Is our political primary system in need of repair?

In case you have not yet noticed, the Presidential primary election system is upon us.  Up to this point, only 2 states have voted (and one of them was a caucus, not a primary).  There has been much emphasis put on winning the caucus in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire.  But why is that?  I have a hard time understanding why we put so much emphasis on winning these 2 states, when Iowa only has 6 electoral votes and New Hampshire has 4.  (Granted, the primary races are for delegates at the convention, not for electoral votes, but the electoral vote count gives us an idea of how big the state is compared to the entire country.)

This is not to say that their votes should count any differently than mine or yours.  I guess my problem is that their votes seem to count more, since there is so much emphasis put on those 2 states.  After all, the Republican winner of those 2 states this year has been declared the front-runner and people are basically handing him the nomination for the fall Presidential election.  Yes, winning definitely provides momentum, but is it too early to declare a winner, after only 2 states?

The next state having a primary election is South Carolina (9 electoral votes).  Then it will be on to Florida, with 29 electoral votes.  Certainly, after these 2 primaries, we will have a definitive front-runner.  Or will we?  Will it be too late for someone else to move to the front of the race?  Probably, but it would not be impossible.

As I have thought about this over the last several weeks, and months, I have come to the conclusion that the primary system in America needs to be fixed.  And to avoid being one of those whiners that only complains and offers no solutions, I have several ideas that I believe would help fix the system that we use to elect a party's candidate for political office.

So without further adieu, here we go.

1. Close the primaries for both parties.  The Republican primary should only be for registered Republicans and the Democrat primary should only be for registered Democrats.  I have no interest in voting for a Democrat nominee, and I surely do not want the Democrats picking the Republican nominee (heaven knows we have enough liberal Republicans voting in the primary).  To me, this is akin to people from New Jersey or New York coming to PA to vote for our governor or representative, or me going to their state to vote for their governor or representative.  I am not a citizen (i.e. member) of that state, so I should not be voting in their election.  Likewise, if you are an independent, you have no right to vote for a nominee of either party.
2. Political parties should not endorse any candidate.  I have never made a decision to vote for someone simply because the talking heads of the Republican party endorsed a candidate.  Once the party does endorse a candidate, they throw the weight of the party (and the money) behind that particular candidate.  Personally, I do not care who the talking heads want as the nominee.  And I do not believe that many other people out there care about the opinion of the talking heads.  However, once the talking heads make an endorsement, it makes it much more difficult for other candidates to have their voices heard and get their message out to the electorate.
3. Politicians should not endorse any candidate.  Celebrities often make political endorsements.  They just do not realize that most people could care less about their political leanings and beliefs.  Politicians often feel as though they are celebrities, so they think we care about who they are going to endorse for office.  This will often hurt them more than it will help them.  For instance, this hurt Rick Santorum in 2006, and was part of the reason he was not re-elected.  In 2004, Santorum endorsed the re-election of that Senatorial turncoat, Arlen Specter.  Many conservatives were extremely unhappy about this, and they did not vote for Santorum in the 2006 election (they most likely did not vote for Sen. Casey either, most likely choosing a 3rd party candidate, or not voting for that office at all).  So my message to politicians is this - keep your nose out of the primaries and stop endorsing candidates.
4. There should be a limited number of caucus/primary dates on the calendar.  The primary/caucus season started on 1/3/12 for this election cycle, and will not be over for several months.  That is just too long for an election cycle.  I believe that we should have 7 dates for primaries/caucuses.  There would be 7 primaries on each date, except for the first one, which would have 8 states voting that day.  These primaries should start on the first Tuesday in April, and proceed for the next 6 weeks after that.  That way, they will not be strung out for months.  Also, it would shorten the political season, as most of us are too tired of the whole thing by the time the conventions roll around.
5. Large states should be the last to hold primaries/caucuses.  In conjunction with the truncated primary season, I contend that the primaries and caucuses should be held in reverse order of electoral votes.  This way, the big states would come last.  This would cause the candidates to have to go to the smaller states in order to win elections and get an advantage over their competitors.  This should also keep more candidates in the race longer, as these smaller states would probably be won by several of the candidates.  This should also lead to an exciting finish of the primary season, instead of having the primary season over by mid-March, with half the nation still having not voted in a primary and basically being disenfranchised in the primary process.  No particular candidate would be able to win enough delegates until the final couple of weeks of the primary season, therefore allowing candidates to stay in the race longer and making it more competitive.  Also, it would keep states from arguing with each other and trying to move their primary dates so they can be earlier in the whole process.  (In case you were wondering, being from Pennsylvania, we would vote on the last primary day under this proposed plan of mine.)
6. If you are going to run for higher political office, you need to resign from your current elected office.  This is a pet peeve of mine.  The people voted a politician into office to do a particular job.  The people did not vote someone into office in order for that person to run for a higher office and forsake the job they were elected to do.  If that person is running for higher office, he is not doing what he was elected to do, thus giving those who elected him a raw deal.  We  should have expectations of our elected officials to do the job they were elected to do.  If they do not do it, they should not hold that office.  Also, this would allow us to see who is really serious about running for office.  If they are willing to give up their current elected office instead of using it something to "fall back on" should they lose, then we know that the person will be a serious candidate for office.
7. The political season needs to be shorter.  Once Wednesday, November 7 rolls around, the 2016 Presidential race will start.  Thankfully, many of us will to tired of politics to care.  But that does not mean that the networks will not try to shove it down our throats.  The Presidential election process should not start until January of the election year.  This year, by the time January 1 had rolled around, the Republicans had already had numerous debates.  This is happening too early, and it continues to get earlier each election cycle.  Right now, unless your state is having a primary, not many people are paying attention to the process and the candidates.  It is time to shorten the election season.

