I spent the late 90s stating that it mattered that President Clinton had been unfaithful to his wife. Regardless of his definition of “sexual relations,” the fact remains that a man dedicated to his marriage would not have had to make that distinction. I watched in amazement as Americans defended his actions stating that his personal life had nothing to do with his ability to lead as president and that his marriage should be off the table when evaluating a president’s job performance. This shocked me as I found myself debating with one Clinton-supporter after another that character counts.
Here we are again with another string of cheaters from both sides of the aisle: Governor Sanford of South Carolina, Senator Ensign from Nevada, former presidential candidate John Edwards, Senator Craig of Idaho, Senator Vitter of Louisiana, and so on.
So, I take this opportunity to again state that character matters in public office! Why?
1. A position of Governor, Senator, or President is one of great public trust. Integrity is a job requirement. One measure of someone’s integrity is how they treat their marriage vows.
2. Those in public office are an influence to what is accepted in our society. I heard so many parents say during the Clinton affair that it didn’t matter how our President acts – what matters is what parents teach. Well, while parental teachings are paramount, we can’t underestimate the influence on our children of public figures one after another setting this terrible example that being unfaithful is common and almost accepted in society.
3. As with President Clinton and all of the others who have followed, when you cheat, the next step is to hide your cheating – which means lying. You lie and lie until eventually you can’t hide your lying and someone finds out. Finally, you are forced to confess. The lying bothers me as much as the cheating. Politicians are employed by their constituents. When they lie, they are lying to ME and to YOU. This is not acceptable for someone I’ve given my trust to and who is getting paid on my dime.
4. When this occurs, it also highlights the greed of our politicians because invariably, the politician’s political aspirations become more important than the marriage. This horrible period of time should be used by the cheater to sew things up with the spouse, if possible. Instead, so much effort goes into messaging to the public with just the right public relations campaign. Meanwhile, the spouse and the children suffer.
Marital infidelity is a tragic event that is even worse when offender is in public office due to the publicity that ensues and the effect that has on the family. I do not make a categorical statement on what the consequences should be in these situations, but I do ask that we take these types of actions into account when evaluating someone for office as evidence of that person’s character.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Obama's answer to everything - spend spend spend!
This article from the Heritage Foundation is a MUST READ.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Excerpt:
"What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016."
Where is the accountability??
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Excerpt:
"What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016."
Where is the accountability??
House passes energy bill
Unfortunately, the energy bill (Waxman-Markey) passed the House. We need to speak up in oposition as this bill moves to the Senate.
From Heritage Foundation:
"The CBO analysis of Waxman-Markey fails to take into account all the adverse effects that will ripple through the U.S. economy if cap and trade becomes law. CBO's grossly underestimated costs means Members of Congress will be grossly misinformed when voting on the legislation."
"Regardless of the CBO's cost estimates of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade program, the necessary second part of the question--what benefits do the costs generate?--remains unanswered. Americans will get almost nothing in exchange for these higher taxes, and the legislation will provide nothing for future generations except more debt and less economic opportunity."
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2503.cfm
From American Solutions:
"...here’s a list of facts about how the energy tax would:
1. Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion
2. Destroy an average of 1-3 million jobs, every year
3. Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation
4. Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent
5. Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent
6. Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500 annually
7. Increase the federal debt by 26 percent, which is $29,150 per person"
http://www.americansolutions.com/take-action/call.php
Write your Senator - http://whoismyrepresentative.com/
From Heritage Foundation:
"The CBO analysis of Waxman-Markey fails to take into account all the adverse effects that will ripple through the U.S. economy if cap and trade becomes law. CBO's grossly underestimated costs means Members of Congress will be grossly misinformed when voting on the legislation."
"Regardless of the CBO's cost estimates of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade program, the necessary second part of the question--what benefits do the costs generate?--remains unanswered. Americans will get almost nothing in exchange for these higher taxes, and the legislation will provide nothing for future generations except more debt and less economic opportunity."
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2503.cfm
From American Solutions:
"...here’s a list of facts about how the energy tax would:
1. Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion
2. Destroy an average of 1-3 million jobs, every year
3. Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation
4. Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent
5. Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent
6. Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500 annually
7. Increase the federal debt by 26 percent, which is $29,150 per person"
http://www.americansolutions.com/take-action/call.php
Write your Senator - http://whoismyrepresentative.com/
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Obama plants questions at press conference
It is ironic to watch our President be so offended by Fox news and its coverage of his presidency while at the same time knowing that he has complete control of the rest of the media. A great example today comes from the Washington Post:
"In his first daytime news conference yesterday, President Obama preempted "All My Children," "Days of Our Lives" and "The Young and the Restless." But the soap viewers shouldn't have been disappointed: The president had arranged some prepackaged entertainment for them.
