"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Of course, these are the words spoken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on August 28, 1963, in a massive march on Washington to protest the racial divide that existed in this country. His words were wise and well-spoken, and they came at the height of the Civil Rights Movement in America.
But how far have we come since then? Have we truly become a color-blind society? Do we judge people by their character as opposed to the color of their skin? Do we treat all people equally? Does racism exist? Can anyone be a racist? What constitutes racism?
To start with, racism is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; 2) racial prejudice or discrimination." According to this definition, anyone is capable of being racist. By holding to the fact that one race is superior to another in some manner or form, you are, by definition, racist. Likewise, if you make decisions based solely on your own racial prejudices, then you are a racist.
It would be foolish of me to say that racism does not exist in America today. Is it as rampant as some would make it out to be? I would say no. But are there people out there who are motivated by race in their daily lives? I believe that this answer is 'yes'.
But why are these people motivated by race? Why do people cling to this idea that one race is better than another? How do they benefit by believing this way? How can people be so naive as to believe this way? How can people be so motivated by hate? Some people may not know better. This is the way that they were raised, and no one has been able to reach out to them and let them know the foolishness of this stance. Some may be motivated by something that happened in their own life that has caused them to feel resentment. There are no good reasons that can be given to justify these beliefs, but people still hold to them.
The problem I have is that people are now being falsely accused of being racists. To oppose someone based on ideas and principles is not racist. To oppose an administration because you do not like the principles that are being pushed is not racist. But these people who are opposing the President on health care, or cap-and-trade, or ACORN, or anything else that he stands for are now being accused of being racist, even though these protesters are opposing all elected representation in Washington, and not just the President.
Yet, it is never mentioned that many of these same people supported the likes of Lynn Swann in PA, Ken Blackwell in Ohio, or Michael Steele in Maryland. These same people supported the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Where were all of the Democrats then? They did not support Swann, or Blackwell, or Steele. They definitely did not support Thomas's nomination. Does this fact make those democrats racist? No, it doesn't. They were opposed because the nominees were not liberals/democrats.
Being called a racist can be very damaging to one's reputation, even though the charge is not true. That moniker can put the seeds of doubt in other people's mind about someone's character. It can ruin someone's credibility beyond measure. Just look at how the non-racial comments by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) are being treated.
And all too often, it is thrown out at someone recklessly. We see cries of racism at the drop of a hat. It used to be that this was a ploy used only by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Now, it is being used by many prominent liberals and democrats, including the illustrious former President, Jimmy Carter. And it is usually used in times of political desperation.
The people that were in Washington this past Saturday protesting excessive government spending, universal health care, cap-and-trade, etc., were protesting not only the President. They were protesting the reckless way in which Congress passes laws and spends money like there is no tomorrow. Could there have been some people using this as a way to express their racist views? Yes, there could have been a few people there (maybe 5 or 6 of them) who were racists, and the media would go out of their way to find them. But the overwhelming majority were there to protest our government.
During the 2008 Presidential election, the media tried to turn everyone who opposed Obama into a racist. Forget about the fact that everything the Republican Party did and said was based on principle, not on race. Forget about the fact that the only people who ever brought race into the discussion were liberals/democrats. Conservatives are able to make decisions based on principle and do not have to bring race into the equation.
Just because people voted against Obama does not mean those people were racist. Many voted against him because of where he stood on the issues, because of who he called his friends (Rev. Wright, et al), because of what he stood for, because of what he wanted to do as President. How is it that voting against him based on principle is racist, but voting for him simply because he is black is not racist? Voting for someone based solely on his/her race is no more racist than voting against someone based solely on his/her race.
Let's be careful when throwing around the "racist" moniker. That is a scarlet letter that is thrown, not only at one's own character, but on their life, and on their family. And even in cases where it is not true, it can be a scar on one's life for many years.
Getting back to MLK's speech, where are we now? Have we reached that point in our society where we are judging others based on their character as opposed to their skin color? I would say that we have not reached that point. People continue to judge based on skin color. To me, it does not matter what skin color our President (or our Congressman, a football coach, a school teacher, etc.) has, but yet, we are often told of his skin color by our media. When we attempt to make a stand against someone based on character, then we are called racist.
I believe it is now time to take Dr. King's words and make them a realization, because, in my opinion, that has not happened yet. There are many who seem all to willing to erect that racial wall in today's society rather than eliminate it once and for all. I believe that Dr. King would be upset, were he alive today, at the way his dream is being taken out of context and twisted. It is time to finally honor him and make his dream come true.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Let's stop blaming President Bush
Thanks to the ongoing debate over health care, the American people are starting to become more aware of the way our government is spending our money. The American people are also aware of the fact that it is indeed their own money that is being spent, and they are becoming less content with that overspending each and every day, as they should be.
Well, the hardcore liberals are now doing what they do best: they are deflecting the blame to the previous President and taking no responsibility for their own actions. After all, it is much easier to deflect the blame on someone else than it is to actually take responsibility for one's own actions. Thankfully, there are not as many buying into this idea as before.
First, let me say that I am a supporter of former President George W. Bush. He did his best to protect this country from those who were bent on destroying it. As commander-in-chief, he took that responsibility seriously, and I am thankful for that. However, in his second term, along with a Republican-led Congress, he supported spending programs that were contrary to conservative principles and led us into a lot of debt. (Let's be clear: It is Congress that writes the checks. The President only signs the bills. However, President Bush did not veto these spending plans, which thus shows no disagreement with the bills he was signing.)
Many Bush supporters (and especially conservatives) were (and still are) unhappy about the out-of-control spending that took place during that second term. Many conservatives spoke out about it then, and they continue to speak out about it, so there is not hypocrisy happening. The Democrats, for the most part, were partakers in the spending under President Bush, but they separated themselves from it for electoral purposes only. They are the hypocrites in all of this.
And while the spending spree in the last few years of the Bush Administration was unwise and financially reckless, it pales in comparison to the spending that the Obama Administration is now partaking in. It is President Obama's contention that this spending is necessary to get us out of a recession. He believes that the government needs to spend this money in order to dig our country out of a financial hole that we now find ourselves. And, somehow, it is all President Bush's fault.
Blaming President Bush for anything has been commonplace for at least the last 8 years. It is almost comical the lengths that people go to in order to blame Bush. But why are they doing it?
First, I believe they are blaming President Bush in order to take attention off of the health care debate and the fact that they are losing the fight (at least, for right now). When you are losing the battle, blame someone else in order to draw the attention away from the fact that you are losing. It is a classic misdirection - try to get someone focused on something other than the main issue and you might be able to sneak it through.
