Where's The Outrage?

The last blog post that I made was back in September, days after a bad call determined the outcome of a football game.  In that post, I asked why there was such outrage about this bad call, considering that it only affected the outcome of a GAME.  Yes, only a game.  It had no bearing on the life of anyone outside of the 2 sports organizations playing in that game (unless people were wagering money, then it had an effect, depending on how they wagered).

Anyway, the press went berserk about this bad call.  They wanted the regular refs back and wanted the league to give them anything that they asked for.  This was all that the press (both sports press and regular news press) seemed to talk about for days.  Everyone was a critic about the NFL commisioner, and how he mismanaged this whole referee situation.  He was incompetent.  He needed to step down.  He was ruining football as we know it.

Yet, not even 2 weeks prior to that bad call, something much more important happened on the world stage that could have a much larger effect on this country.  That was the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  In that attack, several were killed, included our Ambassador to Libya.  We were attacked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11.

For many days, we were told that this attack happened because of some obscure video on the internet that insulted Mohammed.  We were told that those who attacked our consulate were not terrorists.  We were told that this was not an organized protest.  We were told that we need to be more tolerant and not insult the prophet of Islam.  We were told how it was the intelligence community's fault.  We were told how it was the State Department's fault.  Some even seemed to indicate that somehow it was Romney's fault.  I am sure the President was even trying to figure out how they could blame President Bush for what happened.

And now, what we find out today, is that the administration knew what had happened, mere hours after the events of that fateful 9/11 afternoon and evening in Libya.  They had intelligence that there was trouble in Libya.  We now have e-mail evidence that the administration knew what was going on, almost as it happened.  They have e-mail evidence of the group who took credit for the attack on our consulate.  And yet they have lied to this country for the last 42 days about the events of that day, and they continue to lie to us.  This is something worthy of our outrage.  Yet, the media chose to be outraged at Gov. Romney for correctly calling this an act of terrorism.

• Where was the outrage from the media when our consulate was attacked and US citizens were killed?
• Where was the outrage when the President and his people tried to blame this whole incident on an unknown video about Islam?
• Where was the outrage when the President blamed this on everyone but did not take any responsibility?
• Where is the outrage that the President went out of town on a fundraiser, mere hours after these events, knowing what had happened?
• Where was the outrage when Hillary Clinton fell on the proverbial sword for this administration and the President let her do it, knowing that it should have been him?
• Where is the outrage that the President still has not come clean on this?
• Where is the outrage at a President who cannot, and will not, tell the truth to the American people about what happened on that day?
• Where is the outrage at the now-public e-mails, that indicated the administration knew what was going on, yet decided to tell the American people a false narrative of the events of that day?

Isn't this just a little more important than the outcome of a football game?  Isn't this more important than what the Kardashian family is up to?  Isn't this more important than who various Hollywood celebrities are going to vote for?  In other words, why does the media choose to cover all of these secondary news stories, instead of covering a story that involves the security of our nation?

Simply put, they are covering for the President.  They want him to be re-elected, and they will do anything that they can to stifle news that does not put a positive light on the President.  Unfortunately, some still fall for the media narrative.  Thankfully, more and more people have figured out the media agenda, and they are choosing to ignore it.

John C. Maxwell has said that leadership is taking more than your fair share of the blame and less than your fair share of the credit.  This is something that our President has yet to learn.  He continues to blame his predecessor for anything that goes wrong, but he is more than happy to take credit for other people's work.

That is not what this country needs in a leader.  We need a leader who we can be proud to follow, not a leader who tells us that we need to be proud to follow him.  President Harry Truman once said that "The buck stops here."  Maybe that is a lesson that our President needs to learn.

Searching for a leader with character

Character is a quality that is mandatory in a leader.  Without character, the leader will not be effective.  He will not be able to lead.  How can you follow someone who is lacking in character?  How can we follow after so-called leaders who say one thing, yet do something completely different?  How can we follow leaders who tell us that we need to act a certain way, yet they have no intention of acting in that same way?

