There is a lot of antagonism toward the United States in certain segments of the African American community. People such as Louis Farrakhan have made hatred of the United States “fashionable” and “cool”. President Obama has been a part of this community, much of it originating in Chicago, where Jessie Jackson, Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Williams Ayers and Reverend Michael Pfleger have spouted this anti-Americanism in the name of both real and perceived past wrongs.
Barack Obama’s pastor of over 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, has said the following things about America:
“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We (in the U.S.) believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America!”
Recently, the US Justice Department dropped a case against members of the New Black Panther party for “lack of evidence”. Members of the New Black Panthers were accused of intimidating voters at a polling place in Philadelphia. There was clear video evidence of the incident. J. Christian Adams, who was involved in the prosecution of the case, quit the justice department alleging that people in the justice department were told to ignore cases where the defendants were black and the victims were white.
Last summer, Barack Obama criticized the police in Cambridge, Massachusetts saying that the police acted “stupidly” in arresting black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. He made this accusation in a prime time speech after he just admitted in the previous sentence that he didn’t know all the facts of the case.
Does Obama’s view of the US differ from that of Jeremiah Wright or the New Black Panther party? Obama’s policies are often prefaced with the phrase “an even playing field”. In reality, however, it amounts to “Getting even”.
Of course there has been slavery and discrimination in the United States. Slavery is a stain on humanity but it didn’t start with the US. Physical Evidence of slavery dates to around 11,000 years ago in southern Africa. Western slavery goes back 10,000 years to Mesopotamia. Egyptian hieroglyphics show that they practiced slavery. Where is the hatred of Egypt for originating such a vile practice? Where is the demand of Egypt for reparations?
In ancient times, conquering armies in Europe and Asia found it more profitable to enslave captives than to massacre them. Black slavery between antagonistic tribes existed in Africa long before the advent of the Portuguese in the 1400s. Portuguese slave trading began in 1442, particularly on the west coast of Africa in an area that became known as the ‘Slave Coast’. Soon the Spanish entered the slave trade in 1517, followed by the English (1553), the French (1624), and then by Holland, Denmark and the American colonies.
Once the United States was formed as an independent nation, it inherited the mess of slavery. Obama should be familiar and sympathetic to the idea of inheriting messes since he reminds us each day that he inherited a mess and that it takes time to solve such things (whether he inherited or caused the mess is another question for a different day). Slavery was a mess that was created over 10,000 years ago so solving it while trying to create and unify a new nation was no easy task.
The United States was a nation built on compromise and yes, there were many people in the new country that owned slaves. Yet the people who wrote the constitution did recognize the inconsistency of creating a nation based on equal rights and opportunities while allowing an evil such as slavery to exist. Unfortunately, in order to unify the Unites States as one nation, they had to compromise on the issue. Yet written into the constitution in Article 1, Section 9 is a mandate that slavery would be outlawed by the year 1808.
So slavery existed for over 10,000 years and this new nation, while trying to fend off foreign threats, unify disparate views and create a constitution to live by, did as one of its first priorities, write into the new constitution that slavery would be outlawed within 32 years of its founding. In fact it was the United States and England, the two nations most accused of practicing slavery, that were the most involved in ending it!
They were not completely successful but their intentions were clear. John Jay wrote in 1786:
"It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."
Patrick Henry wrote:
"I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."
It of course is true that the founding fathers owned slaves and this has caused many in the African American community to have contempt for these “dead white men”. The founding fathers were not perfect people but they inherited slavery, they didn’t cause it. They knew it was wrong, and were the first in over 10,000 years history to take real steps to end it. For this they deserve praise, not criticism.
There are those who will say that the wealth of America was built on the backs of slavery. If this is the case, why didn’t all the other countries who practiced slavery achieve wealth and success? Why didn’t Egypt, which had thousands of years of a head start on slavery, not become the world’s foremost economic power? Portugal was the first country to be involved in the African slave trade to the new world so why didn’t that country produce the wealth and innovation that later came out of the United States? Spain and Portugal brought slavery to South America so why didn’t any countries on that continent generate success comparable to the United States?
The wealth and success of the United States is due to a system that recognizes the rights of the individual. It is due to a unique idea that says the government governs only by the CONSENT of the people. Thomas Jefferson once said:
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
The reason why so many major inventions and patents have come out of the United States is because people know they can invest their own time and money in an idea and if successful, reap the rewards from it. People have been able to feel confident that the success or failure of their idea is up to them and not on some arbitrary person in government who may decide on a whim to change the rules. There is a reason why people risk their lives to come to the United States. It is amazing that people would call this a racist country while at the same time fighting in every way possible to come here and enjoy the opportunities it provides.