After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post," he announced.
Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet," Obama went on. "Do you have a question?"
Pitney recognized his prompt. "That's right," he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."
Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.
The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, "The Obama Show." Missed yesterday's show? Don't worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting "Good Morning America" from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), "World News Tonight" from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303262.html
"In his first daytime news conference yesterday, President Obama preempted "All My Children," "Days of Our Lives" and "The Young and the Restless." But the soap viewers shouldn't have been disappointed: The president had arranged some prepackaged entertainment for them.
After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post," he announced.
Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet," Obama went on. "Do you have a question?"
Pitney recognized his prompt. "That's right," he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."
Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.
The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, "The Obama Show." Missed yesterday's show? Don't worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting "Good Morning America" from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), "World News Tonight" from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062303262.html
Health Care Reform - National Review Article
Here is a great article from the National Review about health care reform. They make a very valid point about how far removed our health care system is from true economic pressure to keep prices down. One reason health care is so expensive is because patients don't actually pay directly.
From the article: "To show what I mean, hold up ten fingers. Each finger represents 10 percent of health-care spending in the United States. Five fingers — half — represent what is paid for by government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Four of the remaining fingers represent what is paid for by private health insurance. One finger represents what individuals pay out of their own pockets.To move in the direction of personal responsibility, we have to make more of our health-care system look like the one finger — as was the case as recently as 1960, when the share of medical expenses paid for by individuals out of pocket was 50 percent. This is a radical idea for reform, and neither political party is talking about it. Instead, the Democrats are trying to incrementally make the system look more like the five fingers now represented by government. And in opposing the Democrats’ reforms, the Republicans risk being put in the position of trying to protect the four fingers of private health insurance. Our health-care system is wasteful. We spend far too much money with relatively little to show for it. That would be of little concern if individuals were wasting their own money. However, because close to 90 percent of personal health-care spending is paid for by third parties, we are wasting each other’s money."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mzk2ZDhmYjYwYjU1MjYyYjg0MzBiYjE1Nzg4OGUzZjc=
From the article: "To show what I mean, hold up ten fingers. Each finger represents 10 percent of health-care spending in the United States. Five fingers — half — represent what is paid for by government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Four of the remaining fingers represent what is paid for by private health insurance. One finger represents what individuals pay out of their own pockets.To move in the direction of personal responsibility, we have to make more of our health-care system look like the one finger — as was the case as recently as 1960, when the share of medical expenses paid for by individuals out of pocket was 50 percent. This is a radical idea for reform, and neither political party is talking about it. Instead, the Democrats are trying to incrementally make the system look more like the five fingers now represented by government. And in opposing the Democrats’ reforms, the Republicans risk being put in the position of trying to protect the four fingers of private health insurance. Our health-care system is wasteful. We spend far too much money with relatively little to show for it. That would be of little concern if individuals were wasting their own money. However, because close to 90 percent of personal health-care spending is paid for by third parties, we are wasting each other’s money."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mzk2ZDhmYjYwYjU1MjYyYjg0MzBiYjE1Nzg4OGUzZjc=
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama's declining ratings
One question that is plaguing the Obama White House is, “when will we no longer be able to blame Bush for our problems?” And, thankfully, it looks like that time is coming soon. Obama built his entire campaign on the idea that the past 8 years brought the country down to ruins, economically and in the world’s view. He has traipsed around the globe apologizing for the actions of President Bush. He is pushing nationalized health care and regulatory financial and banking reform that will give unprecedented power to the government.
As excited as many in the country have been about his election, thankfully, the approval ratings are finally starting to show that the country is opening its eyes to his actions as president.
Those who strongly approve of how he is handling his job are now equal to the number of those who strongly disapprove. As of today, 33% strongly approve and 33% stongly disapprove.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Also, "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of voters now say the country’s economic problems are caused more by the policies Obama has put in place. That’s a 12-point jump from a month ago."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/june_2009/39_now_blame_bad_economy_on_obama_s_policies
The New York Times published an article discussing how long the President can blame a previous president. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/us/politics/12memo.html?_r=4&ref=todayspaper “When a president tries new policies to deal with old problems and then new policies appear to be failed policies, then he owns it,” said George C. Edwards III, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “That’s the challenge for a president.”
Unfortunately, the problem that we face is that Obama’s policies are so radically liberal, we need the public opinion to force him into change before he has had time to implement too many of them. It is good to see the polls going in the right direction.
As excited as many in the country have been about his election, thankfully, the approval ratings are finally starting to show that the country is opening its eyes to his actions as president.