Some have said that character is who you are when you think that no one is watching.  In other words, character is who you are, not in public and in front of others, but in the privacy of your home, when no one is around to watch you.  Anyone can put on a good show in public.  But is that who you really are when the people go away and you are no longer on the forefront?

Many years ago, in my freshman speech class in college, we learned the rules of the effective speaker.  The first rule is "The effective speaker is a person whose character, knowledge, and judgment command respect."  In other words, if you have character, you can have a commanding presence and can be a truly effective speaker and leader.  However, if you lack character, it will be extremely difficult to lead others, because you will lose trust with those who you are trying to lead.

Many Americans today are looking for leaders with character.  We often complain about the lack of character in our elected officials.  We complain about the lack of character in athletes.  We complain about the lack of character in entertainers.  Yet, many times, we do nothing to promote people of good character.  Instead, we continue to promote people of questionable or bad character.

As I watch the current candidates run for President, I am reminded of our nation's ongoing search for a leader with character.  We all want someone who can lead, but not everyone desires a leader that has impeccable character.

Why is that?  It is because there are people who do not value this important trait of character in a leader.  Some want a leader who will promise them a life where the government will give them whatever they want.  Some want a leader based on political party alone.  Some are content voting against someone instead of voting for someone.

But as I have observed the conventions over the past couple of weeks, I have seen a marked difference in character in the two men running for President.  I do not hide the fact that I am a conservative Republican, and some may think that I am biased in my analysis.  But I believe character is one of the most important, if not the most important, trait that our national leaders must possess.

During the Republican convention, many people spoke about Mitt Romney and his quiet way of helping others through difficult times.  He helped others as the were going through difficult financial times.  He helped families who were going through difficult health problems.  And he did so without drawing attention to himself.  He did it because he had the means to help.  He did it because he wanted to help.  He did it because he knew it was the right thing to do.  He does not like to talk about the ways he helped others, because to him, it is a way of life.

In contrast, President Obama does a lot of talking about helping others.  Yet, we never hear about how he has taken time to actually help others on an individual basis, before or after he became President.  He is very good at telling us that we need to help others, but where is his example?  His idea of helping others is to have the government help them, not get his own hands dirty and help them out.

It seems to me that Mitt Romney holds true to the motto "Actions speak louder than words."  He knows that you can say whatever you want.  However, you cannot be effective as a leader and be viewed as a man of character unless your actions back up your words.  If your actions do not back up your words, you will quickly be labeled a hypocrite (well, Republicans will be labeled as hypocrites, Democrats will not).

In contrast, it looks like the President lives by the motto "Do as I say, not as I do."  This is not an effective way to lead.  He is a man whose words speak louder than his actions (actually, they speak louder than his inaction).  The President says good things.  However, he fails to live them out in his own life.  If he does indeed live them out, why are we not hearing about it?

Character is important.  We need to judge our leaders based on their character.  Is Mitt Romney perfect?  No, he is not.  But in my view, he displays so much more character than the person who currently occupies the Oval Office.  And we need to take this into account as we head toward the voting booth in November.

The Death of Democracy?

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on a 2000+ page bill (that no one in that body could have read, much less understand) and have bestowed upon the American public 'Health Care Reform.'  This bill had nothing to do with granting health care to millions of uninsured Americans.  This bill had nothing to do with reform.  This bill had everything to do with the Democrats trying to buy their way into the hearts and minds of the American public.  This bill had everything to do with the government trying to get a little more control over the every day lives of Americans.  This bill had everything to do with a President in search of a legacy.  This passing of this bill shines a bright light on Congress and why the American public has contempt for them.

Congress showed just how dirty they really are.  There was a lot of vote buying that was going on, some of which we know about, much of which we will find out at a later time.  If I would try to influence votes in this way, it would be bribery.  If the Speaker of the House or the President does the same thing, then we call it politics.  It seems that there were several Congressman that initially took a stand against the bill, but when push came to shove, and a nice offer was dangling in front of them, they forsook any shred of principle that they had and they sold their vote.  We find others that may have voted against the bill, not because they believed in the cause, but rather because their political career depended on it.  We may not know for sure, but at least they took a stand.

