2 Legitimate, Bi-partisan Thoughts

I say bi-partisan for these thoughts because my liberal friends actually agree with me on them. PLUS the reasoning behind them is bi-partisan, even if the reaction arises to blow them off rises from partisan emotions. They are:

1. Obama's initial Fort Hood remarks after the tragedy.
2. Obama's reluctance to trust General McChrystal in Afghanistan.

About point one. On a day of great national tragedy, when Americans are able to look to their President without the partisan spectacles they often have, they seek to hear words of reassurance and comfort. Sure, you can usually predict what those words will be, but you want to hear them nonetheless. So, when Obama's moment comes and network television is interrupted to bring us the breaking address of comfort and mourning, Obama begins to address the nation about....huh? Wait, wasn't there a tragedy? He starts speaking in a broken and uneloquent manner about the treatment of Native Americans? Not to mention an impromptu, casual, and even light-hearted shout out to an audience member. And then after OVER two minutes, he segues into his address on the tragedy mid-sentence while talking about something else! The massacre at Fort Hood didn't even warrant it's own introductory sentence. Can you imagine if FDR had given a shout out to a Senator before uttering that December 7 was a date that would live in infamy? What if Reagan had thrown in a few remarks about our freeway infrastructure before proceeding to address the nation about the Challenger tragedy? Or President Bush grabbing the blowhorn at Ground Zero and hitting up Social Security for a few good comments before declaring that the whole world would hear our resolve. Not only that, but despite the fact that we already knew that the shooter, a Muslim, was shouting "Allah Akbar" while shooting, Obama had the tenacity to tell us to "refrain from judgment," somehow implying that this wasn't an act of terrorism. Okay, well, anybody remember his remarks of July 22 in regard to the arrest of the black professor? Obama had no problem rushing to a judgment later proved completely inaccurate and wrong when he said that the police officers acted "stupidly" when they "had evidence indicating the individual was the home owner." Obama didn't have that evidence, he rushed to judgment, and when his blatant brashness was discovered he was given a "get out of jail free" card by the media who refused to call him on it.

Point two. Bailouts and health care are apparently crisis legislation that have to be rushed to votes so fast that nobody even has time to read them, literally. Votes are demanded not days, but mere hours after the bills are written. I guess Obama forgot his campaign promise of "transparency" in allowing the people 5 days to examine any bill our supposed representatives will be passing. So we know he's prone to quick action and decision in critical situations. Or is he? I guess our troops in Afghanistan aren't critical enough. He's acting as if he's making the decision to start the war--a decision that would rightly demand much thoughtful deliberation over some time. He is not, however, starting this war. It began 8 years ago and our troops have been fighting it actively ever since. This should be a simple decision--your combat commander is telling you what he needs to protect the troops already in harms way as well as what he needs to complete the objectives of the war. Yet what does Obama do? Sit on it. Not only that, but his indecision came during, literally, the bloodiest month of the entire 8 year conflict. More American troops died than any other month while Obama couldn't decide whether to do what their commander knew needed to be done for their protection. Out of 96 combat months in Afghanistan, October was the bloodiest for American troops. And yet he still hasn't reached a decision! Is he vacillating on whether the cause is still worth sending more troops? Have the ones who have already given the ultimate sacrifice done so in vain? If the cause isn't worth more sacrifice, it shouldn't have been worth any to begin with. Obama sends a clear message that health care demands more urgent action than our troops. How do the troops in the field feel--knowing their combat commander, General McChrystal, went to the commander-in-chief to ask for reinforcements that still haven't come? How do they feel on the front lines waiting for relief, looking over their shoulders hoping for support that isn't coming, week after week? Does Obama really think General McChrystal is so incompetent that Obama can't trust him when he asks for more troops? No, Obama needs to consult with his own war council, completely void of any actual representative from the entire operation going on in Afghanistan. Obama needs his Washington bureaucracy to determine the legitimacy of what the man actually in the field of combat is telling everyone.

