I have been trying to figure out for some time why there is such hatred for Sarah Palin. This hatred comes from liberals, media elites, political know-nothings, and even from some inside the Republican party. The ironic thing here is that the same people that hate Sarah Palin are the same people who are telling us that partisanship is killing the country and that we should seek to find compromise.
Anyway, as I have tried to figure out this disdain and hatred, I kept coming up with the same answer - they are afraid of her. I know this does not seem to make sense at first, but after much deliberation in my own mind, this is the only conclusion that I could come to.
First, she is an attractive and successful woman, who is happily married with 5 children. She has not had an abortion, nor does she speak out for women's liberation groups. These are not characteristics that liberals admire in women. Also, I think liberals are jealous about her attractive nature. After all, who do they have on their side - Hillary Clinton and Barbara Streisand?
Second, she holds views that are popular amongst many Americans. The reason she connected with many Republicans and conservatives is that we share her views on many issues. She is sincere in her beliefs, and she does not change her views based on the political climate of the day. She holds the opinion that the government is not the answer to all of our problems, and this is something that resonates with many Americans of all different political persuasions.
Third, she says that she is a Christian. Granted, I can only go by what she says, because I do not know for sure. But she claims to be a Christian, and I will take her at her word. According to liberals, Christians need to discard their beliefs at the door and that their beliefs should have no impact on the decisions that are made legislatively. Sarah Palin is not going to do that, and this irritates the haters.
Fourth, she is popular, while the popularity of liberals is waning. This annoys the haters beyond measure. She is popular because her views resonate with the American people, while the liberals' views do not connect with the people. We are headed in the wrong direction, people know it, and Sarah Palin is not afraid to point that out. She is also not afraid to speak out against Republicans when they do something stupid (which is why some RINO's do not like her).
Fifth, she is not a Washington insider. Many liberals and media elite are upset that an outsider can come into the political scene and have this much of an impact. To them, there is no room for outsiders.
The haters continue to attack her, no matter what she does. They attacked her for making a speech with 4 or 5 different items written on the palm of her hand. Essentially, she had those topics written on her hand because those are the issues she wanted to speak about. And what do the haters do - they mock her. The President's press secretary mocked it. Liberal media elites mocked it. Yet, all she needed to make a speech was to make a list of the items she wanted to speak about and the passion with which to speak. She did not need a teleprompter (a la President Obama). She did not need a written speech. All she needed was a list of topics, and she was able to give an extemporaneous speech, and she did it passionately and eloquently. Should she have used an index card instead of her hand? Possibly. But if this is all that the haters can come up with, then they ought to be ashamed and embarrassed.
Liberals also insist that she is dumb, that she has no idea of how to be 'Presidential' (this from the same people that applaud our current President for being a big bully who lacks decorum). They underestimate her. 'We the people' are tired of these liberals and elites telling us what to think about people. We have enough information at our fingertips and are more than capable of making intelligent decisions on our own. Moreover, those of us who have an admiration for Palin are labeled is idiots or morons. This is another mark against the liberals. Rather than respect the opinions of a divergent viewpoint or have a debate on the merits, they resort to name-calling.
Because of all of this, I believe that it is a fear of Sarah Palin that causes these people to hate her. They are afraid that she will become popular and possibly win an election, and then their power over people will continue to diminish. If they did not fear her, then they would not ridicule her or mock her or continue to publish stories that try to bring her down. They would leave her alone, and she would just go away.
As for me, I do not know if she will run for President in 2012, and if she does, I do not know if I will vote for her. But I will give her consideration before I place my vote. Perhaps, many of these haters should stop hating and give her a chance to be heard.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
What has happened to our values? - Part 2
A couple of weeks ago, on June 25, 2009, my wife had a birthday. We then went to the Harrisburg Hospital to see my younger brother's newest child. On the way, we heard about the passing of Michael Jackson, the so-called "King of Pop." We can also note that Farrah Fawcett died that day, but that was no longer news after the report of Michael Jackson hit the airwaves.
As I saw news coverage that night, I saw throngs of people headed to the hospital where Michael Jackson died. People flocked to the Neverland Ranch to pay their last respects. People camped out around his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. We were flooded with images of people crying over his death. We were shown interviews with people who spoke of how much MJ had touched them with his music and his life, even though there was no personal contact between them. Congress is rushing to pass a resolution honoring the life of Jackson, but yet cannot pass any bill that would help out the average American.