Second, they need a bogeyman to hide their own shortcomings and failures. These guys have a Democrat controlled House and Senate (and the majorities are significant). There is nothing that the Republicans can do to stop legislation. Yet, they still cannot get some of their key issues through Congress.
Third, they are blaming President Bush because they do not like him. This, of course, is no secret. They hated this man. Many would have been happy if President Bush had just died, or been shot. Now, we have the Obama Administration trying to feed off of this perceived, supposedly still-lingering Bush Derangement Syndrome.
The Obama Administration is trying to sell the American people on the fact that this excessive spending (whether Cap-and -Trade, Cash for Clunkers, Health Care, TARP, etc) is necessary in order to bring this country back from a recession caused by the Bush Administration. I am having trouble trying to understand this concept. If it was wrong for the deficit to reach annual rates of $500,000,000,000, then how can it be OK for the government to go at least $1,500,000,000,000 in the hole this year alone in order to dig out of the hole?
This is a deficit at least 3x larger than any deficit we ever saw under the Bush Administration. In fact, there are some estimates now that show this year's deficit will be larger than all 8 years of budget deficits under George Bush, combined. And there is no end in sight to this madness. The liberals that are currently running the country are trying to find new and unique ways to spend our money. Instead of paring back government, they are trying to introduce government to new areas where they do not yet have a presence.
The founding fathers of this great country saw to it that the power of the government was to be limited. There were some basic areas where the government needed to be involved, but for the most part, powers were given to the states or to the people. The founding fathers did not want to see a government that was involved in every phase of our lives. Over the past 200+ years, government has slowly added to their power, while taking away the power of the state and the power of the people. Let us not forget the the role of the government is to protect our freedom and to clear the path so that Americans can chase their dreams and their goals without the fear of the government punishing them for being successful.
So my message to President Obama is this: Take responsibility for the decisions that you and your administration are making. We know that you do not want to admit to this, but this is what you have wanted to do. We know you wanted people to be dependent on government and not on themselves. Stop blaming others. Admit that these are your goals. Be proud of your achievements. And start packing, because if you continue down this path, you are destined for a one-term presidency.
Well, the hardcore liberals are now doing what they do best: they are deflecting the blame to the previous President and taking no responsibility for their own actions. After all, it is much easier to deflect the blame on someone else than it is to actually take responsibility for one's own actions. Thankfully, there are not as many buying into this idea as before.
First, let me say that I am a supporter of former President George W. Bush. He did his best to protect this country from those who were bent on destroying it. As commander-in-chief, he took that responsibility seriously, and I am thankful for that. However, in his second term, along with a Republican-led Congress, he supported spending programs that were contrary to conservative principles and led us into a lot of debt. (Let's be clear: It is Congress that writes the checks. The President only signs the bills. However, President Bush did not veto these spending plans, which thus shows no disagreement with the bills he was signing.)
Many Bush supporters (and especially conservatives) were (and still are) unhappy about the out-of-control spending that took place during that second term. Many conservatives spoke out about it then, and they continue to speak out about it, so there is not hypocrisy happening. The Democrats, for the most part, were partakers in the spending under President Bush, but they separated themselves from it for electoral purposes only. They are the hypocrites in all of this.
And while the spending spree in the last few years of the Bush Administration was unwise and financially reckless, it pales in comparison to the spending that the Obama Administration is now partaking in. It is President Obama's contention that this spending is necessary to get us out of a recession. He believes that the government needs to spend this money in order to dig our country out of a financial hole that we now find ourselves. And, somehow, it is all President Bush's fault.
Blaming President Bush for anything has been commonplace for at least the last 8 years. It is almost comical the lengths that people go to in order to blame Bush. But why are they doing it?
First, I believe they are blaming President Bush in order to take attention off of the health care debate and the fact that they are losing the fight (at least, for right now). When you are losing the battle, blame someone else in order to draw the attention away from the fact that you are losing. It is a classic misdirection - try to get someone focused on something other than the main issue and you might be able to sneak it through.
Second, they need a bogeyman to hide their own shortcomings and failures. These guys have a Democrat controlled House and Senate (and the majorities are significant). There is nothing that the Republicans can do to stop legislation. Yet, they still cannot get some of their key issues through Congress.
Third, they are blaming President Bush because they do not like him. This, of course, is no secret. They hated this man. Many would have been happy if President Bush had just died, or been shot. Now, we have the Obama Administration trying to feed off of this perceived, supposedly still-lingering Bush Derangement Syndrome.
The Obama Administration is trying to sell the American people on the fact that this excessive spending (whether Cap-and -Trade, Cash for Clunkers, Health Care, TARP, etc) is necessary in order to bring this country back from a recession caused by the Bush Administration. I am having trouble trying to understand this concept. If it was wrong for the deficit to reach annual rates of $500,000,000,000, then how can it be OK for the government to go at least $1,500,000,000,000 in the hole this year alone in order to dig out of the hole?
This is a deficit at least 3x larger than any deficit we ever saw under the Bush Administration. In fact, there are some estimates now that show this year's deficit will be larger than all 8 years of budget deficits under George Bush, combined. And there is no end in sight to this madness. The liberals that are currently running the country are trying to find new and unique ways to spend our money. Instead of paring back government, they are trying to introduce government to new areas where they do not yet have a presence.
The founding fathers of this great country saw to it that the power of the government was to be limited. There were some basic areas where the government needed to be involved, but for the most part, powers were given to the states or to the people. The founding fathers did not want to see a government that was involved in every phase of our lives. Over the past 200+ years, government has slowly added to their power, while taking away the power of the state and the power of the people. Let us not forget the the role of the government is to protect our freedom and to clear the path so that Americans can chase their dreams and their goals without the fear of the government punishing them for being successful.
So my message to President Obama is this: Take responsibility for the decisions that you and your administration are making. We know that you do not want to admit to this, but this is what you have wanted to do. We know you wanted people to be dependent on government and not on themselves. Stop blaming others. Admit that these are your goals. Be proud of your achievements. And start packing, because if you continue down this path, you are destined for a one-term presidency.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
More Supreme Court thoughts....
Well, it has been a few days since Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to be the next Supreme Court Justice. What have we learned since then?
Well, we learned that the President and his administration think that no one should oppose her. I guess this is due to the fact that we are to do exactly as the President tells us to do. He knows all and see all; and, therefore, we should just fall in line.
We cannot oppose her. If we do, then we are anti-Hispanic, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-diabetes, anti-Obama. Basically, we are just a bunch of redneck bigots.