I guess the people who thought you didn't need any experience as a leader to be President are quickly learning the futility of their naive thinking.

5 Votes....Only 5 Votes....

Out of 435 votes, only 5 made a difference. Five votes were the difference in the House passing the Health Care Reform bill. My heart sank when I saw the news. The past few weeks have been hard for me individually, but this really worsened things. This bill, if it makes it through the Senate, will not be merely forgotten in the coming years as so many bills are. It won't be passed and then lack repercussions down the road. This bill will forever change the very visible face of America. It will directly affect this country and influence the lives of EVERY citizen. Unfortunately, that is just what the Democrats in the government intend. They want to, as President Obama has repeatedly said, "fundamentally change America." Really? Does our country suck so much that we need to fundamentally change it? Fundamentally?! I'm sorry, but unless that change is taking us closer to the Founder's vision then it's taking us farther from it, and I didn't hear ANYONE in all the debates invoke ANY return to ANY principle espoused by the actual creators of this country. What is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with this country? I genuinely fear for the future of this country. Not a timid fear, not a "gee, I HOPE this doesn't happen, but if it does, oh well" kind of fear. What makes it even worse, even more deceptive, is the fact that they couch all of these revolutionary ideas in warm and fuzzy statements. "Health care for everyone" and blah blah. I'm sorry Machiavelli, but the ends do NOT justify the means when it means mortgaging away your future not to mention the backbone of our great nation that supposedly allows us to live a life free from government interference. I wish for once that more people read this blog, because I honestly want to hear from people who support this bill. How can you support this bill? Why do the means justify the ends? How is it going to work here when it hasn't worked in any other country with socialized healthcare? Obviously it's worked to a degree in other countries, I'm not stupid, but statistically, our healthcare system is ALREADY working better than every other country! Why make it worse?! I know there are issues to be dealt with in the insurance field. There are problems, big ones that need to be addressed. But that does NOT give Congress a blanket pass to fundamentally change the entire system. Fundamental change in one aspect of an industry does not warrant its complete transformation and eventual destruction couched in the pleasant terms of governemnt "assistance" and other such euphemisms. Phrases such as "tax surchage" should not be something anyone wants to hear when talking about a bill that is labeled as over a trillion dollar bill! Let's just "tax surchage" our way to an extra trillion dollars. Does anyone know how much a trillion actually is?! A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is 31,688 years. (BTW, what happened to those liberals who only recently were complaining about Bush's war spending and the spend happy Republican congress? Obama has already surpassed them in spending in less than a single year!)

I'm done. I'm furious, but more than that, I'm remorseful and discouraged. To think that the dirtiest city in our country is the heart of our country. There is more chicanery, deception, lies, and pure evil in Washington D.C. than any other city in the nation. The city of the people yet the power of the lobbyists. The city of democracy yet the principles of socialism. What goes on in that city is a farce, and one that WE pay for, not only literally with our pocketbooks, but emotionally as well as we suffer the consequences of a ballooning federal government that embroils our lives in yet more red tape, beuracracy, CW3940AB forms to fill out, and less money to earn in our livelihood. The destruction of agency veiled in the cloak of "the greater good" is not right. Government never has been, never will be, and right now is the farghest thing humanly possible from actually being the solution to our problems. Right now this government is the biggest problem this country has ever faced.

I have to end on a positive note. I'm not doing a good job of emulating the optimism that all of my political heroes embraced so well. Although the days of Reagan feel like they were much longer ago than they actually were due to the drastic 180 this country has made and the distance it has fallen from his "city on a hill" vision, that vision is still real. I still believe it. America's best days ARE still ahead of us, not behind us. The federal government may continue to invade the lives of its citizens and strip them of the sovereignty it once granted, but the ideals our Founders envisioned are eternal principles that no politican and no government can ever destroy, even if in the guise of honoring the very republican principles it espouses to ensure.

Cash For Clunkers...How about some Wisdom For Washington?