But why are we treating him like this? His music had not been relevant to the pop music genre for at least 15 years. He had money troubles over the last few years (he was spending much more money than he had on hand). He definitely was in legal trouble. Why is their such a fuss about him?
I found it odd that 2 different ministers came out and spoke on his family's behalf: The Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton. If these men were really men of God, then they would know that we should not idolize another fallible human being. Yet these two men did just that. Here they were, holding up a fallible man as if he had done no wrong throughout the course of his life, praising his accomplishments here on this earth.
Let us not forget that MJ was in all kinds of legal trouble for being a pervert, as he liked to have sleepovers with boys, even allowing them to sleep in his bed (in case you forgot, watch his interview with Martin Bashir from a few years ago). He was in trouble for molestation. Yes, he was acquitted, but who among us really believes that he is innocent of this? A lot of money changed hands in order for him to come away from these charges as not guilty.
The Staples Center held a lottery to see who would get tickets to his memorial service. From printed reports, approximately 1.4 million people registered online for 17000 available tickets. People are flying in from all over the country, from around the world, to be in L.A. for this service. Why? Do we really think that much of a singer what made a lot of money from singing songs, yet had not impact on us as people?
And then the media covers this spectacle as if nothing else is going on around us? We have war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a federal government that cannot control spending. We have a government that wants to push socialism on us. There are international issues with Korea and Honduras. The Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority. Yet, the media is diverting our attention to the MJ service and away from these other much more important issues. Because the media knows that Americans have a short attention span and can pretty much be led around and told what to think.
As many people mourn the death of Michael Jackson today, I know of one person who is more than happy that this has happened: Gov. Mark Sanford. It got his name off of the front page. But what does this say about us? What have we become, that the death of an entertainer is the most important event on the earth?
As I saw news coverage that night, I saw throngs of people headed to the hospital where Michael Jackson died. People flocked to the Neverland Ranch to pay their last respects. People camped out around his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. We were flooded with images of people crying over his death. We were shown interviews with people who spoke of how much MJ had touched them with his music and his life, even though there was no personal contact between them. Congress is rushing to pass a resolution honoring the life of Jackson, but yet cannot pass any bill that would help out the average American.
But why are we treating him like this? His music had not been relevant to the pop music genre for at least 15 years. He had money troubles over the last few years (he was spending much more money than he had on hand). He definitely was in legal trouble. Why is their such a fuss about him?
I found it odd that 2 different ministers came out and spoke on his family's behalf: The Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton. If these men were really men of God, then they would know that we should not idolize another fallible human being. Yet these two men did just that. Here they were, holding up a fallible man as if he had done no wrong throughout the course of his life, praising his accomplishments here on this earth.
Let us not forget that MJ was in all kinds of legal trouble for being a pervert, as he liked to have sleepovers with boys, even allowing them to sleep in his bed (in case you forgot, watch his interview with Martin Bashir from a few years ago). He was in trouble for molestation. Yes, he was acquitted, but who among us really believes that he is innocent of this? A lot of money changed hands in order for him to come away from these charges as not guilty.
The Staples Center held a lottery to see who would get tickets to his memorial service. From printed reports, approximately 1.4 million people registered online for 17000 available tickets. People are flying in from all over the country, from around the world, to be in L.A. for this service. Why? Do we really think that much of a singer what made a lot of money from singing songs, yet had not impact on us as people?
And then the media covers this spectacle as if nothing else is going on around us? We have war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a federal government that cannot control spending. We have a government that wants to push socialism on us. There are international issues with Korea and Honduras. The Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority. Yet, the media is diverting our attention to the MJ service and away from these other much more important issues. Because the media knows that Americans have a short attention span and can pretty much be led around and told what to think.
As many people mourn the death of Michael Jackson today, I know of one person who is more than happy that this has happened: Gov. Mark Sanford. It got his name off of the front page. But what does this say about us? What have we become, that the death of an entertainer is the most important event on the earth?
Friday, May 1, 2009
ABC News: Helping out our enemies?