Those who strongly approve of how he is handling his job are now equal to the number of those who strongly disapprove. As of today, 33% strongly approve and 33% stongly disapprove.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Also, "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of voters now say the country’s economic problems are caused more by the policies Obama has put in place. That’s a 12-point jump from a month ago."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/june_2009/39_now_blame_bad_economy_on_obama_s_policies
The New York Times published an article discussing how long the President can blame a previous president. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/us/politics/12memo.html?_r=4&ref=todayspaper “When a president tries new policies to deal with old problems and then new policies appear to be failed policies, then he owns it,” said George C. Edwards III, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “That’s the challenge for a president.”
Unfortunately, the problem that we face is that Obama’s policies are so radically liberal, we need the public opinion to force him into change before he has had time to implement too many of them. It is good to see the polls going in the right direction.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Obama, SLOW DOWN!!
Joe Biden stated a few days ago that the administration was wrong about the economy and underestimated the depth of the recession. Yet, based on their declarations at the time that we are in the worst of times and that we must do something or life as we know it would end, Congress pushed through in a speed usually reserved for Olympic sprinters a bill that gave MY money and YOUR money to almost every company or organization that had their hands out. We called it a ‘bailout’ and faithfully closed our eyes and gave hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars in the belief that this act would thwart the otherwise certain recession.
Here we are, months later, with the recession running strong and it is unknown what positive impact, if any, these bailout funds are having or will have. However, Washington so blindly and furiously pushed through these bailouts, that the American people did not have the time to examine their potential benefits, if any.
Since that time, the President has been acting like a child with ADHD, pushing one idea after the other. We barely have time to digest one of his initiatives before he changes his focus and promotes his next one. It feels like he doesn’t want us to have time to thoroughly examine his ideas. Meanwhile, he goes from event to event giving speeches full of platitudes and clichés, never stopping long enough for any one thing to settle long enough for Americans to question the correctness of his logic.
What is his focus?? Since January, he has either announced, given a speech about or actually authorized: buying up private companies, attempting to end animosity towards us by radical Islam (yeah right!), overhauling the health care system, redefining the US auto industry, appointing a pay ‘czar’ and handing him unprecedented authority over the companies that received bailout funds, closing Gitmo, setting new fuel-efficiency standards, introducing radical reform promoting heavy regulation of the financial sector, and reducing our investment in our nation’s defense. Oh, and you may see him on a bulldozer soon in your home-town.
I think this is a very deliberate strategy. He wants to appear effective by appearing busy. However, instead, he appears distracted and unfocused. What I fear is that with his shot-gun approach, several of his ill-devised ideas will actually get through (which is likely since he has control of Congress) and it may take years (and billions of more dollars) to reverse them.
Here we are, months later, with the recession running strong and it is unknown what positive impact, if any, these bailout funds are having or will have. However, Washington so blindly and furiously pushed through these bailouts, that the American people did not have the time to examine their potential benefits, if any.
Since that time, the President has been acting like a child with ADHD, pushing one idea after the other. We barely have time to digest one of his initiatives before he changes his focus and promotes his next one. It feels like he doesn’t want us to have time to thoroughly examine his ideas. Meanwhile, he goes from event to event giving speeches full of platitudes and clichés, never stopping long enough for any one thing to settle long enough for Americans to question the correctness of his logic.
What is his focus?? Since January, he has either announced, given a speech about or actually authorized: buying up private companies, attempting to end animosity towards us by radical Islam (yeah right!), overhauling the health care system, redefining the US auto industry, appointing a pay ‘czar’ and handing him unprecedented authority over the companies that received bailout funds, closing Gitmo, setting new fuel-efficiency standards, introducing radical reform promoting heavy regulation of the financial sector, and reducing our investment in our nation’s defense. Oh, and you may see him on a bulldozer soon in your home-town.
I think this is a very deliberate strategy. He wants to appear effective by appearing busy. However, instead, he appears distracted and unfocused. What I fear is that with his shot-gun approach, several of his ill-devised ideas will actually get through (which is likely since he has control of Congress) and it may take years (and billions of more dollars) to reverse them.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
ABC to have healthcare townhall meeting in the White House
Seriously?? This is one of those things where we, the consumers of news, need to speak out.
Drudge reports today:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House. The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
The chief of the Republican National Committee wrote a letter to ABC saying this:
Dear Mr. Westin: As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming. Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected... (to see the rest, see Drudgereport.com).
Such partisan reporting is truly one of the great disappointments of our modern media outlets. This is a debate that deserves a true vetting by America's people, who would end up paying for the President's plan.
To write ABCNEWS to voice your opinion on this, here is the link: http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=ABC%20News%20Specials
Drudge reports today:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House. The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
The chief of the Republican National Committee wrote a letter to ABC saying this:
Dear Mr. Westin: As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming. Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected... (to see the rest, see Drudgereport.com).