The President and the Speaker of the House are touting this as a win for democracy.  I do not understand how they can say this.  Democracy is based on majority rules.  The majority of the American public was (and still is) against this bill.  Democratic principles would say that this bill should not have passed.  However, the Democrats (kind of an ironic name for them at this time) passed it anyway, even though Americans did not want it.  Their philosophy was that once the Americans find out what is in the bill, they will then be for it.  I am glad that they know what I want more than I know what I want.  Also, they passed this bill at this time because they think that the American public is stupid, that we will forget that this happened and that their re-election in November would not be harmed by this bill.  However, I have a feeling that the American people will not forget this anytime soon.  In fact, it was Pelosi that said they should vote for it, even though they may lose their office come November.  Arrogance?  You bet it is.

I do not have the time to write down all of the things that I find wrong with this bill.  However, I will share with you some of the major points that really disturb me.  Actually, if this kind of action continues, it should scare us that we let Congress get away with this kind of chicanery.

1. Nancy Pelosi says that health care is now a right - it is no longer a privilege.  I have read the U.S. Constitution, and I could not find where health care was granted to us as a right.  I have read many of our Founding Fathers' writings and they never listed health care as a right.  In fact, James Madison wrote that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government."  Government's duty is not to provide health care, but rather to remove the barriers that exist in getting good quality health care.  This is not an emotional issue, which the Democrats want it to be.  It has everything to do with our Constitution and how some in our government want nothing to do with it.
2. The Democrats continued the talking point that the Republicans had nothing to offer on the health care front.  This is nothing more than a lie, and they know it.  The Republicans wanted the government to remove barriers to health care, such as tort reform and portability of insurance.  They did not seek control.  They wanted to fix the problem, not make it exponentially worse.
3. The Democrats also accused their opponents of using talking points and not engaging in substantive debate.  The strange thing is that I have never heard the Democrats engaging in any kind of substantive debate on health care.  The only thing they ever did was use talking points and fabricated letters from non-existing constituents concerning supposed lack of health care.  This was debated in the media for months, but the debate on the House floor lasted for but a few hours.   And this short of a debate on a bill that would change 1/6th of the American economy?  On a bill that was over 2000 pages?  Deliberative democracy?  I don't think so.
4. Abortion is not health care.  I am not sure why it was even part of the bill.  Anyway, the alleged 'pro-life' Democrats voted for a bill that contains abortion as one of its provisions.  The President says that he will sign an executive order removing this provision, but an executive order can be revoked by the President at any time.  So what good is this?  And if health care is now a right, what about life?  Life is a right granted to us by the Constitution.  Unlike health care, it is actually in the Constitution.  So the Democrats want to take away the Constitutional right of an unborn child to live and replace it with something else?  That ground that is shaking is not an earthquake - it is the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.
5. The Democrats and liberal media can complain all day that this was not a bi-partisan bill.  The only bi-partisanship on this whole issue was the opposition.
6. The process is broken.  In the days leading up to this vote, we did not know if the Democrats were going to try to use a maneuver called 'deem and pass.'  In essence, they would vote on the reconciliation bill, and by doing so, it would be assumed that the underlying Senate health care bill would pass.  Many people on both sides found this too egregious, so they voted this down.  Still, the bill was over 2000 pages, and no one had a chance to read or understand the whole thing.  It was not posted on the internet long enough for people to read and understand it.  And they promised transparency and ethics?  I'd like to know what happened.
7. The insurance companies are not the enemy.   Could they do more when it comes to helping with pre-existing conditions and cost containment?  Yes, they could.  But let us keep in mind that insurance companies must remain profitable in order to remain in business and offer insurance.  Instead of beating up the insurance companies, perhaps the federal government should benchmark the insurance companies to find out how to manage costs and be profitable.
8. In the past, children were covered until they were done with their education.  Now, they will be covered until they are 26 yrs. old.  This is a huge problem.  These young adults need to go out and get jobs and get their own insurance, not stay at home and mooch from their parents.  This is yet another attempt by liberals to make people more dependent on government and remove the motivation to go out and be productive.
9. People will now be mandated to carry health insurance.  There are some who are out of work and cannot afford insurance.  I feel bad for them, but this is not the job of the government to provide this service.  There are some who choose not to carry health insurance - not because they cannot afford it, but because they view it as a bad investment of their money.  We should be worried when the government tells us we have to do something.  This is only a foot in the door.  The liberals definitely believe that this bill does not go far enough.  Pay attention, because there will be more on the way.
10. This health care provides the IRS with the money to hire an additional 16000+ workers.  Now, why would the IRS need to have this many additional workers?  The IRS will be in charge of enforcing mandatory insurance coverage.  Scary?  You bet it is.
11. Why do people think that the government can manage health care?  Social Security is going broke.  Welfare is out of control.  Health care for veterans is not in a good state.  The federal government is constantly failing at managing not only health care related programs, but they fail continually at managing all programs.  The answer is not government control.  The real answer is for the government to get out of the way, not to put up more roadblocks.
12. If we add more than 30 million people to a government-sponsored insurance plan, and we do nothing to increase the number of doctors, what is that going to do to the system?  It will be that much more difficult to get in to see the doctor (especially if some stop practicing medicine like they said they would do).  It will then lead to limited doctor's office visits, which will then lead to rationing, which is already a major problem in countries that have socialized medicine.  It is nothing more than the law of supply-and-demand at work.  If the supply of something remains constant, and the demand increases, then the cost will increase, and we will end up having a shortage of the service that people desire.  This will be one of the unintended consequence of this reform.
13. This kind of congressional action now paves the way for more 'social  reforms' that the liberals cherish, especially immigration reform.  If the Democrats have no problem bending and breaking rules for health care, they will do the same, and possibly more, for immigration reform.  After all, they may need the illegal immigrant community to vote for them in order to remain in office in November.
14. Elections have consequences.  In 2008, people voted for change.  The Republicans were spending more than the country had, and conservatives were unhappy with them.  The liberals already didn't like the Republicans  And the people who voted for the change are now seeing what change really means.  In 2010, we will see change again.  But that change is only as good as the people that we elect and the character and tenacity that they carry with them into office.