Yesterday, ABC News revealed the identities of 2 men who were intimately involved in the so-called torturing of terrorist detainees. What were they thinking? What is their motivation here? Were they aware that they are endangering the safety of these men? Better yet, who in this administration is leaking this kind of information?
Waterboarding was last on the list of tactics to use when interrogating top-level terrorist suspects. I do not believe it is torture. Yes, it may scare the daylights out of them. Yes, they may be uncomfortable. But if this is what is necessary to get information from these people in order to save American lives, than that is what we need to do. Keep in mind, these are the same people that cut the hands off of people who steal, stone women who commit adultery, chop the heads off of their enemies, fly planes into buildings. However, if you listen to the spin machine of the administration (MSNBC), you would think that this is the worst thing that you could ever do to someone. Keep in mind, no one ever died during this (not even close). They want people's heads (figuratively) for waterboarding terrorists, but they think partial-birth abortion is OK? Explain the humanity of that one to me: You can't waterboard a terrorist, but you can suck the brains out of a halfway-born child? Who are the real thugs?
Anyway, by identifying these men, ABC News has put a target on the backs of these men and they have endangered their families. First of all, the media and Democrats in Congress are going to be after these guys. They would love nothing more than to have a show trial with these men. Also, by releasing names, they have helped our enemies know who was behind our plans and methods for getting enemy information. I am sure that they will not let this information go by the wayside and go on their merry way.
Why did ABC News do this? Is there any benefit to do doing this? Why do these news organizations find glory in revealing sensitive information that is related to national security? The media still wants to crucify members of the Bush administration for 'outing' Valerie Plame, the desk jockey analyst at the CIA who sent her husband on a political mission. There is now way on earth that Valerie Plame was more critical to the CIA than these men who were outed by ABC News. Plame was nothing. She just happens to fit a media template for the 'Blame Bush First' crowd, while these men are guilty of the worst sins that mankind could have ever committed. Keep in mind, the gentlemen that revealed her identity, Richard Armitage, has never been attacked and investigated by the major news outlets.
There is also the issue of how they got their hands on this sensitive information? Who in this administration leaked this one? If revealing Plame's name was so bad, then this one is 50 times worse. These men were critical in getting information from terrorists to keep us safe from attack. Whoever revealed the identities of these men should be put in jail for revealing top secret information about who was involved and what we were doing. Then to top if all off, this wonderful administration is going to release pictures of what was going on. This is political ineptitude, at its finest.
Plame is guilty of sending her husband on a politically driven CIA trip to try to undermine U.S. foreign policy. She is the traitor. The men who have been outed are patriots. When will the current President understand that his job is to provide protection for Americans. His job is not to be nice to terrorists, to apologize to them for being treated harshly, to give them Constitutional protections afforded to American citizens. Why is he more interested in protecting the rights of the terrorists than he is in protecting the lives of the American people? And he is using media outlets like ABC News to help him. And he has many people falling down at his feet and worshipping him. If this is his view of what is good for America, if this is the change we need, then we are in trouble.
Waterboarding was last on the list of tactics to use when interrogating top-level terrorist suspects. I do not believe it is torture. Yes, it may scare the daylights out of them. Yes, they may be uncomfortable. But if this is what is necessary to get information from these people in order to save American lives, than that is what we need to do. Keep in mind, these are the same people that cut the hands off of people who steal, stone women who commit adultery, chop the heads off of their enemies, fly planes into buildings. However, if you listen to the spin machine of the administration (MSNBC), you would think that this is the worst thing that you could ever do to someone. Keep in mind, no one ever died during this (not even close). They want people's heads (figuratively) for waterboarding terrorists, but they think partial-birth abortion is OK? Explain the humanity of that one to me: You can't waterboard a terrorist, but you can suck the brains out of a halfway-born child? Who are the real thugs?
Anyway, by identifying these men, ABC News has put a target on the backs of these men and they have endangered their families. First of all, the media and Democrats in Congress are going to be after these guys. They would love nothing more than to have a show trial with these men. Also, by releasing names, they have helped our enemies know who was behind our plans and methods for getting enemy information. I am sure that they will not let this information go by the wayside and go on their merry way.