They like to tell us that she has a compelling life story, as if this was the first time this ever happened. This is not the case. I would like to urge you to read Clarence Thomas's book My Grandfather's Son. He had a very compelling life story, and look how he was treated, especially by the current V.P.
When the Democrats opposed Republican nominees, they never did so on grounds of character or judicial ability. They did so based on personal attacks and the fact that they were nominated by a Republican President. If the Democrats were so bent on minorities in judicial positions, then they would not have filibustered Miguel Estrada. They should have supported him simply because of his lineage. Now, they try to portray those against Sotomayor as racists? Is there a pot calling a kettle black somewhere? I am not quite sure what hypocrisy smells like, but I think this might be it.
I would like to see the best person be nominated to the Supreme Court. I do not want to see tokens on the court. If she is the best person for the job, then she should be there. If not, then she should not be there. It's that simple. However, I know it will not happen like this.
The Democrats do not need any Republicans to pass this nomination through, even though they will most likely pick up a few along the way. I would like to see Republicans, though, stand up for American and stand for what is right. They need to ask the serious kinds of questions that need to be asked of a nominee to the Supreme Court. Then we, as Americans, can judge whether or not this nominee is qualified.
Well, we learned that the President and his administration think that no one should oppose her. I guess this is due to the fact that we are to do exactly as the President tells us to do. He knows all and see all; and, therefore, we should just fall in line.
We cannot oppose her. If we do, then we are anti-Hispanic, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-diabetes, anti-Obama. Basically, we are just a bunch of redneck bigots.
They like to tell us that she has a compelling life story, as if this was the first time this ever happened. This is not the case. I would like to urge you to read Clarence Thomas's book My Grandfather's Son. He had a very compelling life story, and look how he was treated, especially by the current V.P.
When the Democrats opposed Republican nominees, they never did so on grounds of character or judicial ability. They did so based on personal attacks and the fact that they were nominated by a Republican President. If the Democrats were so bent on minorities in judicial positions, then they would not have filibustered Miguel Estrada. They should have supported him simply because of his lineage. Now, they try to portray those against Sotomayor as racists? Is there a pot calling a kettle black somewhere? I am not quite sure what hypocrisy smells like, but I think this might be it.
I would like to see the best person be nominated to the Supreme Court. I do not want to see tokens on the court. If she is the best person for the job, then she should be there. If not, then she should not be there. It's that simple. However, I know it will not happen like this.
The Democrats do not need any Republicans to pass this nomination through, even though they will most likely pick up a few along the way. I would like to see Republicans, though, stand up for American and stand for what is right. They need to ask the serious kinds of questions that need to be asked of a nominee to the Supreme Court. Then we, as Americans, can judge whether or not this nominee is qualified.
Were Chrysler dealer closings politically motivated?
There is much speculation of impropriety about the way in which Chrysler and the government chose which dealers would be closed and which would remain open. What did they use as a basis for their decision?
For me, the obvious way to close down dealerships would be to get rid of the dealers that were not performing well and not making money. Then, I would look to consolidate dealerships in the same market. If more dealerships needed to be closed, then maybe you would decide by sales volume. there are many business-savvy ways to do this.
However, many bloggers are looking a little deeper into this to see if there was any political payback involved. Were dealers that made contributions to Democrats rewarded? Were dealers that made contributions to Republicans punished?
We should withhold judgment until the facts are out. However, given this administration's penchant for political bullying, I must say I would not be surprised if there was politics involved. This could possibly be a case study in Chicago-style, thug politics. We will have to wait and see how this transpires. But please, do not expect the mainstream media (which is the spokesgroup for the Administration) to do any vigorous research into this. They want it to pass quietly.
But let us remember what happened after President Bush fired a few of the U.S. Attorneys a couple years back. Everyone was outraged that this was a politically motivated act. In fact, there are still hearings going on about this (Karl Rove had a meeting concerning this issue last week). Why was this issue of firing U.S. Attorneys such a big deal, but the possibility of the Administration closing hundreds of dealerships based on politics OK?
The U.S. Attorneys serve serve at the pleasure of the President. It is his prerogative to keep them or let them go. There was nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about what happened to this small group of attorneys.
However, if the Administration is using politics as their basis for closing dealerships, then there is a tremendous problem. What it says is that you need to support us or we will put you out of business. In other words, "You need to pay in order to play" (just like the Illinois Senate seat that Rolland Burris sits in right now). These dealerships are not open for the pleasure of the President. These dealerships are open to serve the public. When the government starts to get involved and decide which businesses stay in business based on politics, then we have reached an awfully slippery slope. Where does it end?
What would have happened if President Bush tried something like this with any given industry? He would have been crucified for it, and rightfully so. Why, then, do we have a double standard when it comes to President Obama?
Now, there are going to be several hundreds of dealerships going out of business. many may stay open and continue selling used cars or remain in the auto repair business. But this is still going to lead to unemployment, affecting potentially thousands of people and families. This is sure to help the economy get better.
But don't worry. The President nominated someone to the Supreme Court who will have empathy for you..
For me, the obvious way to close down dealerships would be to get rid of the dealers that were not performing well and not making money. Then, I would look to consolidate dealerships in the same market. If more dealerships needed to be closed, then maybe you would decide by sales volume. there are many business-savvy ways to do this.
However, many bloggers are looking a little deeper into this to see if there was any political payback involved. Were dealers that made contributions to Democrats rewarded? Were dealers that made contributions to Republicans punished?
We should withhold judgment until the facts are out. However, given this administration's penchant for political bullying, I must say I would not be surprised if there was politics involved. This could possibly be a case study in Chicago-style, thug politics. We will have to wait and see how this transpires. But please, do not expect the mainstream media (which is the spokesgroup for the Administration) to do any vigorous research into this. They want it to pass quietly.
But let us remember what happened after President Bush fired a few of the U.S. Attorneys a couple years back. Everyone was outraged that this was a politically motivated act. In fact, there are still hearings going on about this (Karl Rove had a meeting concerning this issue last week). Why was this issue of firing U.S. Attorneys such a big deal, but the possibility of the Administration closing hundreds of dealerships based on politics OK?
The U.S. Attorneys serve serve at the pleasure of the President. It is his prerogative to keep them or let them go. There was nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about what happened to this small group of attorneys.
However, if the Administration is using politics as their basis for closing dealerships, then there is a tremendous problem. What it says is that you need to support us or we will put you out of business. In other words, "You need to pay in order to play" (just like the Illinois Senate seat that Rolland Burris sits in right now). These dealerships are not open for the pleasure of the President. These dealerships are open to serve the public. When the government starts to get involved and decide which businesses stay in business based on politics, then we have reached an awfully slippery slope. Where does it end?
