Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Our Rights Come From God
I do not believe I have ever been more offended and ashamed of my country as I am this evening. Ashamed because we the citizens of the United States have allowed our country to be hijacked by a progressive movement and a slight majority of what has aptly been called a "multitude of fools". They elected the most far left individual in the history of the United States, Barack Obama. Offended because the results we now face is the gradual transformation of our nation into at the minimum, a European style socialist government. There is an abundance of written and audio visual evidence to show that Barack Obama had every intention to change us. In October 2008 just a month before elections, he stated "We are just days from fundamentally changing America as we know it". The voters were just not really listening.
What he has done in the past fourteen months has often been noted in my previous commentaries and far to much to list here. Today, we stand at the threshold in that transformation. During an interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, Obama made it quite clear in stating, "Yes, It is one-sixth of the economy, but were not transforming one-sixth of the economy in one fell swoop". No, they will transform the economy step by step. He also as been quoted as saying, "By the way, Canada did not start off immediately with a single-payer system". As I have said in the past, Marxism changes a nation by revolution, Progressivism changes a nation step by step. Obama learned the ways of a Community Organizer through the teachings of Sol Alinsky and his book, "Rules for Radicals".
I was watching a television show today which was pointing out how the radical left was going to change our nation. They were pointing out that part of the premise for passing what has come to be known as ObamaCare, was that health care was a right. Just as they believe that you have a right to education, a home to live in and a job. It struck me that this was so wrong from what I was taught and the principals that I was raised on.
I also received an email today from my oldest son, who was expressing the anger, the frustration and the fear that we are losing the principals of the nation that I tried so hard to instill in my children. He was talking about "the good, honest and God fearing Americans like John Wayne and Ronald Reagan". He said that we had let our guard down. It really hit home and I share that feeling with him.
Our rights come from God. Not from Barack Obama, not from the progressive movement that wants to transform our nation. This is a principal that makes the United States totally different than any other nation on earth. Our founding fathers built a nation that espoused that "we are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". I was taught by my father that what I received in life is determined by my willingness to work and my efforts to be successful no matter what my chosen profession. I was taught that I should never expect something for nothing. I was taught that charity is for the less fortunate and only a means to give a hand up rather than a handout. Socialism teaches redistribution of wealth and all things come from the government. I reject that philosophy now and forever to my last breathe.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
What he has done in the past fourteen months has often been noted in my previous commentaries and far to much to list here. Today, we stand at the threshold in that transformation. During an interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, Obama made it quite clear in stating, "Yes, It is one-sixth of the economy, but were not transforming one-sixth of the economy in one fell swoop". No, they will transform the economy step by step. He also as been quoted as saying, "By the way, Canada did not start off immediately with a single-payer system". As I have said in the past, Marxism changes a nation by revolution, Progressivism changes a nation step by step. Obama learned the ways of a Community Organizer through the teachings of Sol Alinsky and his book, "Rules for Radicals".
I was watching a television show today which was pointing out how the radical left was going to change our nation. They were pointing out that part of the premise for passing what has come to be known as ObamaCare, was that health care was a right. Just as they believe that you have a right to education, a home to live in and a job. It struck me that this was so wrong from what I was taught and the principals that I was raised on.
I also received an email today from my oldest son, who was expressing the anger, the frustration and the fear that we are losing the principals of the nation that I tried so hard to instill in my children. He was talking about "the good, honest and God fearing Americans like John Wayne and Ronald Reagan". He said that we had let our guard down. It really hit home and I share that feeling with him.
Our rights come from God. Not from Barack Obama, not from the progressive movement that wants to transform our nation. This is a principal that makes the United States totally different than any other nation on earth. Our founding fathers built a nation that espoused that "we are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". I was taught by my father that what I received in life is determined by my willingness to work and my efforts to be successful no matter what my chosen profession. I was taught that I should never expect something for nothing. I was taught that charity is for the less fortunate and only a means to give a hand up rather than a handout. Socialism teaches redistribution of wealth and all things come from the government. I reject that philosophy now and forever to my last breathe.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Friday, March 5, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Socialist is an Ugly Word
This week on the Fox cable news show "The O'Reilly Factor", Bill took what I consider to be a bold move by asking his viewers to answer the question of whether they thought that President Obama was a socialist. The response was decidedly in agreement with the question. It is a fair question that many citizens of our nation are beginning to ask. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Presidents ethic background but everything to do with political and economical theories.