Such partisan reporting is truly one of the great disappointments of our modern media outlets. This is a debate that deserves a true vetting by America's people, who would end up paying for the President's plan.
To write ABCNEWS to voice your opinion on this, here is the link: http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=ABC%20News%20Specials
Monday, June 15, 2009
Conservatives – there is hope!
The entire point of this blog is be a voice for Conservatives. My premise is that we, Americans, ARE conservative. My hope is that we can find our voice and take courage in our convictions.
Gallup just published that their recent polling indicates that Conservatives are the single largest ideological group. The article points out that Republicans are more ideologically unified than Democrats are. However, reading further, the article mentions that 34% of Independents and 22% of Democrats consider themselves Conservative. (Here is the article: http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx).
There are Conservatives out there that don’t consider themselves Republican! This is a great opportunity for the Republican Party – to clearly and confidently demonstrate that it speaks for the Conservatives of this nation.
Another article from Time magazine discusses the change in demographics now and in the next several years and the adverse affect this will have on the base support of the GOP. (Here is the article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904136,00.html)
The author makes some great points, and I concur with some of the points made regarding our stance on immigration (we need to realize that the growing minority population is a group that Republicans need to find a better way to speak to).
Combined, these articles provide great promise, but they are also a call to action. We ARE the majority – we need to speak as though we are. Demographics are changing, but the ideals that we stand for (small government, individual freedom and responsibility, strong, Christian values, the right to life, and so on) do not change. They NEVER change. We should not be scared to stand up for what we believe, to write to our congressional representatives, to donate to our favorite PAC, to write an editorial to our local newspaper, to callout liberalism in the media when we see it, and most importantly – to stay educated on the issues and engaged in the debate. The worst thing we could do is allow ourselves to become apathetic just because it seems like we have a large mountain to climb.
Gallup just published that their recent polling indicates that Conservatives are the single largest ideological group. The article points out that Republicans are more ideologically unified than Democrats are. However, reading further, the article mentions that 34% of Independents and 22% of Democrats consider themselves Conservative. (Here is the article: http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx).
There are Conservatives out there that don’t consider themselves Republican! This is a great opportunity for the Republican Party – to clearly and confidently demonstrate that it speaks for the Conservatives of this nation.
Another article from Time magazine discusses the change in demographics now and in the next several years and the adverse affect this will have on the base support of the GOP. (Here is the article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904136,00.html)
The author makes some great points, and I concur with some of the points made regarding our stance on immigration (we need to realize that the growing minority population is a group that Republicans need to find a better way to speak to).
Combined, these articles provide great promise, but they are also a call to action. We ARE the majority – we need to speak as though we are. Demographics are changing, but the ideals that we stand for (small government, individual freedom and responsibility, strong, Christian values, the right to life, and so on) do not change. They NEVER change. We should not be scared to stand up for what we believe, to write to our congressional representatives, to donate to our favorite PAC, to write an editorial to our local newspaper, to callout liberalism in the media when we see it, and most importantly – to stay educated on the issues and engaged in the debate. The worst thing we could do is allow ourselves to become apathetic just because it seems like we have a large mountain to climb.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Obama's version of the truth
As we've watched our president represent the US internationally now in several different settings, going on and on about his version of history, apologizing at every chance he gets regarding our past actions, I find myself more and more disappointed not only about his current world view, but about his lack of understanding of America's great history and great people. Also, as he keeps trying to push through every initiative he has for his presidency in the first six-months despite the fact that we are still in a recession and need a president focused on the economy, I find myself wondering if he will ever be held accountable to the statements he makes.
Here is an article on the National Review that steps through many of his most grotesque un-truths of recent: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTAyNzFjMmMwOWJjYmFmMTA2ODdjODZmZmQ0MWE1Mzg=&w=MA
Here is an article on the National Review that steps through many of his most grotesque un-truths of recent: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTAyNzFjMmMwOWJjYmFmMTA2ODdjODZmZmQ0MWE1Mzg=&w=MA
Fantastic article on the role of the government
The Heritage Foundation published an extremely insightful article discussing the role of the government and other institutions in society. Conservatives are constantly saying that government should be limited. We talk about freedom of the individual and the right of the people to make decisions. But, this article makes several points that explain the root of this belief even further. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Religion/wm1620.cfm
Some great insight from this article:
Does big government pose moral problems?
When government oversteps its bounds and begins to assume more authority, it weakens other important social institutions, including those, like the family and religious congregations, that are particularly capable of encouraging moral virtue among citizens. Big-government programs and policies also tend to confuse the lines between citizen responsibility and government responsibility. As a result, they erode our understanding of the ethical obligations we have to one another—especially in regard to issues such as poverty and economic justice—and encourage us to assume and to expect that government will provide for our neighbors' needs.