Like every country on earth, the United States has done shameful things. While the United States didn’t create slavery, segregation existed in this country well into the 1960s. That is a stain on this country that can’t be ignored. And yet, while imperfect, it is a country with a conscience. It eventually ended slavery and while far too late, eventually ended segregation as well.
The “Get even” battle being fought against America by the likes of the New Black Panther party, Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright is not a battle against the forces of racism. That battle has already been fought and won. Ironically, the battle being fought by this “Get Even” crowd is a battle against all that is GOOD about America. They are actually fighting against the very forces that were able to eliminate the evils of slavery.
Barack Obama seems to be a part of this “Get Even” crowd. He demonstrates this by his actions, his words, and by who is friends are. His vision of “change” would be to remove the principles that ended slavery and replace them with the ideas that tolerated and caused slavery. Skin color, social rank, and class all play prominent roles in Obama’s agenda. These are the evils that were behind slavery and what the constitution put in place to eliminate. It took almost 200 years to finally get it all working properly and now Obama and his “Get Even” crowd would have us go backwards again.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
The Radicalism Of Moderates And Independents
There seems to be an unwritten rule, in the minds of many, that being a Political Independent makes a person more “reasonable” than people on the extremes of the political spectrum. Many on the right look to “soften” their views in order to gain acceptance from the MSM (Main Stream Media). They may say things such as “I’m a fiscal conservative but a social liberal”, or the all too popular “I’m neither a republican nor a democrat”.
People on the left don’t need to soften their views because the MSM never views a far left view as “extreme”. The only time politicians on the left look to soften their views and move to the right is during election time which shows that either consciously or subconsciously, they know that it is THEIR views that are not in the main stream. Yet people who are independent of both parties seem to have a special arrogance as if they are more reasonable than people on the left OR the right.
One of the worst offenders of the “I’m an Independent and therefore better than the rest of you” mentality is FOX pundit Bill O’Reilly. If O’Reilly criticizes Michael Moore, he may also feel obligated to criticize someone associated with the right such as Ann Coulter. When O’Reilly criticizes far left websites such as moveon or the DailyKos, he seems to feel obligated to say that he also criticizes far right websites. He is constantly bloviating about being an “Independent”.
Bill O’Reilly, to his credit, has been at the forefront of a number of controversies. One of his uncompromising issues is child abuse and the need for laws to protect children. O’Reilly would never feel the need to justify his uncompromising stance in protecting children by saying something such as “We need to look at the underlying reasons that cause a person to commit child abuse.” There is only one issue and that is the protection of children. O’Reilly gets this here but on issues such as healthcare, the environment, the economy, national defense, taxes and many others he bends over backwards to show his “independence”.
The issue here is not that everyone on the right must agree on every issue. The left is far more intolerant of people within their ranks. They basically threw Joe Lieberman out of the democrat party because he disagreed with them on one issue – national defense. The right does, and should, tolerate differing views on all issues. However, what is happening today is that people on the right, by constantly justifying and rationalizing their views, cede the moral superiority to the left.
If someone on the right points out that Reverends Jeremiah Wright or Al Sharpton are racists, he may feel obligated to point out that he would feel the same way if they were white racists. Former KKK member David Duke has not been in the news for years but his name keeps popping up, as in “I would feel the same way about Jeremiah Wright as I do about David Duke.” Do the filthy words of Jeremiah Wright not stand on their own? Does it make it acceptable to criticize a minority as long as you throw a white racist former KKK member into the sentence?
When Bill O’Reilly points to extremes, he falls into the same trap that the MSM does. For example, in the Michael Moore-Ann Coulter comparison, saying that one is on the far left and one is on the far right gives them both equal status. Michael Moore has been caught lying many times. David T. Hardy in his book “Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man” documents these deceptions. There are NO deceptions of a like status in any of Ann Coulter’s writings. People can debate what she says but there aren’t misrepresentations in her writings. There is a far greater difference between these two people than “far left” and “far right”.
Sometimes the truth is crazier than fiction. If this is the case do you turn the truth into fiction in order to sanitize it and make it more believable? If I said that Barack Obama is fundamentally trying to change this country from a constitutional republic where the government is put into place and run only by the consent and the permission of the people, into one where the government doesn’t care whether or not the people consent to how they are being governed and, in fact, is closer to a dictatorship in that the people have practically no say at all in what the government could do to them, you might say that I am being a radical. Certainly, politicians such as Barney Frank or Anthony’s Weiner would label me as “extreme”.