Isn't it great to have our government pass a program that benefits foreign nations more than our own? I didn't like this program from the beginning, but after reading about some hard core statistics and research that is coming out about it I am really hating it even more. What's up with our government? The only reason people like this program is because they're able to have the tax paying public help subsidize their new car. Who wouldn't like money that comes out of someone else's pocket instead of their own? Anyways, after reading how this program has been of a benefit to foreign automakers, I had a thought quite quickly that seemed pretty obvious to me but, well, you know how Washington is, the obvious is usually wrong because it's not confusing and clouded enough with political rhetoric to hide the majority of truth that politicians don't usually want the public to know about. Anyways, how hard would it have been to put a clause in this bill that specified AMERICAN automakers?! Didn't anyone up on the Hill in DC actually think about that? Specifying that the auto rebate could only be applied to cars made right here in the good 'ol US of A? Heaven forbid we actually do that, because it would require cutting out part of the world market and our new government is more concerned with what the world thinks about us as than they are about simply doing what is most right for the people they supposedly represent. Geez! What great leadership.

Follow the link to a brief article with the stats and some interpretation of them about the Cash For Clunkers program. The article is entitled

'Clunkers' Program Benefits Foreign Automakers More, Data Shows

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/22/clunkers-program-benefits-foreign-automakers-data-shows/?test=latestnews

Good News For Anti-Socialists

A new poll suggests public approval of the way President Barack Obama is handling health care reform is slipping.

The Washington Post-ABC News survey says since April, Obama's approval rating on the issue has declined from 57 percent to 49 percent, with disapproval rising from 29 percent to 44 percent.

The president's overall approval rating stands at 59 percent positive and 37 percent negative. It's the first time Obama's approval rating has fallen below 60 percent in Post-ABC polling since he took office.

Blatant Liberal Double-Standard

Reporting from Washington — President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.

In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."

He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

There's an interesting contradiction here. According to the pro-choice perspective, it's outrageous for the state to interfere in a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. But it's pragmatic and reasonable for the state to consider terminating a person, if some money can be saved.

Republican Legacy

Some mighty fine company. Nixon's an odd choice, but I personally don't think he was as horrible a President as people tend to think he was. Just a little too paranoid.

Obama's Popularity Plunging

Just fyi, the latest Rasmussen polls that came out show that more Americans disapprove of Obama's job performance than those who approve of the job he's done. 31% of Americans strongly approve of Obama's job performance while 33% strongly disapprove of it. It seems now that reality is setting in and people are finally emerging from the media enduced euphoria that swept them off their feet in proclaiming that the American messiah was come (I guess that idea was debunked when, after 40 days, Obama hadn't ascended to heaven).

Some more info from the poll:

"When we talk about healthcare reform and the proposal the president is talking about, the country is fairly evenly divided. But those who have strong opinions tend to oppose the plan more than support it.

"On the cap-and-trade legislation [to reduce carbon emissions], 42 percent believe it's going to hurt the economy. Only 19 percent believe it's going to help.

"The takeover of General Motors is strongly opposed.

"Right now those things are weighing the president down. What's going to tell over the next year is how the economy performs. If a year from today, GM is doing great and throwing off profits and getting the taxpayers their money back, people will say we were wrong, the president was right, and it's great for him. But if GM is back asking for more bailouts, the president's numbers will be substantially weaker than they are today . . .

"If the economy responds negatively over the next year, it is going to hurt the Democrats in 2010."

Rasmussen also found:

The country is evenly split between those who approve of the way Obama has responded to the disputed elections in Iran and the repression of demonstrations that followed, and those who disapprove and believe he has not been aggressive enough. More Americans strongly oppose Obama's healthcare plan than strongly support it. About 30 percent of Americans favor a single-payer healthcare system, but a majority will oppose it. "Americans like the idea of healthcare reform in theory, in the abstract," Rasmussen said. "Only 35 percent think this system is in good or excellent shape. But people like the coverage they get by themselves. Among the insured, 70 percent say their own coverage is good or excellent. Among all Americans, only 8 percent say their coverage is poor."