Why did ABC News do this? Is there any benefit to do doing this? Why do these news organizations find glory in revealing sensitive information that is related to national security? The media still wants to crucify members of the Bush administration for 'outing' Valerie Plame, the desk jockey analyst at the CIA who sent her husband on a political mission. There is now way on earth that Valerie Plame was more critical to the CIA than these men who were outed by ABC News. Plame was nothing. She just happens to fit a media template for the 'Blame Bush First' crowd, while these men are guilty of the worst sins that mankind could have ever committed. Keep in mind, the gentlemen that revealed her identity, Richard Armitage, has never been attacked and investigated by the major news outlets.
There is also the issue of how they got their hands on this sensitive information? Who in this administration leaked this one? If revealing Plame's name was so bad, then this one is 50 times worse. These men were critical in getting information from terrorists to keep us safe from attack. Whoever revealed the identities of these men should be put in jail for revealing top secret information about who was involved and what we were doing. Then to top if all off, this wonderful administration is going to release pictures of what was going on. This is political ineptitude, at its finest.
Plame is guilty of sending her husband on a politically driven CIA trip to try to undermine U.S. foreign policy. She is the traitor. The men who have been outed are patriots. When will the current President understand that his job is to provide protection for Americans. His job is not to be nice to terrorists, to apologize to them for being treated harshly, to give them Constitutional protections afforded to American citizens. Why is he more interested in protecting the rights of the terrorists than he is in protecting the lives of the American people? And he is using media outlets like ABC News to help him. And he has many people falling down at his feet and worshipping him. If this is his view of what is good for America, if this is the change we need, then we are in trouble.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
It is time for conservatives to stand up for what we believe
Why do we, as Republicans and conservatives, allow the media and the liberal establishment to define us? They tell us who should lead us, what we should believe, who we should include, and the list goes on-and-on-and-on.
The latest chapter comes from the speech that Rush Limbaugh delivered at CPAC on Saturday evening. After reading the majority of his speech, I must say that I agree with him. We have allowed moderates to come into leadership roles within the Republican Party and tear us down. They have led us astray. They have tried to make the party into Democrat-lite.
The Republican Party, at its core, is conservative. The people who are the base of the party are conservative people. Moderates within the party have a hard time swallowing this bitter pill. They think we ought to reach out to more moderates and liberals and broaden the base of the party.
Well, that is what has put us in the position that we are in today. We ran a moderate for President in 2008, because we thought that is what was needed to win the election. It didn’t work. You cannot out-liberal a liberal. The liberals want people like McCain, Specter, Snowe, et al. running the party because that will guarantee that they stay in power for many years to come.
Conservatism came to prominence in the 80’s with Ronald Reagan, then in the 90’s with Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. When conservatism is on the ticket, it wins. This is why liberals want the moderate wing of the Republican Party to win. They are scared of the masses that are conservative, and they know that if we have a conservative nominee, that he/she has a good chance of winning.
The mainstream media and the DNC are all over the Rush Limbaugh speech and his criticism of Michael Steele. They are trying to paint Rush Limbaugh as the problem with America. He is dividing us. He is mean-spirited. He is harming the bipartisanship that the President is trying to inflict us with. They want to make him the evil person in all this country, to help distract from the way that they are destroying this country. It is Rush Limbaugh that wants us to have the freedoms that the Founding Fathers intended us to have. With that freedom comes the ability to become whatever we want to be. The Democrats want us to rely on government for everything. They want us to be dependent on them, which will entrench them in power for years to come.
It is time to stand up against these liars, these divisive nutjobs that run the Democrat Party. They are the ones constantly playing the race card. They are the ones constantly trying to divide us (whether its based on class, gender, race, or anything else). They are the ones that want us to be totally reliant on the government. They are the ones who are held captive by the left-wing, anti-capitalism, anti-America fringe base that would rather see us live under the flag of the U.N than under the flag of the U.S.A.
An old adage (that some say comes from Alexis de Tocqueville) says that “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” Those of us who are conservative understand that this goodness does not come from the government and politicians in Washington. Rather, it comes from the goodness of its people. It is not our concern what other countries think of us. If they disdain our greatness as a superpower, that is their problem (but they sure know who to come to when they are in need).