What would have happened if President Bush tried something like this with any given industry? He would have been crucified for it, and rightfully so. Why, then, do we have a double standard when it comes to President Obama?
Now, there are going to be several hundreds of dealerships going out of business. many may stay open and continue selling used cars or remain in the auto repair business. But this is still going to lead to unemployment, affecting potentially thousands of people and families. This is sure to help the economy get better.
But don't worry. The President nominated someone to the Supreme Court who will have empathy for you..
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Thoughts on the Supreme Court
So, the President has made his nomination for the soon-to-be-vacant Supreme Court seat. His nominee is Sonia Sotomayor, an Hispanic-American woman from working class parents. She is a woman who came from an unremarkable background and worked hard to get where she is today.
It is not my intention here to debate the merits of her nomination and whether or not she is qualified. That information will become apparent in the weeks and months to come, and we can make up our minds on that issue as this process plays out in public.
I do find a few things to be quite interesting in this whole Supreme Court issue, though. First, we need to look at the type of person that the President wants on the Supreme Court. He never said that he wanted someone with a firm grasp of the Constitution and the fact that the Judicial Branch of government is to be impartial. He never said that he wanted someone who would base decisions on the law of the United States, not on laws that he/she wanted to see, or foreign law that has no application to us.
Rather, he wanted someone that could empathize with the less fortunate. I am not sure when this became the role of the judiciary. The empathizing role is played out by Congress. They are elected to represent us, and therefore, empathize with those who elected them. Judges, though, are to be impartial, not basing decisions on what is fair or unfair, but rather on what is legal or illegal. They are to rule on the law, not make new law because they view someone to be less fortunate than others.
The founders of our country were smart enough to know that these roles should be separate. However, as each generation goes by, and as slight changes are made and accepted with each generation, soon we forget what the original intent of the founders was. And sadly, many do not care. And these ‘leaders’ are smart enough to know that drastic changes at any given time or usually not welcome. However, they know that slight changes, over time, will have the same effect and that people are more willing to accept this kind of change.
Another thing I find quite interesting is the reaction of the mainstream media. NBC has come out and asked the question that can be summed up like this: Are Republicans dumb enough to object to an Hispanic woman being nominated to the court? Granted, I changed the wording of the question, but this is the point that they are trying to get across.
I do not know about you, but I view the job of Supreme Court Justice as being quite a prestigious position. Only 9 people can hold that position at any one time. It is a lifetime appointment. We should be interested in nominating the best person to that position. Political correctness has no business in the selection process.
I am not quite sure how being an Hispanic or being a woman has anything to do with being a Supreme Court Justice. It seems to me that if you are rendering opinions on legal cases based on existing laws, then gender and nationality should not need to play a part in the whole process. It should be knowledge of the law, as well as its application in the cases that are in front of you, that should be the guiding factor in who is worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court.
This is really where Presidential elections matter. Presidents are not able to sign their own bills into law without Congressional approval. Presidents are the beneficiaries of good economic times and the punching bags during bad economic times. However, the people that they appoint to the Supreme Court (and who are approved by the Senate) are there for a long time, much longer than the President that appointed them. They have the opportunity to rule on law or make new law.
The President has all the votes he needs to push this nomination through. My question is this: Will there be Democrats (and Republicans) who have the courage to stand up and ask the right questions to see if this candidate is truly worthy of being s Supreme Court justice? Will Democrats dare vote against the President? Will Republicans finally have the courage to stand up and do the right thing?
I am not saying that they should treat the nominee in the same manner the Judge Bork was treated, or in the same manner that Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts were treated. They can be fair, courteous, and still ask the hard questions. I encourage all Senators to do this.
It is not my intention here to debate the merits of her nomination and whether or not she is qualified. That information will become apparent in the weeks and months to come, and we can make up our minds on that issue as this process plays out in public.
I do find a few things to be quite interesting in this whole Supreme Court issue, though. First, we need to look at the type of person that the President wants on the Supreme Court. He never said that he wanted someone with a firm grasp of the Constitution and the fact that the Judicial Branch of government is to be impartial. He never said that he wanted someone who would base decisions on the law of the United States, not on laws that he/she wanted to see, or foreign law that has no application to us.
Rather, he wanted someone that could empathize with the less fortunate. I am not sure when this became the role of the judiciary. The empathizing role is played out by Congress. They are elected to represent us, and therefore, empathize with those who elected them. Judges, though, are to be impartial, not basing decisions on what is fair or unfair, but rather on what is legal or illegal. They are to rule on the law, not make new law because they view someone to be less fortunate than others.
The founders of our country were smart enough to know that these roles should be separate. However, as each generation goes by, and as slight changes are made and accepted with each generation, soon we forget what the original intent of the founders was. And sadly, many do not care. And these ‘leaders’ are smart enough to know that drastic changes at any given time or usually not welcome. However, they know that slight changes, over time, will have the same effect and that people are more willing to accept this kind of change.
Another thing I find quite interesting is the reaction of the mainstream media. NBC has come out and asked the question that can be summed up like this: Are Republicans dumb enough to object to an Hispanic woman being nominated to the court? Granted, I changed the wording of the question, but this is the point that they are trying to get across.
I do not know about you, but I view the job of Supreme Court Justice as being quite a prestigious position. Only 9 people can hold that position at any one time. It is a lifetime appointment. We should be interested in nominating the best person to that position. Political correctness has no business in the selection process.
I am not quite sure how being an Hispanic or being a woman has anything to do with being a Supreme Court Justice. It seems to me that if you are rendering opinions on legal cases based on existing laws, then gender and nationality should not need to play a part in the whole process. It should be knowledge of the law, as well as its application in the cases that are in front of you, that should be the guiding factor in who is worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court.
This is really where Presidential elections matter. Presidents are not able to sign their own bills into law without Congressional approval. Presidents are the beneficiaries of good economic times and the punching bags during bad economic times. However, the people that they appoint to the Supreme Court (and who are approved by the Senate) are there for a long time, much longer than the President that appointed them. They have the opportunity to rule on law or make new law.
The President has all the votes he needs to push this nomination through. My question is this: Will there be Democrats (and Republicans) who have the courage to stand up and ask the right questions to see if this candidate is truly worthy of being s Supreme Court justice? Will Democrats dare vote against the President? Will Republicans finally have the courage to stand up and do the right thing?
I am not saying that they should treat the nominee in the same manner the Judge Bork was treated, or in the same manner that Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts were treated. They can be fair, courteous, and still ask the hard questions. I encourage all Senators to do this.