In an article entitled "Why Do We Fear Calling Obama a Socialist?, noted author, columnist and former speech writer for Senator Bob Dole, Douglas MacKinnon presents the argument that there is nothing wrong with the identification of the Presidents political persuasion and questions why the media wants to dodge the question. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "socialism" as "Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods".
It would be in total denial not to recognize that the current administration has exhibited these traits by taking over the supervision of some of our largest banks; by completely taking over the administration of two of the three largest automobile companies in the United States by "saving them" from collapse. The administration wants to take over one fifth of our economy by passing legislation for a government-run national health care system, and certainly made it quite clear that redistribution of wealth from the "elite" to the poor levels the playing field for all.
Fortunately, our Republic allows everyone the freedom of speech and President Obama has every right to call himself a Socialist. However, the President has not been forthright with the American people and resists any attempt to be called a "socialist" or "ideologue". Most likely because of the negative labels. Stalin of the Soviet Union and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela come to mind. As Douglas MacKinnon points out, it is a matter of political survival and "the same reason the far-left duplicitously runs from the word "liberal" and now substitutes "progressive." Marxism has been characterized as the overthrow of a country through revolution whereas Progressivism is done through small incremental steps. President Obama and the progressives of this nation might very well succeed but it would be proper to call them what they are... Socialists. The American people need to know the truth.
In an article entitled "Why Do We Fear Calling Obama a Socialist?, noted author, columnist and former speech writer for Senator Bob Dole, Douglas MacKinnon presents the argument that there is nothing wrong with the identification of the Presidents political persuasion and questions why the media wants to dodge the question. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "socialism" as "Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods".
It would be in total denial not to recognize that the current administration has exhibited these traits by taking over the supervision of some of our largest banks; by completely taking over the administration of two of the three largest automobile companies in the United States by "saving them" from collapse. The administration wants to take over one fifth of our economy by passing legislation for a government-run national health care system, and certainly made it quite clear that redistribution of wealth from the "elite" to the poor levels the playing field for all.
Fortunately, our Republic allows everyone the freedom of speech and President Obama has every right to call himself a Socialist. However, the President has not been forthright with the American people and resists any attempt to be called a "socialist" or "ideologue". Most likely because of the negative labels. Stalin of the Soviet Union and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela come to mind. As Douglas MacKinnon points out, it is a matter of political survival and "the same reason the far-left duplicitously runs from the word "liberal" and now substitutes "progressive." Marxism has been characterized as the overthrow of a country through revolution whereas Progressivism is done through small incremental steps. President Obama and the progressives of this nation might very well succeed but it would be proper to call them what they are... Socialists. The American people need to know the truth.
Friday, February 19, 2010
If You Can't Dazzle them with Brillance, Baffle them with BS
When you are the President of the United States with a first rate intelligence and oratorical skills unseen in years, but your leadership decisions continue to fail you at every turn, what do you do? You fall back on the one thing you know will change the hearts and minds of your constituents at most, and at the least, buy you time to get your agenda implemented. At a time when the nation was in near panic over impending doom of the economic crisis, Obama saw
an opportunity to bring about his socialist agenda. However, these plans were so radical, that even with a lack of "transparency", the American people have seen right through him.
So now the President wants you to believe that he has seen the light. He now wants us to believe that the nation is overwhelmed in fiscal debt, the likes of which we have never seen and he must take action to save us. By Executive Order, he has created a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. He noted at the signing that "Without action, the accumulated weight of that structural deficit of ever-increasing debt will hobble our economy, it will cloud our future, and it will saddle every child in America with an intolerable burden." Well, I don't know about you, but I am as a citizen of this great nation, offended at the attitude and actions of this President.
I ask you where was this caution with his new budget for fiscal year 2010 that called for a freeze on discretionary spending that only effects 16% of the federal budget. A freeze that would by most experts produce only a 3% drop in debt over the next ten years as proposed. Mr. Obama stated yesterday that the "federal debt has exploded." Let me put this all in perspective:
When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 the deficit was $160 billion.