The list could go on-and-on.  Anyway, this bill does nothing to further democracy.  It actually stifles and inhibits growth.  As an electorate, we must hold our representatives accountable for not standing up to the leadership and ignoring the very people who put them into office.  We must tell them that this behavior is not acceptable, and that because of their actions, we will send them home, never to serve in office again.

Does disagreement with the President constitute racism?

This seems like an odd question to ask. After all, can't we disagree on issues without being labeled as some sort of societal misfit?  If I disagree with my wife (which does happen on occasion), does that make me some sort of male chauvinist or wife-beater? No. It just means we disagree on something. So why can't I disagree with someone who is a different race than what I happen to be? After all, I am an adult, able to form my own opinions, and I am not so shallow as to base my thoughts, feelings, and opinions on race.

However, as I read yesterday's Harrisburg Patriot News, my attention was drawn to an editorial written by a registered nurse by the name of Elizabeth A.K. Williams. Basically, what she is saying is that people are opposed to President Obama simply because he is a minority. In her words, "Halting anything and everything proposed by President Obama, is in major part, based on race and borders on being a crime against all American citizens." Excuse me, but under President Bush, it was our right to disagree with our leaders. Now, we are not allowed to?  I thought the ability to disagree with our elected leaders was the hallmark of our democracy?  I guess that only applies when Republicans are in charge.

As if this statement was not outrageous enough, she goes on to say: "Oppression of President Obama, along with other minorities, continues as an accepted practice in our society. It’s called institutionalized racism." If I disagree with the President, how am I oppressing him? It is the government that oppresses the citizens, not the citizens who oppress the government.

She then goes on to say: "With that said, I will now be accused of playing the race card. I do not accept that accusation, but rather pass it on to a large segment of our society whose hatred for minorities is being provoked by right-wing radio and TV show hosts." So let me get this straight - she accuses those who disagree with the President of doing so because they are racist, without ever providing any facts that might even come close to proving her point, yet she says she is not playing the race card.  I would love to know, then, what it means to play the race card.  And then, as all liberals do, they blame talk radio and network news (most likely, she is referring to Fox News).