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.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Economic Ignorance of our President
President Obama was speaking to the sycophantic Democrats that we call our Congressman and Senators (and the media) last night. News clips show him being full of angst at the slow path his economic recovery plan is taking through the U.S. Senate. He wants this bill to be passed swiftly and put into operation as soon as possible.
He showed faux outrage at the deficit, blaming it all in his predecessor. President Bush may not have been as fiscally responsible as I would have preferred him to be, but the budget deficit and the resulting national debt can be put squarely at the feet of Congress. It is this branch of the legislature that spends the government's money. It is not the President that pays the bills. Try to find a government program to cut or throw out completely. It is impossible. The Democrats will not allow it. This is the reason we run up deficits. So why were these Democrats cheering at the President's statements about inheriting a huge debt? These same people were responsible for that debt. Also, how can we do this thing debt free? If we are trillions in debt, how can we throw another trillion in the mix and not come out with more debt?
He criticizes his critics for calling this a spending bill. He says that a stimulus is spending. The problem is that a growth stimulus should allow for growth. This bill is only about government spending. It only creates government jobs, not free market jobs. It grows government. Therefore, it is a spending bill. It is not stimulating anything but Congressmen who see the pork barrel rolling towards their district.
He blames the prior administration for the economic woes. The last time I checked, we had 5 years of unprecedented prosperity under President Bush. His tax cuts lifted this economy after the 9/11 attacks. It was not government spending on social programs that lifted us economically. Rather, it was allowing people to keep their hard earned money and spending it they way they wanted to spend it. It did not come from more government programs and government spending (except for an increase in national defense spending).
Economic problems came along because banks were lending money to people who had no business getting money, they were extending credit to people who did not deserve it. Why did they do this? Because of Congress. The banks were basically forced to do this. This is what caused problems. It was government intervention into industry that caused the problem.
Why does this need to be approved now? Why does the President not want people to question this bill? It is because he does not want people to see what is in the bill. Then they will really be against it. If they can get it through quickly, then they can keep a lot of the earmarks out the news. Isn't it funny how debate and disagreement with the President were a good thing when Bush was in office, but it is now sacrilegious now that Obama is President?
One more thing: Where is the bipartisanship? I thought this President was going to take unprecedented steps to reach out. It did not sound that way last week. He sounded like a man who thought it was his God-given right to have everyone agree with him. He is the only one who can be right. he could get this passed without any Republicans voting for it. His problem is that people in his own party will not even vote for this. That's pretty bad.
So I say to the President: Grow Up and Act Presidential! Your predecessor never acted like this in 8 years, and it only took you 2 weeks. You are nothing but a Chicago thug, a politician who cannot get his way on the merits of his argument so he needs to try to bully others into agreeing with you. You say you were going to listen to opposing views (granted, you never said you would compromise, but you would at least listen). Now, you are taking absolutely no time to do that now. It must be your way and it must be now.
Our most colossal failures generally come when we act quickly and do not think about what we are doing. Our economic downfall as a country will not be failing to pass a stimulus package. Rather, it will come by being reckless and passing something so big we cannot get out from under it. Maybe the best course of action is for the government to do nothing and allow this current economic 'crisis' to fix itself. It has worked in the past. It will work now.
He showed faux outrage at the deficit, blaming it all in his predecessor. President Bush may not have been as fiscally responsible as I would have preferred him to be, but the budget deficit and the resulting national debt can be put squarely at the feet of Congress. It is this branch of the legislature that spends the government's money. It is not the President that pays the bills. Try to find a government program to cut or throw out completely. It is impossible. The Democrats will not allow it. This is the reason we run up deficits. So why were these Democrats cheering at the President's statements about inheriting a huge debt? These same people were responsible for that debt. Also, how can we do this thing debt free? If we are trillions in debt, how can we throw another trillion in the mix and not come out with more debt?
He criticizes his critics for calling this a spending bill. He says that a stimulus is spending. The problem is that a growth stimulus should allow for growth. This bill is only about government spending. It only creates government jobs, not free market jobs. It grows government. Therefore, it is a spending bill. It is not stimulating anything but Congressmen who see the pork barrel rolling towards their district.
He blames the prior administration for the economic woes. The last time I checked, we had 5 years of unprecedented prosperity under President Bush. His tax cuts lifted this economy after the 9/11 attacks. It was not government spending on social programs that lifted us economically. Rather, it was allowing people to keep their hard earned money and spending it they way they wanted to spend it. It did not come from more government programs and government spending (except for an increase in national defense spending).
Economic problems came along because banks were lending money to people who had no business getting money, they were extending credit to people who did not deserve it. Why did they do this? Because of Congress. The banks were basically forced to do this. This is what caused problems. It was government intervention into industry that caused the problem.
Why does this need to be approved now? Why does the President not want people to question this bill? It is because he does not want people to see what is in the bill. Then they will really be against it. If they can get it through quickly, then they can keep a lot of the earmarks out the news. Isn't it funny how debate and disagreement with the President were a good thing when Bush was in office, but it is now sacrilegious now that Obama is President?
One more thing: Where is the bipartisanship? I thought this President was going to take unprecedented steps to reach out. It did not sound that way last week. He sounded like a man who thought it was his God-given right to have everyone agree with him. He is the only one who can be right. he could get this passed without any Republicans voting for it. His problem is that people in his own party will not even vote for this. That's pretty bad.
So I say to the President: Grow Up and Act Presidential! Your predecessor never acted like this in 8 years, and it only took you 2 weeks. You are nothing but a Chicago thug, a politician who cannot get his way on the merits of his argument so he needs to try to bully others into agreeing with you. You say you were going to listen to opposing views (granted, you never said you would compromise, but you would at least listen). Now, you are taking absolutely no time to do that now. It must be your way and it must be now.
Our most colossal failures generally come when we act quickly and do not think about what we are doing. Our economic downfall as a country will not be failing to pass a stimulus package. Rather, it will come by being reckless and passing something so big we cannot get out from under it. Maybe the best course of action is for the government to do nothing and allow this current economic 'crisis' to fix itself. It has worked in the past. It will work now.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Who is using the politics of fear now?
President Obama has an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post. He is looking to garner support for his economic stimulus bill. He looks for support by attempting to frighten the reader into supporting his economic plan. He says that every day that we fail to pass a stimulus plan, more people will lose their jobs, lose their savings, lose their homes, etc. (sounds like a country music song).
Anyway, he states that "...this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." He also rejected the thought that additional tax cuts are needed, saying that he rejects "those theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."