Perhaps the solution is to say “Barack Obama is gaining dictatorial power but David Duke is a racist and I’d feel the same way if he were gaining dictatorial power.” There is no need to rationalize the truth! Republicans seem to live in constant fear of what democrats and the MSM may say about them. Ronald Reagan was loved by the right because he never rationalized his beliefs. He stated his case eloquently and wasn’t intimidated by how the democrats or MSM characterized what he said. John McCain, Bill O’Reilly and many others labeled as “moderate republicans” or “independents” are looked at with suspicion from the right because they sometimes seem to look at the right with the same condescending attitude that the democrats and the MSM does.
There is a radicalism to Independents that rivals any on the right or the left. There is a need to take any situation and find an alternative to it to show that there MUST be another side to the argument. Ayn Rand spoke about this issue. She said:
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
Today, the strategy being used by democrats is to label all criticism of Obama as “extreme”. During the election, John McCain did not bring up a number of vital campaign issues because he didn’t want to be divisive. McCain failed in his duty as a candidate in the same way that a lawyer might fail in his responsibility if he left out critical evidence that could have exonerated his client. The citizens of the US are not children and they have the right to know the truth no matter how strange the truth is!
It is not radical to ask the President of the US and the leader of the free world (if there is such a thing anymore) to put forth the same paperwork as a person applying for a job at a local bank. Yet republicans run from this by saying it is not a winning strategy. Maybe it’s not, but it’s not a crazy idea to want to know the truth! And this truth involves much more than Obama’s birth certificate. It involves organizations he was part of, his sealed college records, his associates over the years and much more.
Republicans and conservatives will never be successful until they learn how to defend their vision, rather than excuse it. Bi-partisanship is not a virtue when you give up your principles in order to be perceived as a “moderate”. Again, according to Ayn Rand:
Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue…When people call themselves moderates, ask yourself: “Moderate—about what?” Since the basic question today is freedom versus statism, or individual rights versus government controls, to be a moderate is to advocate a moderate amount of statism, a moderate amount of injustice, a moderate amount of infringement of individual rights. Surely, nobody would call that a virtue.
People on the right need to stop worrying about how they are perceived. To lie even when the truth and the facts are on your side makes people doubt what the truth and facts are. Informed people will respect a person who honestly fights for his convictions. Let the left and the democrats lie – they need to!
People on the left don’t need to soften their views because the MSM never views a far left view as “extreme”. The only time politicians on the left look to soften their views and move to the right is during election time which shows that either consciously or subconsciously, they know that it is THEIR views that are not in the main stream. Yet people who are independent of both parties seem to have a special arrogance as if they are more reasonable than people on the left OR the right.
One of the worst offenders of the “I’m an Independent and therefore better than the rest of you” mentality is FOX pundit Bill O’Reilly. If O’Reilly criticizes Michael Moore, he may also feel obligated to criticize someone associated with the right such as Ann Coulter. When O’Reilly criticizes far left websites such as moveon or the DailyKos, he seems to feel obligated to say that he also criticizes far right websites. He is constantly bloviating about being an “Independent”.
Bill O’Reilly, to his credit, has been at the forefront of a number of controversies. One of his uncompromising issues is child abuse and the need for laws to protect children. O’Reilly would never feel the need to justify his uncompromising stance in protecting children by saying something such as “We need to look at the underlying reasons that cause a person to commit child abuse.” There is only one issue and that is the protection of children. O’Reilly gets this here but on issues such as healthcare, the environment, the economy, national defense, taxes and many others he bends over backwards to show his “independence”.
The issue here is not that everyone on the right must agree on every issue. The left is far more intolerant of people within their ranks. They basically threw Joe Lieberman out of the democrat party because he disagreed with them on one issue – national defense. The right does, and should, tolerate differing views on all issues. However, what is happening today is that people on the right, by constantly justifying and rationalizing their views, cede the moral superiority to the left.
If someone on the right points out that Reverends Jeremiah Wright or Al Sharpton are racists, he may feel obligated to point out that he would feel the same way if they were white racists. Former KKK member David Duke has not been in the news for years but his name keeps popping up, as in “I would feel the same way about Jeremiah Wright as I do about David Duke.” Do the filthy words of Jeremiah Wright not stand on their own? Does it make it acceptable to criticize a minority as long as you throw a white racist former KKK member into the sentence?