I am sure that if I sat here long enough, I could come up with more areas that need to be fixed in the primary process.  However, I believe that I have encapsulated most of the major problems in the 7 items outlined above.  We need to take steps to fix the process, not tinker with it and actually make it worse.

We should pray for other's salvation, not for their damnation

I came across a news article online yesterday that really bugged me. It concerns a Pastor by the name of Steven Anderson. He pastors the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, AZ.

Recently, he preached a message titled "Why I Hate Barack Obama." He told the congregation that he prays for the death of the President, and he encourages the congregants to do likewise. He would like for the President to be stricken with brain cancer and die in a fashion similar to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Anderson does say, however, that he does not condone killing. I am not sure how he can say that, though, as he prays for the President to die and go to hell.

This is wrong on so many levels. First, in the interest of full disclosure, it must be said that I do not approve of the way the President is leading our country, nor do I approve of his policies. However, to disagree with another person, including the President, is fine. This is one of the hallmarks of democracy - that we have the freedom to disagree with the President without fear of reprisal or retribution. I do not wish ill-will, pain, injury, or death on the President. I would like to see someone different in that office, but this change should come through the electoral process and not through imprecatory prayers.

First, a pastor has no business preaching messages such as this. The pulpit is a place to preach the Bible, not a place to make political statements. The pulpit is place where the Bible is preached to show us how to live. The pulpit is a place to preach messages based on Biblical principles, not messages based on one's personal, earthly feelings.

Second, messages preached in churches should be based on the Bible. How many Biblical principles is this man breaching by preaching in this manner? I am sure that there are many more, but here is a small list that I came up with.

1. Proverbs 21:1 - The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will. This passage tells us that God is in control. He knows what He is doing.
2. II Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. God is telling us here that He wants all to be saved from eternity in hell to spend eternity with Him in heaven. Not everyone will get saved, but that is the goal that we are to strive for. So to pray for someone to die and go to hell is in direct violation of Scripture.
3. Romans 13:1-2 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Again, God is in control and He has set the earthly government in place. As long as they are not asking us to do anything against God, we are to be subject to them.
4. I John 2:10-11 - He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because the darkness hath blinded his eyes. I think this one pretty much speaks for itself.
5. I John 3:15 - Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Can it get any more clear than this?

Unfortunately, this preacher does more to harm the cause of Christ than he does to help it out. It is people like this that hurt the witnessing opportunities of Christians. How is preaching this sort of message any different than preaching that sexual promiscuity is OK? How is it any different than preaching that stealing is permitted? or murder? or any other sin?

This man claims to be a Pastor. He is a leader, a shepherd. He should know these Bible passages. He should know that we are to pray for our leaders, that God would give them wisdom on how to lead this country, how to make wise decisions. He should know that anyone can be saved, regardless of the life they currently live.

While I was in college at Bob Jones University, Dr. Bob Jones III has a recurring statement in chapel to remind us of the plight of mankind should they choose not to accept Christ - "The most sobering reality in the world today is that people are dying and going to hell today." Someone dying and going to an eternity in hell is not something that should be cheered. This is something that we must address with others, regardless of who they are, so that they do not face a God-less eternity.

We should approach our elections seriously. We should avail ourselves of the opportunity to vote. Regardless of the outcome, we are to pray for those who are elected, whether or not we voted for them or agree with them. We are commanded to do this. They need our prayers. And while you are praying for them, remember to pray for their salvation. You never know what events may transpire that can lead to someone getting saved.

Thoughts on the Supreme Court

So, the President has made his nomination for the soon-to-be-vacant Supreme Court seat. His nominee is Sonia Sotomayor, an Hispanic-American woman from working class parents. She is a woman who came from an unremarkable background and worked hard to get where she is today.

It is not my intention here to debate the merits of her nomination and whether or not she is qualified. That information will become apparent in the weeks and months to come, and we can make up our minds on that issue as this process plays out in public.