Anyway, it is time for us to fight back. It is time to fight for conservative causes, for conservative candidates, for conservatism in general. We have seen throughout our history as a country that conservatism can beat liberalism. We also know that there are a lot of conservatives that are fed up with the way we are defined by the liberal media establishment, and liberals in general. It is time to fight for what we believe in. I support Rush Limbaugh. I support conservative Republicans. But most of all, I support what is best for America. Liberalism is not good for us. It will lead to our defeat. We need to avoid it at all costs.
The latest chapter comes from the speech that Rush Limbaugh delivered at CPAC on Saturday evening. After reading the majority of his speech, I must say that I agree with him. We have allowed moderates to come into leadership roles within the Republican Party and tear us down. They have led us astray. They have tried to make the party into Democrat-lite.
The Republican Party, at its core, is conservative. The people who are the base of the party are conservative people. Moderates within the party have a hard time swallowing this bitter pill. They think we ought to reach out to more moderates and liberals and broaden the base of the party.
Well, that is what has put us in the position that we are in today. We ran a moderate for President in 2008, because we thought that is what was needed to win the election. It didn’t work. You cannot out-liberal a liberal. The liberals want people like McCain, Specter, Snowe, et al. running the party because that will guarantee that they stay in power for many years to come.
Conservatism came to prominence in the 80’s with Ronald Reagan, then in the 90’s with Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. When conservatism is on the ticket, it wins. This is why liberals want the moderate wing of the Republican Party to win. They are scared of the masses that are conservative, and they know that if we have a conservative nominee, that he/she has a good chance of winning.
The mainstream media and the DNC are all over the Rush Limbaugh speech and his criticism of Michael Steele. They are trying to paint Rush Limbaugh as the problem with America. He is dividing us. He is mean-spirited. He is harming the bipartisanship that the President is trying to inflict us with. They want to make him the evil person in all this country, to help distract from the way that they are destroying this country. It is Rush Limbaugh that wants us to have the freedoms that the Founding Fathers intended us to have. With that freedom comes the ability to become whatever we want to be. The Democrats want us to rely on government for everything. They want us to be dependent on them, which will entrench them in power for years to come.
It is time to stand up against these liars, these divisive nutjobs that run the Democrat Party. They are the ones constantly playing the race card. They are the ones constantly trying to divide us (whether its based on class, gender, race, or anything else). They are the ones that want us to be totally reliant on the government. They are the ones who are held captive by the left-wing, anti-capitalism, anti-America fringe base that would rather see us live under the flag of the U.N than under the flag of the U.S.A.
An old adage (that some say comes from Alexis de Tocqueville) says that “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” Those of us who are conservative understand that this goodness does not come from the government and politicians in Washington. Rather, it comes from the goodness of its people. It is not our concern what other countries think of us. If they disdain our greatness as a superpower, that is their problem (but they sure know who to come to when they are in need).
Anyway, it is time for us to fight back. It is time to fight for conservative causes, for conservative candidates, for conservatism in general. We have seen throughout our history as a country that conservatism can beat liberalism. We also know that there are a lot of conservatives that are fed up with the way we are defined by the liberal media establishment, and liberals in general. It is time to fight for what we believe in. I support Rush Limbaugh. I support conservative Republicans. But most of all, I support what is best for America. Liberalism is not good for us. It will lead to our defeat. We need to avoid it at all costs.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
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
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
Saturday, January 17, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Who are the haters??
I have been frustrated over the course of the last eight years over the treatment that President George W. Bush has received from Democrats, the media, Europeans, and liberal people, in general. These groups seem to stir up the 'Bush is playing on your fears' card at every turn. They talk about he has involved himself in the 'politics of personal destruction.'
During the run-up to the Presidential election, President-elect Obama talked about how we needed a new tone in Washington. We need change. McCain would be just like a 3rd Bush term (and they new how frivolous that suggestion was).
Now let me be the first to say that President Bush has made mistakes. In my opinion, we should have annihilated Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet we did not do that. The bailout deal was not good at all. His stance on immigration, in my opinion, is wrong. I do believe, however, that he is a principled man. He truly believes in the things he does and the decisions that he makes as President. These things are not politically motivated, but, in his eyes, they are the right thing to do. And he has been castigated by conservatives when he does something we do not believe is good and right for the country.