The first thing that troubles me is that he has no faith in the people of this country. Ronald Reagan had faith in the people of America when he came into office, and the economic times then were worse than they are now. Guess what? We dug out of a recession. It did not take new government programs and close to a trillion dollars in government spending to do so. It took a tax rate cut. It took de-regulation. It took the government removing the obstacles that stood in front of Americans. When the obstacles were not there, Americans could prosper. It is the freedom we had as people that made this country great. It is not the country that made its people great.
Second, he is overestimating his mandate as President. Yes, he did receive a majority of the votes cast on November 4th. Nothing I say or do will change that. People voted for this mystical idea of change that President Obama talked about. They thought he would make things different, make them better. However, what we are seeing now is not the change that people were searching for. People do not see the economy getting better simply because we have a new President. Just because people voted for change does not mean they want Obama's kind of change. This is what happens when people do not stop to kick the tires on something before they buy into it. It may look good on the outside, but it is not what they wanted on the inside.
Third, why does he think reliance on the government and/or government control of everything is a good thing? If he would have studied history, he would see that this has not worked throughout history. It is not working now. Also, people are seeing that government control is not necessarily a good thing. It gives away freedoms that we cherish. After all, the liberals did complain a lot over the Terrorist Surveillance Program while Bush was President. Obama's policies will interfere in everyone's lives, not just the lives of terrorists, so there is much more danger with his policies.
Fourth, he does not know how to deal with the fact that his views are unpopular. This has not happened to him before. Everyone is supposed to accept his views, his policies, his opinions without question. When all else fails, blame Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and talk radio. it can't be his fault.
Fifth, his stimulus plan is nothing more than a pork-laden spending bill. It will do nothing to stimulate job growth. People are seeing this now. Too bad they did not see if before November 4th.
Here is the problem: We, as a country, got what we wanted in the form of a new President who wanted change. However, these same people who voted for him did not realize the ramifications of his policies at the time they voted for him. They are starting to see it now. Now that we got what we wanted, we could very well lose what we had.
Anyway, he states that "...this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." He also rejected the thought that additional tax cuts are needed, saying that he rejects "those theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."
The first thing that troubles me is that he has no faith in the people of this country. Ronald Reagan had faith in the people of America when he came into office, and the economic times then were worse than they are now. Guess what? We dug out of a recession. It did not take new government programs and close to a trillion dollars in government spending to do so. It took a tax rate cut. It took de-regulation. It took the government removing the obstacles that stood in front of Americans. When the obstacles were not there, Americans could prosper. It is the freedom we had as people that made this country great. It is not the country that made its people great.
Second, he is overestimating his mandate as President. Yes, he did receive a majority of the votes cast on November 4th. Nothing I say or do will change that. People voted for this mystical idea of change that President Obama talked about. They thought he would make things different, make them better. However, what we are seeing now is not the change that people were searching for. People do not see the economy getting better simply because we have a new President. Just because people voted for change does not mean they want Obama's kind of change. This is what happens when people do not stop to kick the tires on something before they buy into it. It may look good on the outside, but it is not what they wanted on the inside.
Third, why does he think reliance on the government and/or government control of everything is a good thing? If he would have studied history, he would see that this has not worked throughout history. It is not working now. Also, people are seeing that government control is not necessarily a good thing. It gives away freedoms that we cherish. After all, the liberals did complain a lot over the Terrorist Surveillance Program while Bush was President. Obama's policies will interfere in everyone's lives, not just the lives of terrorists, so there is much more danger with his policies.
Fourth, he does not know how to deal with the fact that his views are unpopular. This has not happened to him before. Everyone is supposed to accept his views, his policies, his opinions without question. When all else fails, blame Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and talk radio. it can't be his fault.
Fifth, his stimulus plan is nothing more than a pork-laden spending bill. It will do nothing to stimulate job growth. People are seeing this now. Too bad they did not see if before November 4th.
Here is the problem: We, as a country, got what we wanted in the form of a new President who wanted change. However, these same people who voted for him did not realize the ramifications of his policies at the time they voted for him. They are starting to see it now. Now that we got what we wanted, we could very well lose what we had.
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
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama vs. Reagan
As we have finally reached Inauguration Day 2009, I look at the things that President Obama has proposed over the campaign and in these weeks leading up to the inauguration. Given a slowing economy and rising unemployment, he has proposed new government programs to give people jobs. He has proposed tax cuts and rebates for people who already do not carry a tax burden. He would like for us, as Americans, to rely on the government to fix the problems we face. Apparently, he thinks that we, as individuals, are capable of righting the ship, of turning things around, of returning America to the place of prominence that we have been for such a long time. We should rely on inept government bureaucratic agencies to pull us out of a short-term economic slide. To President Obama, government is the solution.
I would like to compare this to the Inaugural address given by President Ronald Reagan at his first inauguration in January, 1981. I heard this speech on C-Span yesterday. I was impressed by his down to earth approach. He was going to be the leader of the free world. He was taking over a country that was facing high unemployment and double-digit inflation. There was punitive taxation on those who were successful. It was definitely a worse economic environment than what we face today. There were hostages in Iran. There was an ongoing Cold War with the Soviet Union. There was a declining sense of American exceptionalism. Yet Reagan new the answer was in the American people, not the government, to solve these problems.
While I encourage you to read the full text of the speech, I would like for you to see some excerpts of this wonderful speech.
"...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"
"We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines...They are, in short, "we the people," this breed called Americans."
"We are a nation that has a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed."
"...it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
"If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth."
"It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we're too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams...I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing."
"As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever. Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength. Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."
"The crisis we are facing today...does require, however, our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God's help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. And after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans."
I am sure we will not here this from our new President.
I would like to compare this to the Inaugural address given by President Ronald Reagan at his first inauguration in January, 1981. I heard this speech on C-Span yesterday. I was impressed by his down to earth approach. He was going to be the leader of the free world. He was taking over a country that was facing high unemployment and double-digit inflation. There was punitive taxation on those who were successful. It was definitely a worse economic environment than what we face today. There were hostages in Iran. There was an ongoing Cold War with the Soviet Union. There was a declining sense of American exceptionalism. Yet Reagan new the answer was in the American people, not the government, to solve these problems.
While I encourage you to read the full text of the speech, I would like for you to see some excerpts of this wonderful speech.
"...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"
"We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines...They are, in short, "we the people," this breed called Americans."
"We are a nation that has a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed."
"...it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
"If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth."
"It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we're too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams...I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing."
"As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever. Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength. Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."
"The crisis we are facing today...does require, however, our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God's help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. And after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans."
I am sure we will not here this from our new President.