I do find a few things to be quite interesting in this whole Supreme Court issue, though. First, we need to look at the type of person that the President wants on the Supreme Court. He never said that he wanted someone with a firm grasp of the Constitution and the fact that the Judicial Branch of government is to be impartial. He never said that he wanted someone who would base decisions on the law of the United States, not on laws that he/she wanted to see, or foreign law that has no application to us.

Rather, he wanted someone that could empathize with the less fortunate. I am not sure when this became the role of the judiciary. The empathizing role is played out by Congress. They are elected to represent us, and therefore, empathize with those who elected them. Judges, though, are to be impartial, not basing decisions on what is fair or unfair, but rather on what is legal or illegal. They are to rule on the law, not make new law because they view someone to be less fortunate than others.

The founders of our country were smart enough to know that these roles should be separate. However, as each generation goes by, and as slight changes are made and accepted with each generation, soon we forget what the original intent of the founders was. And sadly, many do not care. And these ‘leaders’ are smart enough to know that drastic changes at any given time or usually not welcome. However, they know that slight changes, over time, will have the same effect and that people are more willing to accept this kind of change.

Another thing I find quite interesting is the reaction of the mainstream media. NBC has come out and asked the question that can be summed up like this: Are Republicans dumb enough to object to an Hispanic woman being nominated to the court? Granted, I changed the wording of the question, but this is the point that they are trying to get across.

I do not know about you, but I view the job of Supreme Court Justice as being quite a prestigious position. Only 9 people can hold that position at any one time. It is a lifetime appointment. We should be interested in nominating the best person to that position. Political correctness has no business in the selection process.

I am not quite sure how being an Hispanic or being a woman has anything to do with being a Supreme Court Justice. It seems to me that if you are rendering opinions on legal cases based on existing laws, then gender and nationality should not need to play a part in the whole process. It should be knowledge of the law, as well as its application in the cases that are in front of you, that should be the guiding factor in who is worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court.

This is really where Presidential elections matter. Presidents are not able to sign their own bills into law without Congressional approval. Presidents are the beneficiaries of good economic times and the punching bags during bad economic times. However, the people that they appoint to the Supreme Court (and who are approved by the Senate) are there for a long time, much longer than the President that appointed them. They have the opportunity to rule on law or make new law.

The President has all the votes he needs to push this nomination through. My question is this: Will there be Democrats (and Republicans) who have the courage to stand up and ask the right questions to see if this candidate is truly worthy of being s Supreme Court justice? Will Democrats dare vote against the President? Will Republicans finally have the courage to stand up and do the right thing?

I am not saying that they should treat the nominee in the same manner the Judge Bork was treated, or in the same manner that Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts were treated. They can be fair, courteous, and still ask the hard questions. I encourage all Senators to do this.

Economic Ignorance of our President

President Obama was speaking to the sycophantic Democrats that we call our Congressman and Senators (and the media) last night. News clips show him being full of angst at the slow path his economic recovery plan is taking through the U.S. Senate. He wants this bill to be passed swiftly and put into operation as soon as possible.

He showed faux outrage at the deficit, blaming it all in his predecessor. President Bush may not have been as fiscally responsible as I would have preferred him to be, but the budget deficit and the resulting national debt can be put squarely at the feet of Congress. It is this branch of the legislature that spends the government's money. It is not the President that pays the bills. Try to find a government program to cut or throw out completely. It is impossible. The Democrats will not allow it. This is the reason we run up deficits. So why were these Democrats cheering at the President's statements about inheriting a huge debt? These same people were responsible for that debt. Also, how can we do this thing debt free? If we are trillions in debt, how can we throw another trillion in the mix and not come out with more debt?

He criticizes his critics for calling this a spending bill. He says that a stimulus is spending. The problem is that a growth stimulus should allow for growth. This bill is only about government spending. It only creates government jobs, not free market jobs. It grows government. Therefore, it is a spending bill. It is not stimulating anything but Congressmen who see the pork barrel rolling towards their district.

He blames the prior administration for the economic woes. The last time I checked, we had 5 years of unprecedented prosperity under President Bush. His tax cuts lifted this economy after the 9/11 attacks. It was not government spending on social programs that lifted us economically. Rather, it was allowing people to keep their hard earned money and spending it they way they wanted to spend it. It did not come from more government programs and government spending (except for an increase in national defense spending).

Economic problems came along because banks were lending money to people who had no business getting money, they were extending credit to people who did not deserve it. Why did they do this? Because of Congress. The banks were basically forced to do this. This is what caused problems. It was government intervention into industry that caused the problem.

Why does this need to be approved now? Why does the President not want people to question this bill? It is because he does not want people to see what is in the bill. Then they will really be against it. If they can get it through quickly, then they can keep a lot of the earmarks out the news. Isn't it funny how debate and disagreement with the President were a good thing when Bush was in office, but it is now sacrilegious now that Obama is President?