She then goes on to insult the local talk radio station because they put talk show hosts on the air that foment racism towards minorities (her words, not mine).  Without naming any talk show in particular, she is talking about Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.  Most likely, she has never listened to any of these men (and in the interest of full disclosure, the only one I listen to with any regularity is Limbaugh - the other 2 get on my nerves).  However, I have never heard any of them say anything racist about Obama (or anyone, for that matter).  Their disagreements with the President are all based on policy, not on Obama as a person.  Sure, words are taken out of context and insults are hurled at them, but they have no validity.  Let's remember that Democrats insulted George Bush for 8 years on a personal level.  They were extremely cruel in some of their personal attacks.  Yet conservatives keep the debate on a policy level and they are somehow extremely mean and racist.  Go figure.

So, if I am a racist for disagreeing with the President, was Gov. Ed Rendell a racist for running against Lynn Swann for Governor of PA?  Were the white people of PA racist for voting against Swann?  Where was Ms. Williams when the pasty, white Senators in New England, as well as our current Vice President, were opposing Justice Clarence Thomas?  Where was Ms. Williams in defending Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell for serving in President Bush's Cabinet?  Why didn't she speak out when Jesse Jackson said that President Obama was not black enough?  And, which of the national parties actually has a minority leading the party?  That would be the Republican Party.  The Democrats had the opportunity, but selected a rather pasty white guy from Vermont, instead.  Apparently, it only suits her to bring out the race card at certain points in time.  And of course, she only needs to make the accusation, because that is all that matters.  She does not need to actually give any evidence.

I do not doubt that there are a few people in this country who do not like the President because of his skin color.  I would be naive to think otherwise.  However, the vast majority of those who disagree with the President are very concerned citizens who do not like the direction that this country is headed.  We want fiscal restraint.  We want to get rid of the government entitlements.  We want to get rid of the socialism that is creeping into our lives.  We are tired of being called names or being labeled because we disagree.  We are not the ones who are dwelling on the President's skin color.  It is his supporters who are constantly talking of his race.  Those who are against him draw attention to his policies.  And that is the difference between the two groups.  The supporters are concerned about symbolism, while those who are standing up against him are concerned about substance.

The Health Care Summit - Does it really matter?

I am sure we all have our own separate views on the necessity of health care reform - how we go about it, what needs to be reformed, should the government be involved, should it be the priority, etc.  So, in order to show the American people that he truly wishes for a bipartisan bill, the President has called a summit of Republicans and Democrats, Senators and Representatives, to try to devise a bill that everyone can agree with.

First, almost everyone can see through this charade.  The President is trying to regain political capital, which he has lost over the past several months.  The President, widely seen as a failing leader, needs to garner any momentum that he can muster in order to help his party have any chance of staying in power come the mid-term elections in November.  Besides, the administration has already developed a bill.  They are just trying to get everyone to agree with them now.

Second, the Democrats will not accept any Republican changes.  They want nothing to do with tort reform (after all, the lawyer community is one of their biggest supporters).  They want nothing to do with insurance portability and increased competition (that process is too democratic for the Democrats, which is slightly amusing and ironic at the same time).  They only want Republicans to sign on to this bill so that the Republicans can share in the blame when this passes and the American people reject it.  After all, the Democrats could have passed this already without any Republicans.  They could not get members of their own party to support some of the measures in the bill.

Third, why do we need a bipartisan bill?  What is so magical about bipartisanship?  Our elected officials should be more interested in doing what is right for America, not what is best for them and their cronies.  They should focus on bills that pass the muster of Constitutionality, not on bills that effectively attempt to re-write the Constitution.  When you get right down to the basics, constituents on both sides do not want bipartisanship.  We vote on people, not based on how well they compromise, but rather based on the issues that they stand for.  I do not want someone I voted for who is currently serving in office to go back on a campaign promise and do something he said he would not do, just so he could be bipartisan.  There is no character in that.  Character is standing up for what you believe in, regardless of the political climate.  Bipartisanship is a sign of weakness, a coward's way out of a tough decision.