Here's more:
America's founders recognized that local forms of association are the best way for citizens to fulfill their moral obligations to one another. They believed that families, religious congregations, and other institutions of civil society are most effective in uniting their members in cooperative pursuit of the common good and thereby cultivating the indispensable virtues that are the foundation of a healthy democracy.
Some great insight from this article:
Does big government pose moral problems?
When government oversteps its bounds and begins to assume more authority, it weakens other important social institutions, including those, like the family and religious congregations, that are particularly capable of encouraging moral virtue among citizens. Big-government programs and policies also tend to confuse the lines between citizen responsibility and government responsibility. As a result, they erode our understanding of the ethical obligations we have to one another—especially in regard to issues such as poverty and economic justice—and encourage us to assume and to expect that government will provide for our neighbors' needs.
Here's more:
America's founders recognized that local forms of association are the best way for citizens to fulfill their moral obligations to one another. They believed that families, religious congregations, and other institutions of civil society are most effective in uniting their members in cooperative pursuit of the common good and thereby cultivating the indispensable virtues that are the foundation of a healthy democracy.
Should the Government Decide Your Salary?
My post a few days ago talked about Obama's decision to limit executive pay for companies given bailout money. I questioned the president's motives. And, I believe that this is just the start. If you do not believe in limited government, then the line is always blurred between public and private decision-making. Obama will keep pushing that line as much as he can.
Here is an article that articulates many of my concerns about the government getting so involved in the matter of salaries. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/11/opinion/main5081996.shtml
The last paragraph says: If the President of the United States decides that it's his job to determine what any given individual's labor is worth, for whatever reason and under whatever legal theory, then no private contract is safe, and we'll be well along the path to exchanging our free society for a government-run one.
Exactly.
Here is an article that articulates many of my concerns about the government getting so involved in the matter of salaries. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/11/opinion/main5081996.shtml
The last paragraph says: If the President of the United States decides that it's his job to determine what any given individual's labor is worth, for whatever reason and under whatever legal theory, then no private contract is safe, and we'll be well along the path to exchanging our free society for a government-run one.
Exactly.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
European Parliament member on Hannity
We should be learning from England's experience with socialist healthcare.
Say NO to socialist healthcare
This health care debate is going to get ugly. I have no idea why the president is choosing now to focus on this. This country's unemployment numbers are skyrocketing, and our president is proposing health care 'reform' that will plunge America into further debt. By the time Obama is done with us, it will be hard to tell the difference between us and any other socialist country.
Here is an article by Mitt Romney where he proposes a much better idea on health care reform:
http://www.freestrongamerica.com/oped/item/romney_healthcare_oped_the_answer_is_unleashing_marketsnot_government
Here is an article by Mitt Romney where he proposes a much better idea on health care reform:
http://www.freestrongamerica.com/oped/item/romney_healthcare_oped_the_answer_is_unleashing_marketsnot_government
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Obama limits executive pay
Obama has imposed a cap of $500,000 for executives of companies that receive bailout money. Also, he has appointed a 'pay czar' to monitor this and other rules. And, Obama promised more to come...
Given the public outrage over executive compensation, this seems like a natural step for our populist president. However, for those of us that still believe in separation of government and private industry with the same fervor that liberals go after the separation of church and state which to them means that we should never even acknowledge our Christian heritage, I am troubled but not surprised by this move by Obama. The real root of this whole problem is the fact that these bailouts should not have occurred in the first place.
My real concern, though, is not the specifics of these newly-imposed rules, but the fact that I think Obama truly does not believe in nor understand the huge, positive impact that big business plays in our economy. He really hates large companies. He sees them as evil; he thinks that all executives are greedy. Obama wants his hands on these companies. He wants to control them. He wants to find ways to tap into profits (this is one of the fundamentals of his tax plan).
Today's announcement to limit compensation and create a pay czar is just a first of much more to come in this area, mark my words.
Given the public outrage over executive compensation, this seems like a natural step for our populist president. However, for those of us that still believe in separation of government and private industry with the same fervor that liberals go after the separation of church and state which to them means that we should never even acknowledge our Christian heritage, I am troubled but not surprised by this move by Obama. The real root of this whole problem is the fact that these bailouts should not have occurred in the first place.
My real concern, though, is not the specifics of these newly-imposed rules, but the fact that I think Obama truly does not believe in nor understand the huge, positive impact that big business plays in our economy. He really hates large companies. He sees them as evil; he thinks that all executives are greedy. Obama wants his hands on these companies. He wants to control them. He wants to find ways to tap into profits (this is one of the fundamentals of his tax plan).
Today's announcement to limit compensation and create a pay czar is just a first of much more to come in this area, mark my words.