One more thing: Where is the bipartisanship? I thought this President was going to take unprecedented steps to reach out. It did not sound that way last week. He sounded like a man who thought it was his God-given right to have everyone agree with him. He is the only one who can be right. he could get this passed without any Republicans voting for it. His problem is that people in his own party will not even vote for this. That's pretty bad.

So I say to the President: Grow Up and Act Presidential! Your predecessor never acted like this in 8 years, and it only took you 2 weeks. You are nothing but a Chicago thug, a politician who cannot get his way on the merits of his argument so he needs to try to bully others into agreeing with you. You say you were going to listen to opposing views (granted, you never said you would compromise, but you would at least listen). Now, you are taking absolutely no time to do that now. It must be your way and it must be now.

Our most colossal failures generally come when we act quickly and do not think about what we are doing. Our economic downfall as a country will not be failing to pass a stimulus package. Rather, it will come by being reckless and passing something so big we cannot get out from under it. Maybe the best course of action is for the government to do nothing and allow this current economic 'crisis' to fix itself. It has worked in the past. It will work now.

Who is using the politics of fear now?

President Obama has an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post. He is looking to garner support for his economic stimulus bill. He looks for support by attempting to frighten the reader into supporting his economic plan. He says that every day that we fail to pass a stimulus plan, more people will lose their jobs, lose their savings, lose their homes, etc. (sounds like a country music song).

Anyway, he states that "...this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." He also rejected the thought that additional tax cuts are needed, saying that he rejects "those theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."

The first thing that troubles me is that he has no faith in the people of this country. Ronald Reagan had faith in the people of America when he came into office, and the economic times then were worse than they are now. Guess what? We dug out of a recession. It did not take new government programs and close to a trillion dollars in government spending to do so. It took a tax rate cut. It took de-regulation. It took the government removing the obstacles that stood in front of Americans. When the obstacles were not there, Americans could prosper. It is the freedom we had as people that made this country great. It is not the country that made its people great.

Second, he is overestimating his mandate as President. Yes, he did receive a majority of the votes cast on November 4th. Nothing I say or do will change that. People voted for this mystical idea of change that President Obama talked about. They thought he would make things different, make them better. However, what we are seeing now is not the change that people were searching for. People do not see the economy getting better simply because we have a new President. Just because people voted for change does not mean they want Obama's kind of change. This is what happens when people do not stop to kick the tires on something before they buy into it. It may look good on the outside, but it is not what they wanted on the inside.

Third, why does he think reliance on the government and/or government control of everything is a good thing? If he would have studied history, he would see that this has not worked throughout history. It is not working now. Also, people are seeing that government control is not necessarily a good thing. It gives away freedoms that we cherish. After all, the liberals did complain a lot over the Terrorist Surveillance Program while Bush was President. Obama's policies will interfere in everyone's lives, not just the lives of terrorists, so there is much more danger with his policies.

Fourth, he does not know how to deal with the fact that his views are unpopular. This has not happened to him before. Everyone is supposed to accept his views, his policies, his opinions without question. When all else fails, blame Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and talk radio. it can't be his fault.

Fifth, his stimulus plan is nothing more than a pork-laden spending bill. It will do nothing to stimulate job growth. People are seeing this now. Too bad they did not see if before November 4th.

Here is the problem: We, as a country, got what we wanted in the form of a new President who wanted change. However, these same people who voted for him did not realize the ramifications of his policies at the time they voted for him. They are starting to see it now. Now that we got what we wanted, we could very well lose what we had.

An open letter to President Obama concerning the economy

Mr. President,

I am sure that I am not the only one in this country who disagrees with you on how to get this country through the economic difficulties that we now face. With house prices retreating, house and car sales falling, unemployment increasing, and overall hesitation about the American economy as a whole, the last thing we need in this country is more government spending.

You mentioned this week that this is not the time for companies to be making huge profits. I would vehemently disagree with you. This is exactly what we do need. You see, when companies make profits, it not only benefits the executives (which you think are being paid too much money), it also benefits the employees, as they will not need to lose their jobs, and it may even lead to job creation within that company. It also benefits stockholders in the form of dividends. It is the growth of business that has helped make this country great. It is not this country that has made its corporations great by dictating to them what their financials should be.

Also, I have heard it bandied about that the pay of top executives should be limited. This is also a bad idea. While we may look at these executives and think they make too much money, we are doing so in comparison to our own salary. My problem is that if the government says executives are only allowed to make a certain amount of money, where will it stop? It would open the door for the government to tell more people how much they can and cannot make in the form of salary. It is a slippery slope that we should stay as far away from as possible.

I would also like to say that tax cuts are a good thing. However, to cut something that someone does not pay anyway is really a handout (or welfare, in this case), it is not a tax cut. Welfare only makes people more reliant on the government and takes away their ambition. Tax cuts should be directed at those who actually pay taxes. It should be aimed at small businesses, at corporations. They are the instruments that keep this economy rolling through the hiring of employees, through offering their goods and services on the open market. It is not the time to put more obstacles in front of them. Rather, it is the time to get out of their way and let them do what they do best.