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.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Sermons about the President-elect
The Library of Congress would like to create a collection of memorabilia, service audio/video, collectibles from churches regarding the election of Obama. They can then create a collection for their records about this 'historic' election.
I have many problems with this, which I will outline below.
I have many problems with this, which I will outline below.
- All elections are historic. This is not the first time we have had an election. They happen every four years in this country. They are all historic.
- This election was all about race, and still is. The only reason that they are doing this is because President-elect Obama is not white and he is a Democrat. If this were John McCain (or Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or John Edwards) in this position, the Library of Congress would not be making a public appeal for this type of product.
- The ACLU is extremely inconsistent (as are Americans United for Separation of Church and State, as well as other atheist groups). If this were a white Republican, they would have their talking heads on every news channel, on every show on those channels, decrying such activity. The government should not be soliciting churches for this type of information. In fact, the churches should not be talking politics at all. At least this is what we normally here from them. Where are they now? Nothing but utter hypocrisy on their part.
- It is not the role of the church to preach politics. Before the November elections, my pastor preached a series of messages on how the Bible tells us to vote. They included what we should look for in a leader, what we should base our vote on, the Biblical commands to go and vote and involve ourselves in the process. He did not endorse anyone. He did not campaign. His messages were about what the Bible says, not what he says. The role of the church is to bring honor and glory to God. It is not there to bring honor, glory, and worship to man. Yet that is what many liberal churches are doing now. They are worshipping the man that will be our President, not worshipping the God that is in control of the world, that created us, that demands our worship, that forgives us and loves us.
- If churches are preaching politics from the pulpit, why are their IRS tax exemptions not being revoked? With a supposed separation of church and state (I say supposed because that never appears in the Constitution), should these churches not be abstaining from making political statements? We see people like the illustrious Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaching his love for one candidate and his hatred for everything else, yet nothing happens. We then read headlines during prime election years about the IRS going after churches for preaching politics. They are generally churches that preach the Gospel and endorse conservative, Republican candidates. Yet we constantly see liberal Democrat candidates speaking in churches. They are not even preaching; rather, they are giving campaign speeches. Rank hypocrisy? Yes, it is.
- We are in for a long 4 year term. It is quite nauseating to see how the media fawns over a man who is not qualified to lead the local Lions Club, much less be President of the United States, the leader of the free world (though not if he has his way), and the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces. They attacked a governor who was running for VP because she lacked experience (even though she ran the largest state in the country), but a man who was a community organizer thug and a part-time Senator was perfectly qualified. Am I missing something? There is a national media orgy (led by Chris Matthews and his tingly leg) over this man. He is nothing spectacular. He cannot speak unless he has a prepared statement or prepared speech in front of him. Again, if he were white and a Republican, would he get this kind of attention, love, and adoration (refer to point #2 above)?
- We need to pray for the President-elect. Just because I did not vote for the man and because I do not agree with any of his policies does not mean that I can remove myself from this one. God tells us to pray for our leaders, that they may be good leaders, that they know how to lead, that they make wise decisions. Remember, God is still in control. We may not be able to see it at this time. We may not understand His purpose now. But God reigns supreme.
A tax cut for the middle class
It has come out in the press that President-elect Obama would like to offer a substantial tax cut to the middle class. While I am for cutting taxes, I am trying to figure out how you can cut someone's taxes who does not pay taxes. Would this not end up as nothing more than a handout?
You see, this tax cut is being offered to the middle class. The problem is that most people in the middle class do not pay anything in taxes. Yes, we have money pulled from our paycheck every time we get paid. However, when we file our tax returns, we generally get that back. Therefore, the net effect is that we pay little, if any, taxes on our income. Yes, it would benefit me. However, I would then be accepting a government bailout of sorts since it is money that I did not pay into the treasury in the first place. It is an ethical dilemma.
The bulk of the taxes that the government collects are from those who make more than $250,000. Yet, we want to tax them more. These are the people who should have their tax burden alleviated. By allowing them to have control over where their money is spent, instead of the government, they will stimulate investment in private industry, which can only be a good thing.
I would rather have individuals stimulating the economy than having the government do it. That is not their role. They are there to keep the government out of the way and allow people to prosper. They are not there to get in the way and take away the role of private industry.
Yet I see pundits in the media asking if a tax cut is the right thing at this time. That will take money away from the government, just when they need more. Why, we have an increasing national debt (thanks to Congress). We have all of these bailouts that need to be paid for (whose fault is that?). Some people just make too much money and should not get a tax cut.
Here is my question to them: If people are losing their homes (as you constantly report), if people are losing their jobs (as you constantly report), if the economy is in such poor shape, then how can you take money out of people's hands (that have money) so they cannot pay their bills?
You see, this tax cut is being offered to the middle class. The problem is that most people in the middle class do not pay anything in taxes. Yes, we have money pulled from our paycheck every time we get paid. However, when we file our tax returns, we generally get that back. Therefore, the net effect is that we pay little, if any, taxes on our income. Yes, it would benefit me. However, I would then be accepting a government bailout of sorts since it is money that I did not pay into the treasury in the first place. It is an ethical dilemma.
The bulk of the taxes that the government collects are from those who make more than $250,000. Yet, we want to tax them more. These are the people who should have their tax burden alleviated. By allowing them to have control over where their money is spent, instead of the government, they will stimulate investment in private industry, which can only be a good thing.
I would rather have individuals stimulating the economy than having the government do it. That is not their role. They are there to keep the government out of the way and allow people to prosper. They are not there to get in the way and take away the role of private industry.
Yet I see pundits in the media asking if a tax cut is the right thing at this time. That will take money away from the government, just when they need more. Why, we have an increasing national debt (thanks to Congress). We have all of these bailouts that need to be paid for (whose fault is that?). Some people just make too much money and should not get a tax cut.
Here is my question to them: If people are losing their homes (as you constantly report), if people are losing their jobs (as you constantly report), if the economy is in such poor shape, then how can you take money out of people's hands (that have money) so they cannot pay their bills?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Defending Israel
Why is it that the world will rush to condemn Israel for fighting back against Hamas, but they will not condemn Hamas for attacking Israel in the first place? I agree with Israel that they will stop fighting when, and only when, Hamas stops or once Hamas is destroyed. Anything less than this should be unacceptable.
Also, it is about time that our illustrious President-elect comes out and takes a position on this. Instead, he plays golf and vacations in Hawaii. I guess the media will be going after him just as they did when President Bush would go on vacation. I don't think I will hold my breath on that one.