Fourth, the Senate is proposing the use of reconciliation to pass health care.  This is a controversial maneuver, where only 51 votes are needed to end debate and to bring a bill up for a vote.  The only time, according to Senate rules, that this is used is in the budget process, since money needs to be appropriated in order to keep the government running.  Normally, 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture, which basically means to end debate and to send the bill for a final vote.  When the final vote is cast, they only need 51 votes for passage (but the media does not clarify this - they allow the American people to think that the bill will pass only if 60 Senators vote for it).

If I can hearken back only a few years, the Republicans threatened to use this maneuver in approving judges that were nominated to the federal bench.  However, McCain and his band of merry men (14 of them, in fact) did not want this to happen, because the reconciliation rule in the Senate was much more revered than even the Constitution.

Anyway, the Republicans should have used reconciliation at that point, as their role in approving judges was on an advise and consent basis.  In other words, it is the President's job to nominate the judges, and the Senate's job to say yea or nay.  The Democrats at that time were adamantly against it, from Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton to Sen. Biden to Sen. Kerry, and most every Democrat Senator.  They said that the Senate needs to remain the deliberative body and that rules should not be eased in order to ram things through for approval.  They said that the Senate is not there to 'rubber stamp' what the President wants.  A few years ago, debate was important.  It needed to happen.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot.  They want to pass this bill so bad that they can taste it.  They seem to conveniently forget the stand on reconciliation that they took only 2 or 3 years ago. Now it is OK to use this maneuver.  Alexis de Tocqueville termed this the 'Tyranny of the Majority.'  In other words, if a majority party is in power, they can pass anything they want, breaking any rules they want, and force their will on anyone and everyone.

This is the problem with our elected officials today.  They do what they want, when they want to, without a care for those they represent.  We are finally starting to see a backlash.  A recent poll shows that Congress has a 10% approval rating, and we know why.  They do not listen to the people that they represent.  Many entrenched Democrats (including Harry Reid), and some Republicans, will be losing their offices in November because the American voting public has had enough.  And if they keep up these shenanigans, even more will be out office come election time.  And that is not necessarily a bad thing.

President Obama vs. The Supreme Court

I did not watch the State of the Union speech last night. I had several other priorities. First, I was at church, where I am taking a Theology class (it is a 9-week course on the Trinity). Then, once we got home, we had to get the kids ready and sent to bed. After that, I watched the 2nd half of NCIS: Los Angeles, as I had fallen asleep Tuesday evening before the end of the show. Then, the season premiere of Psych was on. So I did have many other important priorities to attend to.

As I watched the news this morning to find out some of the more interesting things that the President said, I found out that he is not happy with the Supreme Court decision from last week that allows businesses and unions to spend as much money on political advertising as they deem appropriate, provided they do not give it to a candidate. I think I can understand why he does not like this decision - it does nothing to help him.

Yes, this is all about him and his chances of being re-elected in 2012. It also has some relationship to the mid-term elections later this year, but ultimately, to the President, it is all about him. If he does not have a Democrat Congress to help him out, then he will definitely have trouble enacting his agenda.

Since most businesses tend to lean Republican, the thought is that most of the benefit will be directed toward Republican candidates. While this is probably true, we cannot be certain that it will indeed happen this way. However, Democrats will benefit from this decision, as unions will now enjoy the same privileges that corporations will have when it comes to political advertising. And the unions are probably at least 90% Democrat in their endorsements (if not closer to 100%).

The President sees this decision as a threat to him because he had the advantage when it came to the media coverage (as the media is very pro-Obama and pro-progressive), as well as 501(c)3 contributions and endorsements. No longer, now, will he be able to have this advantage. The way I see it, this decision by the Supreme Court levels the playing field, it does not give the Republicans an advantage.