Monday, June 8, 2009
A few articles from around the web
This is a great article which walks through many of Obama's recent apologies to the world about the United States. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm2466.cfm I never thought in my wildest imagination that we would elect a president who is so ashamed of his own country. I want a president who knows that we are the greatest nation in the world, that recognizes our many, many contributions to the world, that can speak with respect regarding prior administrations even if he disagrees, who holds the interests of the citizens of the United States above all else. I am disappointed that we do not have such a president.
Here is an extremely alarming article where Gorbachev hails a 'perestroika' within the United States - "I am convinced that a new model will emerge, one that will emphasize public needs and public goods, such as a cleaner environment, well-functioning infrastructure and public transportation, sound education and health systems and affordable housing."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060501966.html
I would add that Gorbachev thinks the perestroika and subsequent fall of the Soviet Union was all about politics. He doesn't once mention how hungry his people were and perhaps the fact that that was the catalyst of change. But, that's a whole different topic...
This is a MUST READ: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/ Amazing that a Russian opinion column can articulate so clearly what is happening to our freedom.
Here is an extremely alarming article where Gorbachev hails a 'perestroika' within the United States - "I am convinced that a new model will emerge, one that will emphasize public needs and public goods, such as a cleaner environment, well-functioning infrastructure and public transportation, sound education and health systems and affordable housing."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060501966.html
I would add that Gorbachev thinks the perestroika and subsequent fall of the Soviet Union was all about politics. He doesn't once mention how hungry his people were and perhaps the fact that that was the catalyst of change. But, that's a whole different topic...
This is a MUST READ: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/ Amazing that a Russian opinion column can articulate so clearly what is happening to our freedom.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
What does Obama stand for? Obama's speech in Cairo.
Every time I think that Obama may be taking a step in the right direction, he says something that makes me question his true beliefs. If the President wants to reach out to Muslims, I'm all for it. There is a huge gap in understanding between Islam and the U.S. If he wants to take the opportunity being a new President to reassert our support for the non-violent of the Muslim people, I think there is nothing wrong with that. However, he doesn't have to apologize on behalf of the U.S. His desire to be Mr. Popular is trumping any evidence that we have a president who works from principle.
Case 1
No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said.
Seriously?!? Why does he act like he is taking the moral high ground? "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons." First, this is an insult to the U.S. whom he is clearly referring to. Also, let us not forget why countries started building these weapons in the first place - for some countries - defense, for others - attack. Iran is not building weapons because they think they need to defend themselves. They certainly are not building them so that they can follow any treaty. They hate the Western world. They hate Americans. They hate Israel. They say that the Holocaust never happened. Why on earth would we say that we don't have the "right" to say they shouldn't have nuclear weapons? If they have nuclear weapons, our security is compromised. That gives us the right!
Case2
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable. But in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.
Think what you will about water boarding, but why are we apologizing to the Muslim world for water boarding 3 people at Gitmo after we lost thousands in 9/11? Why does Obama trot all over the world apologizing for things that no one was outraged about in the first place? Why does he insist on finding every way possible to continue to insult our previous president?
Case3
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years. And much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear. No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.
Promotion of democracy is not a pursuit that we stop just because of the Iraq controversy. First, while we are still engaged in Iraq, and while our troops are still risking their lives, Obama should not be rushing to tell the world that Iraq was a mistake. Second, while we don't "impose" our system of government, we should do all that we can to promote democracy. History has shown us that democracies do not war with each other. Think back to conflict over the last century - there hasn't been major military conflict between 2 democracies. There is peace in democracy. Third, stop apologizing for actions that Bush took! It weakens America! He can usher in a change if he wants, but insulting the previous president is insulting the 1/2 of Americans that voted for him in 2 elections.
I'm asking our president to take a stand. What does he believe in? What does he stand for? What is he willing to lose popularity for? When Ronald Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," his message was clear. He didn't say, "Mr. Gorbachev, I know we've disagreed in the past and most of it is probably our fault. While we would prefer you end your country's Communist practices, we understand that you may not want to." He took a stand. And guess what? It worked.
Case 1
No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said.
Seriously?!? Why does he act like he is taking the moral high ground? "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons." First, this is an insult to the U.S. whom he is clearly referring to. Also, let us not forget why countries started building these weapons in the first place - for some countries - defense, for others - attack. Iran is not building weapons because they think they need to defend themselves. They certainly are not building them so that they can follow any treaty. They hate the Western world. They hate Americans. They hate Israel. They say that the Holocaust never happened. Why on earth would we say that we don't have the "right" to say they shouldn't have nuclear weapons? If they have nuclear weapons, our security is compromised. That gives us the right!
Case2
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable. But in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.