When Bill O’Reilly points to extremes, he falls into the same trap that the MSM does. For example, in the Michael Moore-Ann Coulter comparison, saying that one is on the far left and one is on the far right gives them both equal status. Michael Moore has been caught lying many times. David T. Hardy in his book “Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man” documents these deceptions. There are NO deceptions of a like status in any of Ann Coulter’s writings. People can debate what she says but there aren’t misrepresentations in her writings. There is a far greater difference between these two people than “far left” and “far right”.
Sometimes the truth is crazier than fiction. If this is the case do you turn the truth into fiction in order to sanitize it and make it more believable? If I said that Barack Obama is fundamentally trying to change this country from a constitutional republic where the government is put into place and run only by the consent and the permission of the people, into one where the government doesn’t care whether or not the people consent to how they are being governed and, in fact, is closer to a dictatorship in that the people have practically no say at all in what the government could do to them, you might say that I am being a radical. Certainly, politicians such as Barney Frank or Anthony’s Weiner would label me as “extreme”.
Perhaps the solution is to say “Barack Obama is gaining dictatorial power but David Duke is a racist and I’d feel the same way if he were gaining dictatorial power.” There is no need to rationalize the truth! Republicans seem to live in constant fear of what democrats and the MSM may say about them. Ronald Reagan was loved by the right because he never rationalized his beliefs. He stated his case eloquently and wasn’t intimidated by how the democrats or MSM characterized what he said. John McCain, Bill O’Reilly and many others labeled as “moderate republicans” or “independents” are looked at with suspicion from the right because they sometimes seem to look at the right with the same condescending attitude that the democrats and the MSM does.
There is a radicalism to Independents that rivals any on the right or the left. There is a need to take any situation and find an alternative to it to show that there MUST be another side to the argument. Ayn Rand spoke about this issue. She said:
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
Today, the strategy being used by democrats is to label all criticism of Obama as “extreme”. During the election, John McCain did not bring up a number of vital campaign issues because he didn’t want to be divisive. McCain failed in his duty as a candidate in the same way that a lawyer might fail in his responsibility if he left out critical evidence that could have exonerated his client. The citizens of the US are not children and they have the right to know the truth no matter how strange the truth is!
It is not radical to ask the President of the US and the leader of the free world (if there is such a thing anymore) to put forth the same paperwork as a person applying for a job at a local bank. Yet republicans run from this by saying it is not a winning strategy. Maybe it’s not, but it’s not a crazy idea to want to know the truth! And this truth involves much more than Obama’s birth certificate. It involves organizations he was part of, his sealed college records, his associates over the years and much more.
Republicans and conservatives will never be successful until they learn how to defend their vision, rather than excuse it. Bi-partisanship is not a virtue when you give up your principles in order to be perceived as a “moderate”. Again, according to Ayn Rand:
Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue…When people call themselves moderates, ask yourself: “Moderate—about what?” Since the basic question today is freedom versus statism, or individual rights versus government controls, to be a moderate is to advocate a moderate amount of statism, a moderate amount of injustice, a moderate amount of infringement of individual rights. Surely, nobody would call that a virtue.
People on the right need to stop worrying about how they are perceived. To lie even when the truth and the facts are on your side makes people doubt what the truth and facts are. Informed people will respect a person who honestly fights for his convictions. Let the left and the democrats lie – they need to!
Monday, May 24, 2010
The Obama Testament
In the beginning there was only Hillary.
And the Democrats were without form.
And there was corruption, and lying, and deceit, and intimidation.
And then the spirit of Obama came and moved upon the waters.
And Obama said Let there be hope and change.
And Obama saw the hope and change, and said that it was good.
And Obama said Let there be a stimulus plan.
But unto Obama and his plan, the people had not respect.
And Obama saw the wickedness among the people of the United States.
And Obama said unto the people of the United States 'Let my stimulus plan pass'.
And Obama gave money to banks, insurance companies and car companies and said that it was good.
But the hearts of the people were hardened.
And the people wanted to know why the unemployment rate was over 10%.
So Obama needed to speak to the Lord.
And he went to the special place where he could seek the counsel of the Lord.
And from the other side of the mirror, God spake unto Obama, saying, Go speak to your wife Michelle and tell her to speak to the children of the United States.