The American Dream and Agency...What Once Was, and What it Has Become

I apologize for my lack of commentary for several weeks. I needn't lecture any of the few followers of this forum about the rapidity with which time seems to disappear into thin air. One reason, however, is that I am truly discouraged by our current political situation. I discover that when I have periods of intense news watching and reading that I get discouraged for what the future of this country may present to my young children. I want them to know an America where the hope is based on honesty and not hype. I want them to know an America where they are empowered by the government, not entangled by it. I want them to know an America where their success is their own and not disproportionately taken by the government as their efforts to be the best that they can be yield greater results. Where are all the voices who call for "fair taxation" when taxes are raised on the wealthy when the statistics are presented to them that 50% of the American population pay only 3.3% of its taxes, while a mere 1% pay over a full third of all taxes collected by the government--36.89%? (see full stats in Comments below). Do you want a fair portion of the burden you ask others to bear? Or is your hypocritical bickering based more on the fact that their burden is to your relief, thus depriving you of learning the virtue of work, self-reliance, and dependence on your own labors and not someone else's?

This rant is moving into some thoughts I had today while driving home from work. The American Dream....what is it? What has it been? (for a more concise and officially accepted definition see comments below). Coming to a land that affords you the opportunity to succeed...to work at a better life for your family, and be the best that you can be within your community, business, and home. Is this the American dream? Or is that simply a memory...fastly fading in the warp speed rise of big government? Can the American dream that once drove us to work at success in our profession still exist when that dream is capped by a government that leaves you with a fraction of what you earn based on their opinion that they know how much you need to survive, and that they--not you--can spend your hard earned cash better than you? When a government presumes to know what is best for your money better than you do, are they really fostering the ideal of 'the sky is the limit' that once drove entrepreneurs to be their best? Sure there are those who do abuse the system, who can truly be more charitable, but just because we're all not perfect, should we all be punished? I'll be totally honest. Over the last few months, my dreams to be a professor making a 6 digit salary have been dampened as I recognize that the more I make, the less control I have over my own finances. Soon the richer in finances will be poorer in freedom. Do I really want to be punished by the government that has supposedly empowered its citizens to truly reach for the stars? I'm not greedy, and I'm certainly not opposed to offering financial assistance to those in need. But I AM opposed to forced charity, I am opposed to the destruction of my agency, the agency that allows me to determine where the money I have earned can best be put to use. It is an eternal principle that you not only better appreciate something, but are better able to use something that you have strained to earn on your own merits. Doesn't it stand to reason that I can then best determine how my wealth can be best put to use for the benefit of humanity? Does the government think they can do a better job?

Agency, as we know, has been at the heart of a great struggle that began before any other of which we know. As such, it is the prime target of the adversary in all things. It has been that way since the beginning. Forced acceptance has always been the way of Lucifer. Now I'm not saying our government is in Satan's back pocket, and I'm not implying all politicians are consulting the prince of darkness each night. I'm simply saying that the subtle attacks on our agency as American citizens in the category of financial freedom have become more overt in recent months. Our ability to determine how the sweat of our own brow can be of a benefit to others is being greatly diminished by a body of politicians who believe they have a better way to distribute our wealth than we can. Thomas Jefferson said "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Politicians lack of faith in the American Dream to enable its own citizens to succeed and then share that wealth with those less fortunate is extremely disturbing. Or could it be not so much a lack of their faith in the people they represent, but a clouding of their understanding once they enter the political realm and become too enmeshed in the great power at their fingertips, knowing that they essentially determine through their legislations the fate of over 300 million people? Our leaders may be elected democratically, but that doesn't ensure the survival of a democratic republic. President Howard W. Hunter said in his role as prophet while addressing students at BYU: "What is the real cause of this trend toward the welfare state, toward more socialism? In the last analysis, in my judgment, it is personal unrighteousness. When people do not use their freedoms responsibly and righteously, they will gradually lose their freedoms. . . . If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through "a democratic process" he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots." Both have lost their freedom. Those who "have," lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who "have not," lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got "something for nothing," and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift.
Under this climate, people gradually become blind to what has happened and to the vital freedoms which they have lost." (The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter, p. 169; Bookcraft 1997).