Think what you will about water boarding, but why are we apologizing to the Muslim world for water boarding 3 people at Gitmo after we lost thousands in 9/11? Why does Obama trot all over the world apologizing for things that no one was outraged about in the first place? Why does he insist on finding every way possible to continue to insult our previous president?
Case3
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years. And much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear. No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.
Promotion of democracy is not a pursuit that we stop just because of the Iraq controversy. First, while we are still engaged in Iraq, and while our troops are still risking their lives, Obama should not be rushing to tell the world that Iraq was a mistake. Second, while we don't "impose" our system of government, we should do all that we can to promote democracy. History has shown us that democracies do not war with each other. Think back to conflict over the last century - there hasn't been major military conflict between 2 democracies. There is peace in democracy. Third, stop apologizing for actions that Bush took! It weakens America! He can usher in a change if he wants, but insulting the previous president is insulting the 1/2 of Americans that voted for him in 2 elections.
I'm asking our president to take a stand. What does he believe in? What does he stand for? What is he willing to lose popularity for? When Ronald Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," his message was clear. He didn't say, "Mr. Gorbachev, I know we've disagreed in the past and most of it is probably our fault. While we would prefer you end your country's Communist practices, we understand that you may not want to." He took a stand. And guess what? It worked.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Who are we?
So, I know in my first posting I made several strong statements about how blind our country is. What's worse is that the only message out there is Obama's. We on the right are not speaking with any kind of clarity. We've completely forgotten what we stand for. Or maybe we remember, but are scared to say it. It is not popular these days to say that you oppose gay marriage, to affirm your belief in God and declare that you are Christian, or to oppose abortion. It isn't popular to state that you believe in limited government, even when businesses are failing and people are hurting financially.
However, in an effort to help define our message, I will take a stab at defining our core values. As time goes on (and in between my rants on other topics), I will use this blog to go into more depth on each value.
I should note before going further that I am specifically careful on this site to say 'conservative' and not 'Republican.' Let me be clear: I am a card-carrying Republican. However, this is because I believe that the Republican party is the best vehicle for advancing conservative values. Other 'right-winged' parties are too small to be politically viable. But, to be clear, this does not mean that I am a blind follower. Unfortunately, the great GOP does not always act great, does not always remember its true conservative roots, and sometimes tries so hard to be moderate that it sacrifices its true conservative values. The fact is (and this is the thesis to this whole blog), this country is still right of center. We are conservative. The issues arise when we forget who we are and the message gets clouded (the situation is made even worse by our left-leaning media). So, my message to my fellow Republicans is - stop pandering. Be strong in who we are and those who have forgotten the message will remember that they are actually conservative, too.
So, today, I unveil conservative core value #1. I list this one first because it is especially important to remember as we watch Obama socialize our country by nationalizing company after company: conservatives believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe America should be a place where we are free to reach for any success that we can earn. We strongly support a limited government that understands the value of capitalism. We know that not everyone will succeed. We know that often times we will fail at this pursuit and have to dust ourselves off and try again. However, this is what is meant by pursuit. This country was founded by people who left tyranny to live a life of freedom, to build lives of value, based on their belief in God. From these strong individuals grew our country, where we have the most freedom-based, enduring Constitutions in the world.
This country, from the beginning, has been built on the idea that hard-working, innovative, free individuals create a stronger and more vital society than can exist without freedom. Conservatives are deeply troubled by efforts to limit the pursuit of happiness by government-imposed 'values.' Examples of these 'values' are: a government that is too involved in the details of our lives, taxation for poorly-run and overarching government programs that limit rather then encourage individual responsibility, legislative efforts to build rules around every aspect of society, a government that doesn't believe in the inherent goodness of the people of this nation, and so on.
In the moment of perceived crisis, as Americans fear the worst - such as we do now in this recession - we allow fear to cloud our judgement. Conservatives have been voting against the various bailouts that keep getting crammed through Congress - and rightly so. Conservatives vote against tax increases time and time again - even for the rich. And, we are deeply troubled by this administration's desire to have such a heavy hand in private industry.
Sometimes liberals forget - and sometimes we do also - that the entire basis for our strong support of the business community is our support for the individual. Each one of these companies grew from the idea of an individual. Whether it employs 1 or 50,000 employees, any company is better off without government involvement. This is true even if the business fails. If it fails - it fails. It will hurt in the short-term. However, this is America. We move on - we build again. We come back stronger than before. Having the government involved only means that previously-privately owned business who had real problems will now be limping along with our taxes, but never forced to truly deal with their internal issues, bad executive decisions, or ineffective business model.
This is a topic I could go on forever about, but I pause for now to continue in a further entry. The bottom line is - individual freedom means we all have the right to pursue happiness as we define it - including the consequences of that pursuit.