Federal spending will not get us out of the current economic situation. In my view, it will only dig us deeper. Throughout the 8 years of President Bush, many Democrats criticized the President and the Republicans for running up the deficit. (As a sidebar, it is Congress's deficit, not the President's. The Congress spends the money, all the President does is sing the bill). Anyway, the criticism for running up the deficit is justified (except in the case of national defense). Anyway, where are these same deficit hawks from your side of the aisle now? They have conveniently used the deficit as a political ploy, not caring about it at all and using it for their own political advantage. You you are guilty of this same thing during the general election cycle. Yet, no one in Washington is willing to cut spending anywhere in order to balance the budget.

Where is the government going to get more money to spend? If people are losing their jobs, then there is less money finding its way into the federal government's coffers. If there is less money flowing toward Washington, how can they spend more? The answer is that they can print their own. Yet, this floods the market with U.S. Dollars and has the side effect of devaluing the dollar on the open market, thus increasing the cost of goods and causing inflation to occur.

We have examples throughout history where we see where government spending will not help us out of recessionary times. The Great Depression is a prime example. While unemployment did decrease to a certain extent during the New Deal era, it was not until World War II that the U.S. came out of the Depression. The New Deal did not get us there. The Great Society did not do anything to help us out as a country. It only served to make people more reliant on government and less reliant on themselves to go out and earn a living and pay their bills. Ronald Reagan inherited huge tax rates and high unemployment from Jimmy Carter. It was not until he was able to pass tax cuts that America was able to dig out an economic abyss.

We have banks that rewarded people with mortgages for more than they could afford. This was done so that they could continue to receive funds and not be penalized. Basically, the government was sponsoring predatory lending. And leaders of Congress were in on it. At times, some members of Congress (but not nearly enough of them) tried to reform this, but some prominent Democrats stood in the way. This was a unique way for them to buy votes, and nothing was done to stop it.

As I see it, it is your goal to make people more reliant on government and less reliant on themselves. It is government's responsibility to protect us so that we can live freely. It is not government's responsibility to tell us how to live. But that is where you are leading us. What I do not understand is why. We see that this government controlled lifestyle (i.e. Socialism) did not work for the Soviet Union. It is not working in China. Venezuela is trying it, and their economy is tanking as Hugo Chavez works to nationalize everything. Cuba has managed to sustain socialism, but they are so far behind the rest of the world that they really do not matter.

Our founding fathers realized that it would be the people in this country that made the country great. It would not be the country that made our people great. That is why they limited the powers of the federal government and relegated much of the power to the states. However, over time, the federal government has usurped that authority and the states have done nothing to stand in the way. It is only by returning power to the people that this country will rise again to its prominent position as the leading player on the world stage. Why will you no let the happen? Are you afraid of that? Do you really want us to be great again? Or would you rather us cede power over to the U.N. and become just another country? I would rather us be a leader and not a follower.

Why do you seek to silence your critics? You say that you want bipartisanship in Washington. I do not understand where this came from, as you were nowhere close to wanting this while President Bush was in office. And bipartisanship means meeting in the middle, not getting everyone to be on your side. There is both give and take in the process, not just take. And your smokescreen of reaching out to conservatives is not working. If you were really interested in reaching out, you would have reached out to true conservatives, not Washington elite media members. While the people who voted for you might be too stupid to see through this, the rest of us do.

One more thing: You need to stop allowing your media arm to twist the words of political commentators and start reporting the news correctly. MSNBC is constantly attacking Fox News. Perhaps, they could learn from Fox News in order to get people to watch them. They could occasionally have a conservative on their shows to counter the ultra liberal arguments put forth by their hosts and guests. They could report news, not give their political twist on it. They could fire Keith Olbermann, the moveon.org talking head.

Also, do not go after Rush Limbaugh. Yes, he does have a loyal following, and we are by no means some kind of political robots. We are able to think things out logically and see the harm that you are doing. We are passionate about our beliefs and the greatness of this country. Perhaps it would do some good for you to listen, instead of taking his words out of context and twisting them to try and gain an advantage with an under informed public. You know he said that if you were able to implement your liberal policies that he wanted to see you fail in that respect. It was directed at your policies, and not directed to you as a person (after all, it was your party that started the 'We support the troops but not thier cause' argument). You know what he said and meant and your people know this, too. Stop lying to the general public about it. Rush has close to 20,000,000 listeners, of which probably 98.3% agree with him. That is a large chunk of the population that you choose to marginalize.

I realize you will most likely not read this letter, but it comes from the heart. America is great because it is a country built on sweat, blood, and the hard work of its people. It is not great because of clever laws that the government has chosen to make over time. We need to continue to be a leader in this world. If other countries do not like us in this leadership, that is their problem. We should not be loosening our standards in order to come down to their level. We need to do what we can to bring them up to our level.


Thank You.