However, our displeasure remains at the policy level. The attacks do not get personal. The left has attacked the man personally. They say he is a fool, a buffoon, a stupid man. They have compared him to some of the past evils that truly evil men have committed (Hitler, Stalin, etc.). In their eyes, he is everything that is wrong with the world. They believe that he is the enemy, not the terrorists. They believe that the U.S. is the problem, not the solution to the problem.
These are the same groups of people that stopped the bipartisanship after the 9/11 attacks. They wanted to attack President Bush more than the terrorists. They saw the U.S. as the reason we were attacked, not the fact that the terrorists hated us for who we were. They have more sympathy for terrorists that we are holding in prison that they have for innocent, unborn children that are being aborted daily.
So I ask, who are the haters?
** A man, although we may not agree with him all of the time, stands on principle and does what he believes is right for this country, even when those ideals are unpopular?
**Or a group of people who want to see failure at all costs and want to see the U.S. brought down to the level of European countries that see socialism as the answer to all of our problems?
During the run-up to the Presidential election, President-elect Obama talked about how we needed a new tone in Washington. We need change. McCain would be just like a 3rd Bush term (and they new how frivolous that suggestion was).
Now let me be the first to say that President Bush has made mistakes. In my opinion, we should have annihilated Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet we did not do that. The bailout deal was not good at all. His stance on immigration, in my opinion, is wrong. I do believe, however, that he is a principled man. He truly believes in the things he does and the decisions that he makes as President. These things are not politically motivated, but, in his eyes, they are the right thing to do. And he has been castigated by conservatives when he does something we do not believe is good and right for the country.
However, our displeasure remains at the policy level. The attacks do not get personal. The left has attacked the man personally. They say he is a fool, a buffoon, a stupid man. They have compared him to some of the past evils that truly evil men have committed (Hitler, Stalin, etc.). In their eyes, he is everything that is wrong with the world. They believe that he is the enemy, not the terrorists. They believe that the U.S. is the problem, not the solution to the problem.
These are the same groups of people that stopped the bipartisanship after the 9/11 attacks. They wanted to attack President Bush more than the terrorists. They saw the U.S. as the reason we were attacked, not the fact that the terrorists hated us for who we were. They have more sympathy for terrorists that we are holding in prison that they have for innocent, unborn children that are being aborted daily.
So I ask, who are the haters?
** A man, although we may not agree with him all of the time, stands on principle and does what he believes is right for this country, even when those ideals are unpopular?
**Or a group of people who want to see failure at all costs and want to see the U.S. brought down to the level of European countries that see socialism as the answer to all of our problems?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Random Thoughts on the 2008 General Election
As I watched the election coverage on Tuesday evening, I began to grow frustrated at what I was seeing and hearing. I started to catalog my thoughts and feelings, as I am becoming more convinced that we, as Americans, are sliding down a slippery slope and are not the same country that our Founding Fathers risked their lives to start.
We are a country that is legalizing a drug (marijuana) for supposed medicinal purposes, trying to legalize prostitution (in San Francisco), legalizing assisted suicide, opposing a ban abortions, and the list goes on. We are a country that now seeks to have government involved in all aspects of our lives and to provide for us, not limit it in our lives and allow freedom for prosperity to abound. We now have government officials who are seeking to crack down on businesses making money because they make too much. We have a government that seeks to tax those who have been successful in order to give to those who are not trying.
The list below is not a comprehensive list of my thoughts for the evening, but it is a sample of what I was thinking, and you were probably thinking some of these things also.
We are a country that is legalizing a drug (marijuana) for supposed medicinal purposes, trying to legalize prostitution (in San Francisco), legalizing assisted suicide, opposing a ban abortions, and the list goes on. We are a country that now seeks to have government involved in all aspects of our lives and to provide for us, not limit it in our lives and allow freedom for prosperity to abound. We now have government officials who are seeking to crack down on businesses making money because they make too much. We have a government that seeks to tax those who have been successful in order to give to those who are not trying.
The list below is not a comprehensive list of my thoughts for the evening, but it is a sample of what I was thinking, and you were probably thinking some of these things also.
- This Presidential race was all about race. As I watched the early returns last night, the talking heads were talking about the historical nature of this election, because it would lead to the first African-American (a term I do not like) President. I have news for these media people: All elections are historic, not just this one. It was not about what Obama stood for or what his platform was. It was about his race. Many of the people they interviewed (including Oprah) were talking about his race, not his platform. Blacks voted almost unanimously for Obama, yet this is not considered racist. And because of this..................
- Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream has yet to be realized. His statement was that someday his children would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. You see, this has not yet happened. It was all about the race of the candidate. It had nothing to do with the character of the candidate (or the lack thereof).
- Only liberal blacks are allowed to realize the dream. In 2006, I was an ardent supporter of Lynn Swann for Governor of Pennsylvania. Yet, when white people in PA did not vote for him, they were not considered racist. They were considered principled democrats who thought this guy was too conservative. The same goes for Michael Steele when he was running for governor of Maryland in 2006. Democrats were digging in to his personal information in order for him to be defeated. How dare a black man be a part of the Republican Party! Apparently, no one told them that they are supposed to be Democrats.
- Sarah Palin is NOT the reason that McCain lost. This is one that the media is trying to sell right now. If McCain would have selected Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, it would have turned out differently. While these may be 2 fine men, they are not men who appeal to the conservative base of the party. They are 2 men that actually tend to turn off the base of the party. Sarah Palin is a conservative that energized the base. If this turned off some of the moderates in the party, then they were not true conservatives to begin with. McCain lost because he acquiesced too much. He was not firm enough or aggressive enough in challenging Obama.
- Moderates and Independents are not worth reaching out to. This group of people are those who cannot make up their mind and then jump on a bandwagon so that they can say they supported the winner. They have no values that they are willing to stand up for. It is far easier to go with the flow than it is to fight against it for a purpose.
- Nobody really wants compromise (except for the group listed above). If my candidate wins, I want that person to enact the platform that they ran on. I do not want them to compromise those principles in order to get along. There is most definitely a right and a wrong. Likewise, the other side is not going to want their candidate to give in once they get into office. They voted for a person with a certain platform and set of principles, and the last thing that they want is a compromise of those issue.
- The media is biased. Not that this comes as a revelation to anyone, but it was very much in the forefront during election coverage. Not even the so-called conservative propaganda machine (FoxNews) was able to fight this one off. There is such a salivating at the mouth for Obama (unless you are Chris Matthews, then you have a tingling up your leg). The pundits really do not have a clue as to what people outside the beltway are thinking. There is too much of a reliance on polls and not enough focus on people.
- Hope and Change are not an agenda. They are cheesy slogans. I really have yet to hear this defined from Obama, and all of his supporters bought into it. What is he going to change (his underwear, his favorite team, who he is going to throw under the bus next)? What are we hoping for (tax relief, a renewal of America on the world stage)? People bought into slogans without any idea of what they really meant.
- I do not care what Europe (or the rest of the world) thinks about our election. Obviously, they see this as an opportunity for a weaker America. They want a more compassionate America (as if our generosity hasn't bailed out many of these countries multiple times in the last 200 years). They hail the fact that America elected a black man. When have all of these racist countries ever elected a black man?
- America is not the Christian country that we once were. Our Founding Fathers wanted this to be a country where we could worship freely, where the name of God could be praised. If you read many of our state constitutions, you will see the reverence and respect for God that these men had. Now, people have done all they could to get God out of the public square.
- Geraldo Rivera is an idiot. Most of you already know this, but the thought was renewed in my mind this morning. Being interviewed on Fox & Friends, he was trying to perpetuate the myth that McCain would have been better off with Ridge or Lieberman as his running mate. According to Rivera, the Republican base would vote for McCain, he needed the moderates. Rivera would not have voted for him anyway. Why this guy still has a job is beyond me.
- They are getting what they wanted, but they will lose what they had. This is the title of a sermon I heard many years ago from Dr. Bud Bierman. The basic tenet of the message is that people will sell out their principles and their values in order to realize a short-term benefit, but int he long-run, they will lose everything that they hold dear. This will take some time, but it will happen.
- Obama is the President-elect. Not that I am happy about that, but this is what the result of the vote was, and I must deal with it. I do not need to be happy about it. He is the President, and I will respect that. However, I will speak out when I believe he is wrong.
- God is still in control. Prov. 21:1 says 'The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will. Enough said.
Again, these are a few of my random thoughts from last night. I am sure that I could go on and on, but you get the gist of my thoughts. I do not need to spell them all out for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)