However, in an effort to help define our message, I will take a stab at defining our core values. As time goes on (and in between my rants on other topics), I will use this blog to go into more depth on each value.
I should note before going further that I am specifically careful on this site to say 'conservative' and not 'Republican.' Let me be clear: I am a card-carrying Republican. However, this is because I believe that the Republican party is the best vehicle for advancing conservative values. Other 'right-winged' parties are too small to be politically viable. But, to be clear, this does not mean that I am a blind follower. Unfortunately, the great GOP does not always act great, does not always remember its true conservative roots, and sometimes tries so hard to be moderate that it sacrifices its true conservative values. The fact is (and this is the thesis to this whole blog), this country is still right of center. We are conservative. The issues arise when we forget who we are and the message gets clouded (the situation is made even worse by our left-leaning media). So, my message to my fellow Republicans is - stop pandering. Be strong in who we are and those who have forgotten the message will remember that they are actually conservative, too.
So, today, I unveil conservative core value #1. I list this one first because it is especially important to remember as we watch Obama socialize our country by nationalizing company after company: conservatives believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe America should be a place where we are free to reach for any success that we can earn. We strongly support a limited government that understands the value of capitalism. We know that not everyone will succeed. We know that often times we will fail at this pursuit and have to dust ourselves off and try again. However, this is what is meant by pursuit. This country was founded by people who left tyranny to live a life of freedom, to build lives of value, based on their belief in God. From these strong individuals grew our country, where we have the most freedom-based, enduring Constitutions in the world.
This country, from the beginning, has been built on the idea that hard-working, innovative, free individuals create a stronger and more vital society than can exist without freedom. Conservatives are deeply troubled by efforts to limit the pursuit of happiness by government-imposed 'values.' Examples of these 'values' are: a government that is too involved in the details of our lives, taxation for poorly-run and overarching government programs that limit rather then encourage individual responsibility, legislative efforts to build rules around every aspect of society, a government that doesn't believe in the inherent goodness of the people of this nation, and so on.
In the moment of perceived crisis, as Americans fear the worst - such as we do now in this recession - we allow fear to cloud our judgement. Conservatives have been voting against the various bailouts that keep getting crammed through Congress - and rightly so. Conservatives vote against tax increases time and time again - even for the rich. And, we are deeply troubled by this administration's desire to have such a heavy hand in private industry.
Sometimes liberals forget - and sometimes we do also - that the entire basis for our strong support of the business community is our support for the individual. Each one of these companies grew from the idea of an individual. Whether it employs 1 or 50,000 employees, any company is better off without government involvement. This is true even if the business fails. If it fails - it fails. It will hurt in the short-term. However, this is America. We move on - we build again. We come back stronger than before. Having the government involved only means that previously-privately owned business who had real problems will now be limping along with our taxes, but never forced to truly deal with their internal issues, bad executive decisions, or ineffective business model.
This is a topic I could go on forever about, but I pause for now to continue in a further entry. The bottom line is - individual freedom means we all have the right to pursue happiness as we define it - including the consequences of that pursuit.
Welcome to my blog!
Have you ever wanted to shout about something, but then wonder if anyone will listen? Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you seem to be only sane one anywhere to be found? All of my reason and intellect tell me that our President is taking us swiftly into socialism in a way that will be difficult to reverse if it goes much further, and it feels like I'm the only one who seems be noticing.
Why would anyone notice? The country is so caught up in the excitement that we elected the first Black President, a guy who gives great speeches and looks slick, that no one is paying attention to what he is doing! And, people on the Right are fighting so much about who we are that we can't seem to generate a single declaritive sentence about what we stand for.
This blog is dedicated to the fact that I believe, in my heart, that this is a conservative nation. When conservatives express ourselves correctly, when we lay out our beliefs with clarity, when we aren't stumbling all over ourselves, when we have a clue what we stand for - we are in the majority. But, when we lose this message, we lose support.
What we have now is a confused country. Our country is drooling over our new president, so much so that we have given him unprecedented power which he is using to take the country down a road that undermines everything we stand for.
Why would anyone notice? The country is so caught up in the excitement that we elected the first Black President, a guy who gives great speeches and looks slick, that no one is paying attention to what he is doing! And, people on the Right are fighting so much about who we are that we can't seem to generate a single declaritive sentence about what we stand for.
This blog is dedicated to the fact that I believe, in my heart, that this is a conservative nation. When conservatives express ourselves correctly, when we lay out our beliefs with clarity, when we aren't stumbling all over ourselves, when we have a clue what we stand for - we are in the majority. But, when we lose this message, we lose support.
What we have now is a confused country. Our country is drooling over our new president, so much so that we have given him unprecedented power which he is using to take the country down a road that undermines everything we stand for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)