Adam Matesevac
Concerned Citizen

Obama vs. Reagan

As we have finally reached Inauguration Day 2009, I look at the things that President Obama has proposed over the campaign and in these weeks leading up to the inauguration. Given a slowing economy and rising unemployment, he has proposed new government programs to give people jobs. He has proposed tax cuts and rebates for people who already do not carry a tax burden. He would like for us, as Americans, to rely on the government to fix the problems we face. Apparently, he thinks that we, as individuals, are capable of righting the ship, of turning things around, of returning America to the place of prominence that we have been for such a long time. We should rely on inept government bureaucratic agencies to pull us out of a short-term economic slide. To President Obama, government is the solution.

I would like to compare this to the Inaugural address given by President Ronald Reagan at his first inauguration in January, 1981. I heard this speech on C-Span yesterday. I was impressed by his down to earth approach. He was going to be the leader of the free world. He was taking over a country that was facing high unemployment and double-digit inflation. There was punitive taxation on those who were successful. It was definitely a worse economic environment than what we face today. There were hostages in Iran. There was an ongoing Cold War with the Soviet Union. There was a declining sense of American exceptionalism. Yet Reagan new the answer was in the American people, not the government, to solve these problems.

While I encourage you to read the full text of the speech, I would like for you to see some excerpts of this wonderful speech.

"...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"

"We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines...They are, in short, "we the people," this breed called Americans."

"We are a nation that has a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed."

"...it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."

"If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth."

"It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we're too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams...I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing."

"As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever. Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength. Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."

"The crisis we are facing today...does require, however, our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God's help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. And after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans."

I am sure we will not here this from our new President.

The Bush Legacy

Webster's defines the word legacy as "something handed down from an ancestor or from the past." In other words, it is something handed down to younger generations that causes us to remember someone or something that came before us.

There is a considerable rush at this time to state what the Bush legacy is going to be. Many foreign papers today are stating that Bush was an abject failure as President. This is also the feeling of most papers within the U.S.

The international community does not like President Bush because of his single-handed approach to fighting the terrorist threat that faces us on a daily basis. He did not want to do it their way. He was a renegade. They are also now fond of blaming him for the current financial situation. It will not be long before they blame him for the plane that landed in the Hudson last week.

Liberals and the media elite in the U.S. do not like him because he has ruined the American goodwill with other nations. He is not an environmental zealot. He had the audacity to try to protect the U.S. from being attacked again. He was a divider, not a uniter.

According to recent polls (which I am sure are bias-free), the majority of people view President Bush as the worst President ever. It is hard to believe that anyone could have forgotten about Jimmy Carter, but we tend to cloud our view of history with what we see going on in the present.

With all this being said, let me offer my opinion: You cannot judge a man's legacy at the time he is leaving office. Only history will be able to tell us how good of a President that Mr. Bush has been. I believe that history will be kind to him, for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that we have not been attacked since 9/11/01. He saw to it that we went after the terrorists; he did not want to wait for them to come back at us. As time goes by, people will understand that this was the right thing to do.

The American people want to see America remain a superpower. They do not want to cede that power to other countries, or especially to the UN. Other nations are upset with us because we are taking the leadership role, and they want to drag us down. They use the UN as a collective body to try and pull the U.S. down from its leadership position. President Bush would not let that happen, and for that he deserves our gratitude. The only other thing he possibly could have done that would have benefited us more would have been to jettison the UN from New York City and level the place.

Other nations complain about our leadership position in the world, yet they know where to come when they face a crisis. Do we remember the tsunami in Indonesia? It was the U.S. people that gave millions of dollars. It was the U.S. government that gave millions of dollars. The U.S. government has given billions of dollars to help fight the spread of AIDS in Africa. The U.S. has been so generous to other countries through the 2 terms of President Bush. Yet, he receives no accolades for this, nor does he seek them. And the international community conveniently forgets the times we have bailed them out.

We hear about the budget surpluses that existed when President Bush became President and the deficits that he has created since being President. One thing people fail to remember is that it is not the President that spends the money for the U.S. government. It is Congress. Because of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990's, we had surpluses. It was not President Clinton. He happened to be the President at the time, so he gets the credit. Likewise, President Bush is not the cause of today's government deficits (although some of his policies have led to higher spending). It is due to Congress not being able to control spending. They need to be held accountable for that.

Even some liberal causes that Bush helped to further were snubbed by the liberals: No Child Left Behind, immigration, bailouts, health care. There are areas where he tried to reach out, yet the liberals were not willing to meet in the middle. They had an utter disdain for this man. They give him credit for nothing. And the media reports these things as Bush failures, not as the failures of liberal ideas.

They also like to blame President Bush for ruining the bi-partisan goodwill after 9/11. If I recall, it was the liberals who started to attack this man because he actually wanted to go after the terrorists who were determined to attack us. Actually, they never stopped attacking him for winning the 2000 Presidential election. It was not the President who went after the liberals. Rather, he stayed true to his beliefs, his principles, his ideals. He did not waiver. The liberals (including the media) attached the President.