Also, this decision can act as an economic stimulus. How could that possibly be? Well, corporations will advertise and endorse candidates who they think will benefit them. They will go out to marketing firms and spend money on these advertisements, meaning greater income for the ad firms. Then, companies will need to purchase ad time on television, which benefits the cable companies and the networks (ad time is not free). The free flow of money for goods and services will benefit tremendously under this, but the President definitely does not want that to happen.

President Obama states that companies will now be buying elections (it is funny how he only mentions the corporations in his speeches - this Supreme Court decision benefits the unions in the same way). I am not sure about you, but I have never decided to vote for a candidate because of an advertisement. I am not that shallow. In fact, I do not know anyone who has made up his/her mind about a candidate based on an advertisement. I could care less which companies spend money on ads - I will continue to choose the candidate who I believe holds to the same values and principles that I have.

The cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true" when President Obama started insulting and attacking the Supreme Court. The President obviously has no idea about constitutional law and why the Supreme Court made the decision it did. Now, the media is going to rail on Justice Alito, instead of taking Obama to task about attacking the Supreme Court.

Liberals attacked conservatives for years about simply questioning activist decisions by the Supreme Court, and the judicial system as a whole. Now, the President attacks the Supreme Court like no one has since FDR. Since Obama now knows that the people do not want his agenda and that our elected representatives want to be re-elected, then he must have the courts on his side to enact laws, because legislation is not going to be enacted.

We have separation of powers in this country, for a reason. The founders knew that one branch could not become more powerful than the others. Now, the President wants to intimidate one of the other branches of government to govern as he wants them to. This man is small, weak, partisan, and mean. I understand that he is the President. I may not like that, but I must accept that. But he needs to start acting like a President. Instead, he is acting like a playground bully.

Liberals need to learn how to think and stop letting other think for them

In yesterday's (12/30/09) Harrisburg Patriot News, I was taken to task for an editorial that I submitted a few weeks ago. My editorial (which was extremely well-written and a work of conservative genius) was in response to an editorial by someone named Billy Carelock, a man I have never met. He basically called out conservatives and Republicans for disagreeing with the sitting President and that we should give him time to fix things. We should also stop being disrespectful (at least, that is how he saw disagreements with this President and his policies).

Anyway, in my response, I reminded everyone of how liberals treated President Bush throughout his Presidency. I asked if Mr. Carelock told liberals to stop disagreeing with Pres. Bush, because, after all, that would also be disrespectful. I reminded him that liberals always said that freedom of speech allows us to disagree with any elected official without fear of repercussion. Freedom of speech applies to one-and-all Americans, not just a certain ideological group, something liberals seem to forget. Also, even though this was not in the editorial, conservatives are nat attacking President Obama personally. They are attacking his ideology. This is not the same treatment that President Bush received.

Well, along comes Victor Peracchia (again, someone I have never met). He takes issue with my thoughts concerning liberals and their inconsistent (and somewhat hypocritical) approach to everything. He then asks a series of questions, which I will now rebut, quickly and efficiently.

He asks what I do not like about the President in several different areas.