I believe taxation should be fair and respect the sacredness of the eternal virtue we are all endowed with, agency. Again, not all successful millionaires will be as charitable as others, but not all of God's children were as virtuous as the others. Did He punish the whole because of the weakness of a few? Should all the wealthy be taxed because of the poor financial charity of a few? Should the ability of those philanthropists whose charity is truly Christ-like be reigned in by a government too shallow to believe in the faith of its own citizens? Should the government determine where our money can supposedly be best spent while disregarding the values and wishes of the earner of those wages? Or are the politicians wooed by the sheer number of people who pay less, take more, and are the beneficiaries of the forced government charity? The number of needy are much greater than the number of philanthropists, and elections are won by number of voters, not the amount of their donations.

So the American Dream. What was it for the Irish family in the 1850s? Or the English settler of the 18th century? Or the Italian immigrant of the early 1900s? And what is it now, for the settled generations of Americans whose forebearers believed in a dream strong enough to make it come true, and then hope for its perpetual blessings to be enjoyed by those who would come after them? Are the blessings they enjoyed being allowed to flourish, or are they being curtailed by growing governmental regulations? Is the encroachment of the government suffocating the American dream? Who will be left to determine the value in our success to bless the lives of others--ourselves, or the government?

Hilarious at first, depressing once reality sinks in...

(In case you can't read what's on the mice, they say CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and NBC)

There was a Pied Piper who said We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change it!

*And the people said, Change is good!

Then he said, We are going to tax the rich fat-cats,

*And the people said, “Sock it to them!”

and redistribute their wealth.

*And the people said, “Show me the money!”

And then he said, Redistribution of wealth is good for everybody

*And Joe the plumber said, “Are you kidding me?”

And Joe’s personal records were hacked and publicized.

*And one lone reporter asked, “Isn’t that Marxist policy?”

And she was banished from the kingdom!

Then someone asked, “With no foreign relations experience, how will you deal with radical terrorists?”

And the Pied Piper said, Simple. I’ll sit down and talk with them and show them how nice we really are and they’ll forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!

Then the Pied Piper said, I’ll give 95% of you lower taxes.

*And one, lone voice said, “But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes!”

So the Pied Piper said, Then I’ll give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!

*And the people said, “Show me the money!”

Then the Pied Piper said, I’ll tax your Capital Gains when you sell your homes!

*And the people yawned and the slumping housing market collapsed.

And he said, I’ll mandate employer- funded health care for EVERY worker and raise the minimum wage.

*And the people said, “Gimme some of that!”

Then he said, I’ll penalize employers who ship jobs overseas.

*And the people said, “Where’s my rebate check?”

Then the Pied Piper actually said, I’ll bankrupt the coal industry and electricity rates will skyrocket!

*And the people said, “Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don’t care for that part about higher electric rates.”

So the Pied Piper said, Not to worry. If your rebate isn’t enough to cover your expenses, we’ll bail you out. Just sign up with ACORN and your troubles are over! Then he said, illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let’s grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing

*And the people said, “Ole`! Bravo!” And they made him King!

And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy slowed even further. Then the Pied Piper said, I am the Messiah and I’m here to save you! We’ll just print more money so everyone will have enough! But our foreign trading partners said, Wait a minute. Your dollar isn’t worth what it was. You’ll have to pay more.

*And the people said, “Wait a minute. Thats not fair!”

And the world said, Neither are these other, idiotic programs you’ve embraced. You’ve become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you’ll play by our rules!