Also, it is about time that our illustrious President-elect comes out and takes a position on this. Instead, he plays golf and vacations in Hawaii. I guess the media will be going after him just as they did when President Bush would go on vacation. I don't think I will hold my breath on that one.
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
First-time voter
This past Presidential election saw many vote for the first time in their life. Many of these first-time voters were young people, getting involved in the political process. Even though I feel many were misguided by the campaign of the President-elect, they still involved themselves in the political process, which I believe is a good thing.
However, in reading the Harrisburg Patriot News yesterday (Monday, 11/17), I came across this article about a woman, 81 years of age, who voted for the first time. This is not newsworthy. To me, this is completely unacceptable. Simply put, this is a story of complacency. This woman should not be celebrated. She should be put in front of others as an example of what not to do.
Also, as I read the article, it was not about the stance that the man took on issues that inspired her to vote. It was not due to his views, his platform, or his character. Rather, she voted for him because of his color. She was not enthusiastic over his agenda and what he wants to do as President. Rather, he is someone 'like her.' This is not a reason to vote for someone. It is the content of the person's character that matters, not the color of his skin. Yet so many think this is the realization of the dream that MLK Jr. spoke so adamantly about (and I do agree with, by the way).
Is it any wonder why people today do not care about the political process? With examples like this, I can now see why younger people have the attitude towards politics that we see expressed in their thoughts and actions.
I turned 18 in 1991, just a couple of weeks before the PA election primaries. I was registered to vote in that election, and I have not missed one since then. I am not patting myself on the back because of this. Rather, I saw this as an opportunity to have my voice heard. I hope to instill this same dedication to voting in my own kids. We talk to them about elections and why we believe the things we do and why we are voting for certain people.
I maintain that voting is a privilege, not a right. If it was a right, we would not have to go out of our way to register. Instead, we have the freedom to choose to vote or not to vote. It is a privilege that many, to their own detriment, do not take advantage of. Voting is an opportunity that we have to take a stand for something/someone. Yet many choose not to do this. If you do not vote, I do not want to hear you complain about the results of an election or the people in office. If you were too complacent to get out and lend a voice to your cause, then you should be just as complacent in your attitude to the outcome of the election.
However, in reading the Harrisburg Patriot News yesterday (Monday, 11/17), I came across this article about a woman, 81 years of age, who voted for the first time. This is not newsworthy. To me, this is completely unacceptable. Simply put, this is a story of complacency. This woman should not be celebrated. She should be put in front of others as an example of what not to do.
Also, as I read the article, it was not about the stance that the man took on issues that inspired her to vote. It was not due to his views, his platform, or his character. Rather, she voted for him because of his color. She was not enthusiastic over his agenda and what he wants to do as President. Rather, he is someone 'like her.' This is not a reason to vote for someone. It is the content of the person's character that matters, not the color of his skin. Yet so many think this is the realization of the dream that MLK Jr. spoke so adamantly about (and I do agree with, by the way).
Is it any wonder why people today do not care about the political process? With examples like this, I can now see why younger people have the attitude towards politics that we see expressed in their thoughts and actions.
I turned 18 in 1991, just a couple of weeks before the PA election primaries. I was registered to vote in that election, and I have not missed one since then. I am not patting myself on the back because of this. Rather, I saw this as an opportunity to have my voice heard. I hope to instill this same dedication to voting in my own kids. We talk to them about elections and why we believe the things we do and why we are voting for certain people.
I maintain that voting is a privilege, not a right. If it was a right, we would not have to go out of our way to register. Instead, we have the freedom to choose to vote or not to vote. It is a privilege that many, to their own detriment, do not take advantage of. Voting is an opportunity that we have to take a stand for something/someone. Yet many choose not to do this. If you do not vote, I do not want to hear you complain about the results of an election or the people in office. If you were too complacent to get out and lend a voice to your cause, then you should be just as complacent in your attitude to the outcome of the election.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
2008 Election Results: Where do we go from here?
Well, it has now been one full week since the 2008 general election. While I did not like the results of the election, they are results that I must live with. As an American, I can say that I was proud of how many people voted, as well as the peaceful way in which elections occur here in the U.S.A. However, I do think that many were completely misinformed about the candidates, so I think voter education could use an improvement.
In the weeks leading up to the election, Pastor Wayne Burggraff (the pastor of my church, Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA), preached a series of messages on elections and how Christians should vote. Unlike many churches, he did not tell us who to vote for, but rather what Biblical principles we should rely on when we vote. There were no endorsements. You can find those messages here (as well as many other messages). I found these messages to be very helpful, and they were free of the political messages you get in many churches today.
To that end, even though we may not have cared for the outcome of the election, there are still Biblical principles that we need to follow now that Sen. Obama is the President-elect. These are not original with me. Rather, they were an insert to our church bulletin on Sunday morning.
As we have seen over the past couple of weeks, we have a duty as Christian citizens to follow God's Word in our relationship to our government and its leaders. We need to remember what God says....
In the weeks leading up to the election, Pastor Wayne Burggraff (the pastor of my church, Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA), preached a series of messages on elections and how Christians should vote. Unlike many churches, he did not tell us who to vote for, but rather what Biblical principles we should rely on when we vote. There were no endorsements. You can find those messages here (as well as many other messages). I found these messages to be very helpful, and they were free of the political messages you get in many churches today.
To that end, even though we may not have cared for the outcome of the election, there are still Biblical principles that we need to follow now that Sen. Obama is the President-elect. These are not original with me. Rather, they were an insert to our church bulletin on Sunday morning.
As we have seen over the past couple of weeks, we have a duty as Christian citizens to follow God's Word in our relationship to our government and its leaders. We need to remember what God says....
- All government authorities and leaders are ultimately allowed in their places of authority by our Sovereign god. At times, He appoints the unassuming (I Samuel 2:8), the righteous ((I Samuel 13:14), and other times He allows the wicked to rule (Romans 9:17). The point is - God is ultimately in charge (Psalms 11:4); thus, God has plans for Mr. Obama's presidency.
- We are commanded as believers to: 1) Submit to the laws our leaders enact (I Peter 2:13), 2) Pay the taxes that they require (Romans 13:6), 3) Honor them and their authority (I Peter 2:17), 4) Pray for those in authority (I Timothy 2:1-3), and 5) Fear them if we do evil (Romans 13:4).
- We should expect out leaders to be doing the following: 1) Be a terror to evil works (Romans 13:3), 2) Exercise the 'Sword' against evildoers (Romans 13:4, 3) Promote a 'quiet and peaceable life' (I Timothy 2:2), and 4) Punish evil and praise good (I Peter 2:14).
We are to place our trust in God, not in our government.
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)