Under the Pelosi-Reid Congress it "exploded" to $458 billion in 2008.
When Obama took office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion. For 2010 projected at $1.6 trillion.
An even more shocking fact is that the interest on the national debt this year alone is 18.75% of the total budget and amounts to $389 billion dollars. It is estimated that the largest item in he federal budget within 12 years will be the interest on the national debt. Try to imagine if the largest item in your family budget was the interest on all the money you borrowed. You should feel like an idiot and that is what we have collectively become.
I will not for a moment try to paint the picture that Republicans do not share blame for the exploding deficit. I just pointed out that in 2007 it was already $160 billion. Unfortunately, the mentality for decades has been that the federal government could exist with on-going deficits. It was wrong 30 years ago and wrong today as we approach a debt of 87% to Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
There is only a few steps to correct the situation. Wasting more taxpayer money on a commission that by the "Executive Order" has no authority is nothing but putting on a show. If President Obama is really serious there are honest common sense steps that the White House and Congress can do immediately. First and foremost is acknowledging there is a problem without the smoke and mirrors mentality. Secondly, freeze all spending and rescind unspent stimulus funds. Do not move forward the proposed Stimulus 2 (renamed "Jobs Bill") and stop the "pass anyway possible" health reform bill sitting in limbo between the House and Senate. Lastly, all proposed tax hikes should be set aside until unemployment falls below 7 percent.
Long term deficit issues and cuts in mandatory spending for entitlement programs must be put on the table. We can no longer sustain a "nanny state" mentality without surrendering to a European style government. Remember that Ben Franklin said we have a Republic..."as long as we can keep it".
an opportunity to bring about his socialist agenda. However, these plans were so radical, that even with a lack of "transparency", the American people have seen right through him.
So now the President wants you to believe that he has seen the light. He now wants us to believe that the nation is overwhelmed in fiscal debt, the likes of which we have never seen and he must take action to save us. By Executive Order, he has created a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. He noted at the signing that "Without action, the accumulated weight of that structural deficit of ever-increasing debt will hobble our economy, it will cloud our future, and it will saddle every child in America with an intolerable burden." Well, I don't know about you, but I am as a citizen of this great nation, offended at the attitude and actions of this President.
I ask you where was this caution with his new budget for fiscal year 2010 that called for a freeze on discretionary spending that only effects 16% of the federal budget. A freeze that would by most experts produce only a 3% drop in debt over the next ten years as proposed. Mr. Obama stated yesterday that the "federal debt has exploded." Let me put this all in perspective:
When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 the deficit was $160 billion.
Under the Pelosi-Reid Congress it "exploded" to $458 billion in 2008.
When Obama took office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion. For 2010 projected at $1.6 trillion.
An even more shocking fact is that the interest on the national debt this year alone is 18.75% of the total budget and amounts to $389 billion dollars. It is estimated that the largest item in he federal budget within 12 years will be the interest on the national debt. Try to imagine if the largest item in your family budget was the interest on all the money you borrowed. You should feel like an idiot and that is what we have collectively become.
I will not for a moment try to paint the picture that Republicans do not share blame for the exploding deficit. I just pointed out that in 2007 it was already $160 billion. Unfortunately, the mentality for decades has been that the federal government could exist with on-going deficits. It was wrong 30 years ago and wrong today as we approach a debt of 87% to Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
There is only a few steps to correct the situation. Wasting more taxpayer money on a commission that by the "Executive Order" has no authority is nothing but putting on a show. If President Obama is really serious there are honest common sense steps that the White House and Congress can do immediately. First and foremost is acknowledging there is a problem without the smoke and mirrors mentality. Secondly, freeze all spending and rescind unspent stimulus funds. Do not move forward the proposed Stimulus 2 (renamed "Jobs Bill") and stop the "pass anyway possible" health reform bill sitting in limbo between the House and Senate. Lastly, all proposed tax hikes should be set aside until unemployment falls below 7 percent.
Long term deficit issues and cuts in mandatory spending for entitlement programs must be put on the table. We can no longer sustain a "nanny state" mentality without surrendering to a European style government. Remember that Ben Franklin said we have a Republic..."as long as we can keep it".