*And the people said, “What have we done?”

But it was too late.

Was Reagan Wrong?

Reagan often spoke with hope and optimism of America's future. He often spoke in terms that are the political antithesis of the current political situation as well as the current direction our present administration is taking this country. I recently came across some remarks he made in regards to his hope for the future. This century is still young, but with the growth of the federal government and the depth with which it is being entrenched in every aspect of our lives, how do you feel about Reagan's following comments. Is there still time for them to come true?
"I can't help thinking that, while much of the 20th Century saw the rise of the federal government, the 21st Century will be the century of the states. I have always believed that America is strongest and freest and happiest when it is truest to the wisdom of its founders."
-- Remarks at National Governor's Association meeting, August 8, 1988.

Jefferson on Good Government (a warning to Congressional Democrats and Pres. Obama)

After watching President Obama's address tonight I needed something to lift my political spirits. While Governor Jindal's response began the process, I decided to pull a book off my shelves of Thomas Jefferson's Writings. I decided to read his first inaugural address. As I approached the middle of his speech, I about jumped out of my chair when I read the following segment that, unfortunately, only dampened my spirits even more in relation to our current political situation:
"...what is more necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
President Obama, your trillion dollar spending spree is, by your own admission, going to be funded simply from a tax hike on the upper 2% of Americans. Just because they may have enough bread to feed their family doesn't mean you have a right to all their excess. Don't forget, either, that the upper 5% of income earners actually stimulate economic growth more than any government plan will.
Thank you Thomas Jefferson for being so principled and sound in your moral reasoning that you had to go and make my day worse.

UPDATE: We WON the War on Terror! It's Over!

Check out this article straight from the AP. Apparently I'm not the only one boggled by the fact that the War on Terror is suddenly....gone?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/24/napolitano-avoids-mentioning-terrorism-remarks-congress/

Lincoln on Obama's Wealth Redistribution Plan

Lincoln and Obama hand in hand? I don't think so. Here's a core philosophy of Lincoln's that he articulated early in his career and believed in ardently throughout his service. In light of the current administration's plans to play the noble Robin Hood in taking from the rich and giving to the poor, let's see what Lincoln had to say on the subject:
"Some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To secure to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."
Can that actually be Lincoln's position? Did he actually just infer that Obama's government, then is bad government? Lincoln was opposed in economic and political princple to a welfare state funded from the coffers of a federal government. Let us offer assistance without breeding dependence, and let us have faith in the people and not the government to step in and exercise charity.

We WON the War on Terror! It's over!

During my regular reading President Obama's agenda on the White House website, I could find absolutely no mention of, allusion to, or even faint recognition of the War on Terror. There is a lot that can be inferred from that fact. The most obvious reason (though, unfortunately, wrong) is that it's over! When a war is begun and fought and then suddenly vanishes from the Commander-in-Chief's agenda of the army waging the war, that implies it has ended--either by victory, defeat, or stipulation. Terrorism hasn't been defeated, we certainly haven't, and we haven't reached an amicable understanding. So what happened? Partisan politics. Obama's refusal to acknowledge the War on Terror, simply because President Bush actually uttered those words so often. Apparently, the War on Terror was somehow President Bush's own private little war, one that somehow fundamentally changed and ceased to be a war and has morphed into a simple foreign policy issue. Granted there are agenda points relating to al-qaeda, but how is it not still a War on Terror? Sounds like somebody's going to a pre-9/11 mentality. Apparently we're not at war with terror anymore...or Obama has played the role of hypocrite perfectly once again as he stands as the supreme example of the partisan politician blowing hot steam about being bipartisan.

P.S. Just in case you were wondering if simple semantics was a tool of Obama's partisanship in this case, here's the definition of war straight from Oxford: "1: a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or groups; 2: a state of hostility or intense competition between groups; 3: a campaign against something undesirable."
I guess none of those apply to al-Qaeda and religious extremists anymore. So what changed?

Way to go Congress!