• His compassion for Americans without health care - Well, it is not the government's duty to supply health care to everyone. Let's get our emotions out of this argument and look to the U.S. Constitution. Health care is not an inalienable right. If anything, the government should be removing impediments to health care companies so that they can be competitive and affordable. The government should stop adding regulations and allowing frivolous lawsuits (which is something they never want to eliminate, for fear of angering the ABA). Government needs to get out of the way.
• His success in averting a depression - Not sure where Mr. Peracchia is coming from on this one. We would have pulled out of this economic downturn months ago had Congress and the President allowed the business cycle to run its course. Government intervention is not a good thing. It only keeps perpetuating the problem. Now, the government owns a car company and is trying to control even more industries. This is not good for democracy (remember, this kind of control didn't work for the USSR, Eastern Europe, and it is not working in Venezuela or Cuba).
• His efforts to restore credibility in the world - We are the world leader in almost everything. Even though other countries are jealous of that and want to see us fail, they know where to go when facing a crisis - the U.S.A. We provide relief, but are never thanked for it. We provide money and food, yet no one acknowledges us for it. We are taken for granted, and the President can't help but apologize enough for our greatness. Credibility in the world is very overrated. We will never get the credit from these 'friends', but they will have their hand in our pocket any chance they get.
• His ideals on corporate greed - Corporate greed is a problem and it needs to be fixed. However, it is not a systemic problem. It is a person problem. Greed happens because there are corrupt people. The system itself is fine. So because of a perceived problem, the President needs to appoint all kinds of czars to control things? Who is the greedy one here? I believe that the President is the greedy one here, trying to seize as much power as possible.
• His principles to redirect more equitably our nation's wealth to deserving workers - This is, by definition, Socialism. So now we have American citizens hoping and praying that socialism is instituted in our country. Redistribution of wealth is wrong. You punish hard-working people by taking from what they earn and giving it to people that do not work as hard or do not work at all. Are people really this stupid?
• His concern for the poor and undereducated Americans - Whose fault is it that people are undereducated? We give them a free education in our public school system. Is it my fault they do not take advantage of it. Is it my fault that people do not avail themselves of this free education in order to study and get a better job? I don't think so. This is the problem with the government. The more money they sink into the public education system, the worse it gets. Yet, all these liberals are holding on, hoping it will get better someday. Oh, and by the way, this is why liberals exist today. The school systems of America are not doing their jobs, and they are teaching people what to think, not how to think.
• His Nobel Prize award - This was purely political in nature, and it had nothing to do with his effectiveness in leading the country. This award marks the point where the Nobel Peace Prize jumped the proverbial shark.

I am not going to give this President 4 years to ruin our country. I will speak out against him and his policies (but not insult him personally, as liberals did to President Bush) when I do not agree with him, which will probably be most of the time (although, I may need to insult liberals as a group for their inability to think outside of their talking points). Liberals said that speaking out against our President (while Bush was President) was the hallmark of democracy. Well, the criticism goes both ways. Liberals need to stop being the thin-skinned, shallow, hypocritical fools and they need to start using the brain that God created them with.

When does education become indoctrination?

Over the past 20-30 years, we have had our attention drawn to many instances of indoctrination in our school systems across this country. Rather than teaching our children how to think, our public education system has decided that they need to teach our children what to think. This has caused many people to choose alternative methods for their childrens' schooling, whether it be private school, home school, or charter school.

We used to send kids to school to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic. Those things don't matter now, because schools will automatically pass the students now. We now have teachers preaching ideologies in class. They are no longer teaching the basics that we send our kids to school to learn.

The latest example of this indoctrination comes from the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ. This event reportedly happened towards the end of the 2008-09 school year. The children sang a song about President Obama, praising him for what he is doing to build up the American economy. In excerpts from the article:

• The video shows nearly 20 young children taught a song overflowing with campaign slogans and praise for "Barack Hussein Obama," repeatedly chanting the president's name and celebrating his accomplishments, including his "great plans" to "make this country's economy No. 1 again.
• The song quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama."
• Among other lyrics, touting a fair-pay bill Obama signed in January: "He said we must be clear today/Equal work means equal pay."

I understand the need to teach children to respect authority figures, including the President of the United States, regardless of whether or not you voted for him. However, when a school teaches your children a song about the man and has them sing it in front of others (while recording it for an eventual post on YouTube), then the school has gone beyond education. This is quite simply indoctrination. All this has done is teach the kids to basically worship the President. Apparently, he can do no wrong.

Let's ignore the fact that if the school did this for a Republican, the outcry would be enormous. Lets throw out the fact that many teachers in the public school system are liberal. These facts are quite obvious, so we do not need to touch on them.

In elementary school, children are easily led one way or another. The ability to think in such a critical way has not completely developed, although it is a work in progress. At this level, the parents should be the ones to help the child develop political ideologies, not the schools. In many cases, the schools are doing this in opposition to what the parents are teaching their children. Did the school try to notify parents that they were going to do this? What was the goal of this exercise?

Now, what would have happened if the school had asked the children to learn a song about Jesus and sing it in front of the school? I think we all know the answer to that.