spend several million dollars building ATV trails.
*Illegal immigrants and other non-tax paying peoples will have access to stimulus money.
*3 billion dollars or so will be spent on new computers, light bulbs, and cars for government officials.
*The stimulus bill is several hundred pages long. Obama's biggest complaint about the Patriot Act (I'm not saying I agree with it) was that it was rushed through. This bill is just as long and is going through just as fast. How many more earmarks and pork-barrell items does it contain?I could go on and on, but I'm not going to. I hope you get the point. Two more points brought up by Glenn. The size of the stimulus is sufficient to give every family in the U.S. $17,000, gas in their cars for two straight years. Could you use that kind of money right now?With so many other ways to fix the economy more deficit spending is not the answer. It's fascinating to me that something as simple as living a morally consertative life could fix the economy.
Obamawatch Part 3
(This was originally posted on Facebook January 27, 2009)
Josh Nash, one of my former missionary companions, proposed an interesting point to me on my first Obama watch entry. He stated that he felt that most people were so excited about Obama being president mostly because they were excited to be rid of Bush. I work in an extremely liberal environment, so I decided to ask a few of my more liberal friends what it was about Bush that drove them so crazy. Responses varied, but included things like the war in Iraq, deficit spending, trickle down economics, patriot act, etc. I then posed a question to them. Who really has the power to implement all of those things you just couldn't stand about Bush? The answer surprised them, and it may surprise you.
Constitutionally the President of the United States has very little power. The only really effective way they have to implement policy- besides executive orders which Obama is making good use of- is to push an agenda through Congress. Executive orders can only go so far and can easily be overturned-as Obama is proving- so, if, as a President, you want to have real policy implemented, you have to go through Congress.
Coincidentally in the mid-term election of Bush's second term the democrats took considerable control of Congress. So to you liberals? Was it Bush that was keeping us in Iraq? Or was it Byrd's senate? Was it Bush who was causing such huge deficit spending? Or was it Pelosi's House of Representatives? (Speaking of deficit spending so far Obama is proposing spending beyond Bush's imagination.) Was it Bush who caused the Patriot Act to remain? Or was it the democrat controlled Congress who did not act to remove it? Pelosi is pushing for prosecution of the Bush administration for everything from war crimes to abuse of power, yet for two full years she sat and did nothing. Why? Could it be that they wanted Bush to fail? Could it be that if he looked bad Obama would be a shoe in? No it couldn't possibly be that.
To finish I would like to say how scared I am about what is going on with Rush Limbaugh. While I may not agree with the man I do think it's scary how much heat is taking. Originally, in a press conference, Obama stated that we should not listen to Mr. Limbaugh's comments because they were hurtful to the presidency. Now the national democratic convention is pushing a petition against Limbaugh for saying he would fail. As many rights as the Patriot Act took away it allowed the liberals of the world to criticize Bush doctrine. With only a week in office the Democrats are trying to restrict our free speech. America it is time to wake up and stop this now. After all the hate against Bush, all of the criticism, all of the heat, all of the Democrats in Congress who set him up to fail we are now allowing those very people to attempt to stop people like Mr. Limbaugh from doing the same thing to Obama. The time has arrived to say enough is enough. Our right to criticize President Obama is exactly what makes this country so great. When we lose that right, even in the slightest bit, we turn into an Iraq, North Korea, or even a Nazi Germany. Oh wait, I forgot, he's the messiah. Everything is going to be okay.
Josh Nash, one of my former missionary companions, proposed an interesting point to me on my first Obama watch entry. He stated that he felt that most people were so excited about Obama being president mostly because they were excited to be rid of Bush. I work in an extremely liberal environment, so I decided to ask a few of my more liberal friends what it was about Bush that drove them so crazy. Responses varied, but included things like the war in Iraq, deficit spending, trickle down economics, patriot act, etc. I then posed a question to them. Who really has the power to implement all of those things you just couldn't stand about Bush? The answer surprised them, and it may surprise you.
Constitutionally the President of the United States has very little power. The only really effective way they have to implement policy- besides executive orders which Obama is making good use of- is to push an agenda through Congress. Executive orders can only go so far and can easily be overturned-as Obama is proving- so, if, as a President, you want to have real policy implemented, you have to go through Congress.
Coincidentally in the mid-term election of Bush's second term the democrats took considerable control of Congress. So to you liberals? Was it Bush that was keeping us in Iraq? Or was it Byrd's senate? Was it Bush who was causing such huge deficit spending? Or was it Pelosi's House of Representatives? (Speaking of deficit spending so far Obama is proposing spending beyond Bush's imagination.) Was it Bush who caused the Patriot Act to remain? Or was it the democrat controlled Congress who did not act to remove it? Pelosi is pushing for prosecution of the Bush administration for everything from war crimes to abuse of power, yet for two full years she sat and did nothing. Why? Could it be that they wanted Bush to fail? Could it be that if he looked bad Obama would be a shoe in? No it couldn't possibly be that.
To finish I would like to say how scared I am about what is going on with Rush Limbaugh. While I may not agree with the man I do think it's scary how much heat is taking. Originally, in a press conference, Obama stated that we should not listen to Mr. Limbaugh's comments because they were hurtful to the presidency. Now the national democratic convention is pushing a petition against Limbaugh for saying he would fail. As many rights as the Patriot Act took away it allowed the liberals of the world to criticize Bush doctrine. With only a week in office the Democrats are trying to restrict our free speech. America it is time to wake up and stop this now. After all the hate against Bush, all of the criticism, all of the heat, all of the Democrats in Congress who set him up to fail we are now allowing those very people to attempt to stop people like Mr. Limbaugh from doing the same thing to Obama. The time has arrived to say enough is enough. Our right to criticize President Obama is exactly what makes this country so great. When we lose that right, even in the slightest bit, we turn into an Iraq, North Korea, or even a Nazi Germany. Oh wait, I forgot, he's the messiah. Everything is going to be okay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