By the way, the new congressional approval ratings are out and they have soared to an all-time high! 31 percent! Funny, since the Democrats won control of the Congress 2 years ago they have consistently had the majority of the country UNsatisfied with them and DISapproving of their job performance.

Finally--something I can support Obama on!

The past few weeks have been among the most politically depressing of my life. From the Mexico City Policy to closing Guantanomo, from SCHIP to Unions, I have opposed everything Obama has actually done while in office. Well, today I heard that the White House officially came out in opposition to restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Good for them! Finally, something positive from that quickly crumbling house. A pillar still stands in some back room corner! Unfortunately, if Obama gives Pelosi and Reid as much control over future legislation as he did on this stimulus bill then the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine may still be a possibility. Hopefully not, the freedoms contained in that little document called the Bill of Rights are just as important today as they were by those apparently senile, out of touch old men over 200 years ago. I won't go into what the Fairness Doctrine actually is, but I'm sure a quick Google search will yield positive results if you're curious. In the meantime, at least it can't be said of me that I fight against EVERYTHING the President stands for politically.

The Government Stimulus Package

So are we all ready for the greatest expansion of power that the federal government has ever seen? Thomas Jefferson must be rolling in his grave (although Hamilton must be smiling). I've always found the best way to get out of financial trouble is to spend more money you don't have to go deeper into debt you're already in. It only took Obama a few weeks to spend more money than the Bush administration spent in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Not to mention that even illegal immigrants can receive up to $1000 in stimulus money. Contained within the 1588 page bill itself (how many people do you think actually read it? attempt it at http://readthestimulus.org/) is a stipulation that people with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number are eligible for up to $1000 (per couple, $500 individual; see http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D960U4HG0&show_article=1) in government handout money (the Democrats specialty). TIN's are different than SSN numbers. To obtain one, all you need to do is return a completed form to the IRS. Yikes.

Another thought, when was the last time the government reached into the private sector of business without making more red tape, regulations, watch dogs, beauracratic loopholes, and simply a big confusing mess? This could get ugly. Maybe I'll put in a bid to build that dog park in California, after all, they allocated nearly a million bucks for it. How hard can it be to throw some sod on some flattened dirt? I mean come on, do dogs need gold slides and silver lined monkey bars to play on?

Bottom line, I think this economic stimulus is one of the worst pieces of legislation to pass our Congress and has potential to do damage to this country that could take a generation to repair. It's easy to create a huge entangling mess of government control, but it's harder and takes even longer to clean up that mess. I'm sick to even hear it referred to as an economic stimulus bill. This bill will stimulate the government more than the economy. There is no compelling economic theory to support it. Obama himself has lied blatantly on several occasions to fuel the fear in the people to garner their support for it. He claimed that there were no serious economists who oppose this plan. Boy did that bring them out of the wood work, with over 200 signing a petition of warning about the dire consequences this bill could produce. These are leading economists from the Wall Street Journal, prestigious universities on both coasts, and former economic government officials (see http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/28/economists-against-the-stimulus/).

Another Obama lie, the one that has me throwing my lunch at the TV every time I hear it? "We are in the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes." "This is the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression." Not to mention other similar comments. FACT: The Carter economy Reagan inherited was statistically 3.4 times worse than this one by the government's own standards of measurement. Mortgage rates are around 5%, they were 16% in 1980. Unemployment is still well below 10%, while Carter's economy produced unemployment that reached nearly 11% (see http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248) . Not to mention inflation had skyrocketed under Carter while it is till in relative control today (see http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=0). Interest rates were much worse. Bottom line: the economy of Jimmy Carter was the worst since the Great Depression to a degree that today's economy doesn't even begin to compare to. Last I checked, Barack Obama was alive during those years. Guess that means that this economic situation is NOT the worst of his lifetime, or even mine for that matter. A President who deceptively distorts history to serve his own current political situation is no President that I will ever trust. The politics of fear is his greatest weapon, as it was FDR's in passing his revolutionary and radical programs of the New Deal that even 7 years after their implementation had failed by admission of FDR's own treasury secretary.