President Bush is a good man. Yes, he has his faults, as we all do. He proposed things that I did not (and still do not) agree with. However, he is a man of principle and character. He did not make up his mind based on the latest opinion poll. He stayed true to what he thought was right, whether or not other people agreed with him. That is what I want in a leader. A true leader does not change his ideas based on the political climate. Rather, he remains true to his ideas. That is what I will remember and appreciate about this President.

Come, and Worship...............the President-elect

I am sure we are all familiar with the Christmas song Angels From the Realms of Glory. The chorus invites us to "...come and worship, worship Christ, the newborn King." He is to be the object of our worship.

However, what I am seeing a lot more of at this point in time is the media inviting us to come and worship the President-elect. They follow his every move. It is all they can do to contain themselves today concerning this train ride from Philadelphia to Washington. "This is the same thing that Lincoln did when he was nearing his inauguration'" they say. The only thing that Lincoln and Obama have in common is that they are tall and from Illinois. The similarities stop there.

Not sure about you, but I am completely nauseated by this media orgy surrounding President-elect Obama's inauguration. Can these people be objective at all? Can they stop bowing down to this man? When will they figure out that this man is all symbolism, and no substance? Do they know the danger of putting faith in man rather than putting faith in God?

It reminds me of another Bible story. Please recall with me the account of King Nebuchadnezzar building a rather large image of himself. He commanded the kingdom to come together and bow down to this image. There were three who would not: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. For defying the king and refusing to do so, they were thrown into the fiery furnace. Yet God would not let them die. They would not bow down to someone other than God, and he saved them from the fire.

I see many similarities to today. While Obama has not made an image of himself, the media and liberal elites have done so for him. They are asking one and all to come and worship at the feet of our soon-to-be President. When we do not do so, they try to pressure us by calling us racist, intolerant, un-American, and any other disparaging remark they can think of. While there is no furnace to be thrown into, we are treated as outcasts, members of a right-wing fringe.

With all this being said, the man is going to be our President, not our Savior. He came many years ago to save us. We ought not to put our faith in this man (or any other). The object of our worship ought always to be our Savior. He will control the rest.

Sermons about the President-elect

The Library of Congress would like to create a collection of memorabilia, service audio/video, collectibles from churches regarding the election of Obama. They can then create a collection for their records about this 'historic' election.

I have many problems with this, which I will outline below.

1. All elections are historic. This is not the first time we have had an election. They happen every four years in this country. They are all historic.
2. This election was all about race, and still is. The only reason that they are doing this is because President-elect Obama is not white and he is a Democrat. If this were John McCain (or Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or John Edwards) in this position, the Library of Congress would not be making a public appeal for this type of product.
3. The ACLU is extremely inconsistent (as are Americans United for Separation of Church and State, as well as other atheist groups). If this were a white Republican, they would have their talking heads on every news channel, on every show on those channels, decrying such activity. The government should not be soliciting churches for this type of information. In fact, the churches should not be talking politics at all. At least this is what we normally here from them. Where are they now? Nothing but utter hypocrisy on their part.
4. It is not the role of the church to preach politics. Before the November elections, my pastor preached a series of messages on how the Bible tells us to vote. They included what we should look for in a leader, what we should base our vote on, the Biblical commands to go and vote and involve ourselves in the process. He did not endorse anyone. He did not campaign. His messages were about what the Bible says, not what he says. The role of the church is to bring honor and glory to God. It is not there to bring honor, glory, and worship to man. Yet that is what many liberal churches are doing now. They are worshipping the man that will be our President, not worshipping the God that is in control of the world, that created us, that demands our worship, that forgives us and loves us.
5. If churches are preaching politics from the pulpit, why are their IRS tax exemptions not being revoked? With a supposed separation of church and state (I say supposed because that never appears in the Constitution), should these churches not be abstaining from making political statements? We see people like the illustrious Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaching his love for one candidate and his hatred for everything else, yet nothing happens. We then read headlines during prime election years about the IRS going after churches for preaching politics. They are generally churches that preach the Gospel and endorse conservative, Republican candidates. Yet we constantly see liberal Democrat candidates speaking in churches. They are not even preaching; rather, they are giving campaign speeches. Rank hypocrisy? Yes, it is.
6. We are in for a long 4 year term. It is quite nauseating to see how the media fawns over a man who is not qualified to lead the local Lions Club, much less be President of the United States, the leader of the free world (though not if he has his way), and the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces. They attacked a governor who was running for VP because she lacked experience (even though she ran the largest state in the country), but a man who was a community organizer thug and a part-time Senator was perfectly qualified. Am I missing something? There is a national media orgy (led by Chris Matthews and his tingly leg) over this man. He is nothing spectacular. He cannot speak unless he has a prepared statement or prepared speech in front of him. Again, if he were white and a Republican, would he get this kind of attention, love, and adoration (refer to point #2 above)?
7. We need to pray for the President-elect. Just because I did not vote for the man and because I do not agree with any of his policies does not mean that I can remove myself from this one. God tells us to pray for our leaders, that they may be good leaders, that they know how to lead, that they make wise decisions. Remember, God is still in control. We may not be able to see it at this time. We may not understand His purpose now. But God reigns supreme.