And Michelle went forth and spake unto the people of the United States, saying unto them,
Whatsoever containeth polyunsaturated fats, ye shall not eat.
All fast food, whether it cometh from dwellings with golden arches or from Kings, shall be an abomination unto you.
And every earthen vessel that containeth carbonated water with sugar shall be unclean to you. And you shall break it and not drink from it.
And Obama listened to his wife with pride and said that it was good.
But the hearts of the people were still hardened.
And the anger of Obama was kindled against the United States,
And Obama went into the land of Egypt and said that the United States was arrogant.
And Obama shamed members of the Supreme Court and said that their decisions were wrong.
And Obama said Cambridge cops acted stupidly.
And Obama said that doctors cut off healthy limbs for profit.
And Obama said bankers were greedy.
And Obama said Oil companies were greedy.
And Obama said Insurance companies were greedy.
And Obama criticized the state of Arizona.
And Obama criticized Fox news.
And Obama criticized Republicans.
And Obama criticized BP.
And Obama criticized Israel for building houses.
And Obama criticized people for going to Las Vegas.
And Obama criticized George Bush.
And Obama criticized John McCain.
And then Obama went to the United Nations and said how much he respected the Islamic Republic of Iran and that he wanted a new beginning based on mutual trust and mutual respect.
And the children of the United States saw what was happening and they were angered.
So angered were the children of the United States that they formed a new group and called it the Tea Party.
And Obama spake to the people of the Tea Party saying,
Do ye not know that I have rescued you from the republicans?
But the people were angered and they spake saying, We had a $500 billion deficit under Bush and now we have a $2 trillion deficit.
And Obama stopped them, saying You dare question Me? I am Obama. I will provide for your needs and all I ask is that you are faithful to me and pay 70% of your income to me in taxes.
Wherefore the people did chide with Obama, and said Give us back our money, that we may invest it and create jobs and have freedom.
And then it came to pass that Obama started nominating people to the Supreme Court. And Obama said to his two Supreme Court nominees, Thou shalt have compassion and empathy, and set precedents when I tell you to and change laws when I deem them to be unjust.
And the people said there is this thing called the constitution...
But Obama interrupted them and said Enough!
And then Obama spake again to the people, saying, Ye are upset with me. But my power will be revealed when I give you the most precious gift of all the earthly gifts. I grant to all the children of the United States free healthcare.
And the people of the United States stood up and said, What?!
And Obama spake to the people again and said, Take heed to yourselves that ye not go up into the halls of congress to watch the healthcare bill debated.
And it came to pass in the second year of his reign, in the fifteenth month, in the twenty second day of that month, that the healthcare bill passed.
And Obama walked out of the Whitehouse with the two thousand seven hundred page health care bill held under his arms.
And Obama had grown a long white beard while debating the heath care plan and the people did not recognize him at first.
And Obama went forth among the people and raised the healthcare bill above his head and spake, saying, I am Obama, who hast brought you forth from the presidency of George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who hast brought you out of the bondage of the right wingers and conservatives.
And the people murmured against Obama, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of a republican controlled government to then burden us with high taxes, healthcare that takes away our freedoms, regulations that punish small business. You take away our pride in ourselves and our country. You leave us vulnerable to those who wouldst do us harm. You burden us with debt that we can't pay back. The things that thou doest are not good.
And Obama was provoked to anger. And he raised the healthcare plan above his head and proclaimed to the children of the United States in a thundering voice,
Those who will not live by the healthcare shall die by the healthcare!
And Obama threw all two thousand and seven hundred pages of the healthcare plan at the people.
And the healthcare plan struck the ground and paper exploded everywhere. And paper dust filled the air and it was difficult to breath. And people couldn't walk, or even see, for all the paper that was all over the land. And paper was on the roads and paper filled the fields. And all the animals and all the people were covered with paper. And the people gathered the paper together upon heaps: and the land stank.
But despite the paper plague upon the land, the hearts of the people were still hardened, for they knew that they were dealing with a false prophet. And the people spake saying,
Well, at least that's the end of the health care plan.
But Obama had made copies.
In the end, there was corruption, and lying, and deceit, and intimidation.
And there was debt as far as the eye could see. And the children of the United States were so burdened with taxes that there was no money left to invest, and there was no more innovation and no more entrepreneurs. And the constitution was changed and people weren't free to speak their minds anymore. And people couldn't sell their homes without approval from the government. And people couldn't sell their cars without approval from the government. And the United States was only one state in a world government. And the United Nations ran the world. And the people had no redress for their grievances.