All in all, Congress just worsened our economic situation but will conveniently blame Bush as their failure comes to light over the coming years. Funny how a key trigger in this was the housing market, where lending standards have been considerably weakened by legislation passed by the Democrats in 2006 and even Clinton in 1998, yet you never hear about that. Funny how Obama can be so narrow minded as to throw a blanket failure on all of Bush's economic policies of the past 8 years. Did he forget the crisis after 9/11? Bush helped us recover from that in an amazing fashion. Going back to Carter's economy, Reaganomics saved us from that and led to one of the longest periods of economic recovery and prosperty of the modern age. The theory behind Reagaonmics is the theory behind much of Bush's policies, more money to the people (the current plan will give us $13 a week in tax breaks). Why don't we ever hear about the success of Reagonomics? Why isn't Carter's economy ever mentioned? Reagonomics worked, and in a short period of time. After that same period of time elapses from this current bill, 75% of the money still won't even be in the economy. That dog park probably won't even be built. But a few more illegals might be watching CNN on their new plasma TVs.

I hope I'm wrong. But my continuing research does nothing to allay my fears and only serves to fuel them. Government IS the problem, not the solution. Giving them more power is not the answer. Reagan said "Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States," not the government.

Welcome, One and All!

Our previous blog was primarily my thoughts on political matters, both past and present. I often felt guilty for not posting more on our family, and I often felt to post some sort of politically related entry quite often, so here's a new site just for that. I hope this can become a haven of political discussion where personal insults and attacks can be left on the recycle bin of your computer. I don't dare hope for it to be a bipartisan blog-I hope for a variety of political orientations to be represented-but do expect it to be a respectful blog.

One of my primary desires in this blog is to elicit discussion, whether complex or simple. I hope to move beyond superfluities and get at the heart of core political ideologies. One of my hopes is to discuss how those ideologies have been manifest throughout history, how they were even created, and further how current political situations reflect such ideas. On a simple note, I also hope for discussion on simple things relating to current events and events now considered history.

Another hope is to make this very much a place of spiritual discussion as well. Political ideas are often taught within my religious faith, and presumably that of the majority of this blog's readers. Scriptures as well as modern day prophets have given counsel on political matters--some very clear and overt, while at times it appears in veiled form through teaching us about gospel principles with direct political underpinnings (such as principles of welfare and consecration). Something I will do quite frequently is post quotes for discussion, often letting the quote itself without any of my commentary be a springboard for discussion. I will use quotes from prophets and politicians alike.

With that said, let me state right up front my core political values and ideologies. I am a conservative, though not so much a Republican. My most liberal stance is my bourgeoning opposition to the death penalty. The majority of my political principles were embodied by Ronald Reagan, thus I claim to be a Reagan conservative (I used this term before Hannity). At my core, I am about smaller government. I believe more power should be found in state governments and less in the federal when it comes to domestic issues, especially welfare and healthcare. I agree with the statement that government IS the problem and NOT the solution. I believe that people are the solution, and that they don't need government subsidies or organizations to empower them to enact solutions to the majority of ailments in our society. As such, I am a strong proponent of capitalism and free enterprise. I believe we should be rewarded by ability and not need when it comes to the federal government. I despise any government entity that destroys the agency of its people through forced welfare rather than exhibiting faith in its people. We the people are why the government exists, and we the people should be the guiding voice in politics today. I feel most politicians speak a different language, a problem I feel has been created by too much government. As it has grown and become increasingly complex and harder to understand, "We the people" have somehow gotten left by the wayside in favor of "We the government."

Enough said. You'll obviously get to know more about my views through this blog. I'll try to keep it updated often, but remember, the only way I know of it's being read is through comments and discussion! As we all participate, I hope there will be a synergy that helps us all understand ourselves much better.