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Who Is Running the Asylum?
It has been over a month since I last discussed terrorism from the viewpoint of the Obama Administration and the failure of the intelligence community to take appropriate action in the case of the Christmas Day bomber, often referred to as the Underwear Bomber. In this past month we have learned so much more which has the citizens of this great nation wondering who is really in charge and why we get the impression that the crazies are running the asylum.
The administration because of political and media pressure has revealed that after the Christmas Day bomber was taken into custody in Detroit, he was questioned by the FBI for a period of fifty (50) minutes. Keep in mind that surely, Mr. Abdulmutallab had to be in extreme pain as a result of the failed attempt and that brings into question the efforts and validity of anything learned during those minutes. We also know that after that short questioning, Mr. Abdulmutallab was advised of his Miranda rights and immediately clammed up. He has been under security watch at a hospital ever since.
When I question who is in charge, too much cow manure has been thrown around to let the issue go without commentary. On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, one week ago, Robert Gibbs, the Press Secretary for the White House appeared to dance around the question (TWICE) if the President knew about the decision to read the "CrotchBomber" his rights. Finally, after weeks of questioning by various media sources, the Attorney General Eric Holder
made the statement "I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, with the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government." But wait a second, that idea of "no objection and other relevant departments just doesn't ring true.
On January 20th, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Jeff Sessions asked who in the "upper echelons" were involved in the Mirandizing decision?
* FBI Director Mueller testified he was not consulted.
* Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair testified that he was not consulted.
* Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano testified that she was not consulted.
* National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter testified that he was not consulted.
If none of these people were consulted, there is only one other person. As important as Erik Holder may think he is, he would not have done this on his own. The AG may be the fall guy in this decision but I am inclined to believe the President made the call.
This past Wednesday, Mr. Holder in a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that he took full responsibility for the decision and stated that "the wide-spread experience of law enforcement agencies, including the FBI is that many defendents will talk and cooperate once they have been advised of their right to remain silent".
We now have been told as if by magic that in fact, Mr. Abdulmutallab is telling all he knows and cooperating fully. In my opinion, this will give the White House justification for not turning him over to military authorities and I would make a further prediction that his "cooperation" will lead to a deal (a plea bargain) that will save him from the death penalty and perhaps even a
life sentence.
The administration because of political and media pressure has revealed that after the Christmas Day bomber was taken into custody in Detroit, he was questioned by the FBI for a period of fifty (50) minutes. Keep in mind that surely, Mr. Abdulmutallab had to be in extreme pain as a result of the failed attempt and that brings into question the efforts and validity of anything learned during those minutes. We also know that after that short questioning, Mr. Abdulmutallab was advised of his Miranda rights and immediately clammed up. He has been under security watch at a hospital ever since.
When I question who is in charge, too much cow manure has been thrown around to let the issue go without commentary. On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, one week ago, Robert Gibbs, the Press Secretary for the White House appeared to dance around the question (TWICE) if the President knew about the decision to read the "CrotchBomber" his rights. Finally, after weeks of questioning by various media sources, the Attorney General Eric Holder
made the statement "I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, with the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government." But wait a second, that idea of "no objection and other relevant departments just doesn't ring true.
On January 20th, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Jeff Sessions asked who in the "upper echelons" were involved in the Mirandizing decision?
* FBI Director Mueller testified he was not consulted.
* Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair testified that he was not consulted.
* Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano testified that she was not consulted.
* National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter testified that he was not consulted.
If none of these people were consulted, there is only one other person. As important as Erik Holder may think he is, he would not have done this on his own. The AG may be the fall guy in this decision but I am inclined to believe the President made the call.
This past Wednesday, Mr. Holder in a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that he took full responsibility for the decision and stated that "the wide-spread experience of law enforcement agencies, including the FBI is that many defendents will talk and cooperate once they have been advised of their right to remain silent".
We now have been told as if by magic that in fact, Mr. Abdulmutallab is telling all he knows and cooperating fully. In my opinion, this will give the White House justification for not turning him over to military authorities and I would make a further prediction that his "cooperation" will lead to a deal (a plea bargain) that will save him from the death penalty and perhaps even a
life sentence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