A tax cut for the middle class

It has come out in the press that President-elect Obama would like to offer a substantial tax cut to the middle class. While I am for cutting taxes, I am trying to figure out how you can cut someone's taxes who does not pay taxes. Would this not end up as nothing more than a handout?

You see, this tax cut is being offered to the middle class. The problem is that most people in the middle class do not pay anything in taxes. Yes, we have money pulled from our paycheck every time we get paid. However, when we file our tax returns, we generally get that back. Therefore, the net effect is that we pay little, if any, taxes on our income. Yes, it would benefit me. However, I would then be accepting a government bailout of sorts since it is money that I did not pay into the treasury in the first place. It is an ethical dilemma.

The bulk of the taxes that the government collects are from those who make more than $250,000. Yet, we want to tax them more. These are the people who should have their tax burden alleviated. By allowing them to have control over where their money is spent, instead of the government, they will stimulate investment in private industry, which can only be a good thing.

I would rather have individuals stimulating the economy than having the government do it. That is not their role. They are there to keep the government out of the way and allow people to prosper. They are not there to get in the way and take away the role of private industry.

Yet I see pundits in the media asking if a tax cut is the right thing at this time. That will take money away from the government, just when they need more. Why, we have an increasing national debt (thanks to Congress). We have all of these bailouts that need to be paid for (whose fault is that?). Some people just make too much money and should not get a tax cut.

Here is my question to them: If people are losing their homes (as you constantly report), if people are losing their jobs (as you constantly report), if the economy is in such poor shape, then how can you take money out of people's hands (that have money) so they cannot pay their bills?

President Bush's Legacy

We all know that the effectiveness of a President cannot be judged at the time he leaves office. It takes time to see how the man's policies, the appointments he made to the courts, and the bills that he signed have affected the world in which we live.

The liberals and the media have been whacking the President for 8 years now. He is stupid. He lets the VP do the governing. He does not have a clue. He is just a bad President, possibly the worst of all time. His approval ratings are the lowest ever. He has made us the laughingstock of the world. No one likes us anymore (even though they know who to go to to bail them out of trouble).

And with them repeating this refrain every day for 8 years, many people find themselves believing this line of thinking. I was eating lunch with my department today, and several people chimed in with this same line of thinking. Apparently, we have forgotten how to think critically. We hear someone else's opinion, and we just adopt it as our own without stopping to think about it and validate its premise.

Well, I came across this article today, stating that the President's legacy could turn out better than we think (or we have been told that it would). This will do mainly to his proactive stance on protecting the United States after the 9/11 attacks. The author talks about economic issues that will help him out (although I fail to see his point on that).

Anyway, let the man leave office and let some time go by before we judge him in comparison to past Presidents. I think we will see how his tax cuts for one and all were beneficial for helping us in the shadow of 9/11 come back stronger than before. We will see how his leadership of the country against despots, tyrants, and terrorists helped make the U.S. a stronger country. We will see how his appointments of 2 fine men to the Supreme Court will help shape the court for years to come.

New Cabinet Appointees

Much is being said in the media now about President-elect Obama's selections for Cabinet-level positions. The media is telling us that he is picking people who are seemingly quasi-moderates, middle-of-the-road people who we, as Americans, can relate to. They are not the partisans that we have had to put up with for years.

Well, let us not forget that these Cabinet positions report to the President. They carry out the President's will and agenda in their respective offices. They are not there to work independently of the President. And while he is appointing people who appear moderate, they will carry out his leftist policies because that will be there job to do so.

As cliche as it sounds, looks can be, and are, deceiving. Do not judge this book by its cover. President-elect Obama can make it look like he wants to rule from the political center. The media can try to paint his soon-to-be presidency as being non-partisan and centrist.

However, they cannot change the reality of the fact that he wants to make government bigger than it is now. They cannot change the fact that he wants to give more federal funds to one and all, in order to make people more reliant on the government. They cannot change the fact that he wants the government to control every facet of our lives.

The change we need????

I have been surprised by the number of people that I run into that are disappointed (almost to the point of depression) with the results of the Presidential election. I thought that people were overwhelmingly for President-elect Obama. However, in my slice of the world, that is not necessarily the case. Case-in-point is this letter to the editor from one of my co-workers, Mr. James Barry. It appeared in the Friday edition of the Harrisburg Patriot News.

Obviously, there is more he could have added to the list, but they only allow a limited amount of space. Anyway, his point gets across rather easily.