All this happened and it was not good. It was not good at all.
Want to change the ending? Then End the Change!
And the Democrats were without form.
And there was corruption, and lying, and deceit, and intimidation.
And then the spirit of Obama came and moved upon the waters.
And Obama said Let there be hope and change.
And Obama saw the hope and change, and said that it was good.
And Obama said Let there be a stimulus plan.
But unto Obama and his plan, the people had not respect.
And Obama saw the wickedness among the people of the United States.
And Obama said unto the people of the United States 'Let my stimulus plan pass'.
And Obama gave money to banks, insurance companies and car companies and said that it was good.
But the hearts of the people were hardened.
And the people wanted to know why the unemployment rate was over 10%.
So Obama needed to speak to the Lord.
And he went to the special place where he could seek the counsel of the Lord.
And from the other side of the mirror, God spake unto Obama, saying, Go speak to your wife Michelle and tell her to speak to the children of the United States.
And Michelle went forth and spake unto the people of the United States, saying unto them,
Whatsoever containeth polyunsaturated fats, ye shall not eat.
All fast food, whether it cometh from dwellings with golden arches or from Kings, shall be an abomination unto you.
And every earthen vessel that containeth carbonated water with sugar shall be unclean to you. And you shall break it and not drink from it.
And Obama listened to his wife with pride and said that it was good.
But the hearts of the people were still hardened.
And the anger of Obama was kindled against the United States,
And Obama went into the land of Egypt and said that the United States was arrogant.
And Obama shamed members of the Supreme Court and said that their decisions were wrong.
And Obama said Cambridge cops acted stupidly.
And Obama said that doctors cut off healthy limbs for profit.
And Obama said bankers were greedy.
And Obama said Oil companies were greedy.
And Obama said Insurance companies were greedy.
And Obama criticized the state of Arizona.
And Obama criticized Fox news.
And Obama criticized Republicans.
And Obama criticized BP.
And Obama criticized Israel for building houses.
And Obama criticized people for going to Las Vegas.
And Obama criticized George Bush.
And Obama criticized John McCain.
And then Obama went to the United Nations and said how much he respected the Islamic Republic of Iran and that he wanted a new beginning based on mutual trust and mutual respect.
And the children of the United States saw what was happening and they were angered.
So angered were the children of the United States that they formed a new group and called it the Tea Party.
And Obama spake to the people of the Tea Party saying,
Do ye not know that I have rescued you from the republicans?
But the people were angered and they spake saying, We had a $500 billion deficit under Bush and now we have a $2 trillion deficit.
And Obama stopped them, saying You dare question Me? I am Obama. I will provide for your needs and all I ask is that you are faithful to me and pay 70% of your income to me in taxes.
Wherefore the people did chide with Obama, and said Give us back our money, that we may invest it and create jobs and have freedom.
And then it came to pass that Obama started nominating people to the Supreme Court. And Obama said to his two Supreme Court nominees, Thou shalt have compassion and empathy, and set precedents when I tell you to and change laws when I deem them to be unjust.
And the people said there is this thing called the constitution...
But Obama interrupted them and said Enough!
And then Obama spake again to the people, saying, Ye are upset with me. But my power will be revealed when I give you the most precious gift of all the earthly gifts. I grant to all the children of the United States free healthcare.
And the people of the United States stood up and said, What?!
And Obama spake to the people again and said, Take heed to yourselves that ye not go up into the halls of congress to watch the healthcare bill debated.
And it came to pass in the second year of his reign, in the fifteenth month, in the twenty second day of that month, that the healthcare bill passed.
And Obama walked out of the Whitehouse with the two thousand seven hundred page health care bill held under his arms.
And Obama had grown a long white beard while debating the heath care plan and the people did not recognize him at first.
And Obama went forth among the people and raised the healthcare bill above his head and spake, saying, I am Obama, who hast brought you forth from the presidency of George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who hast brought you out of the bondage of the right wingers and conservatives.
And the people murmured against Obama, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of a republican controlled government to then burden us with high taxes, healthcare that takes away our freedoms, regulations that punish small business. You take away our pride in ourselves and our country. You leave us vulnerable to those who wouldst do us harm. You burden us with debt that we can't pay back. The things that thou doest are not good.
And Obama was provoked to anger. And he raised the healthcare plan above his head and proclaimed to the children of the United States in a thundering voice,
Those who will not live by the healthcare shall die by the healthcare!
And Obama threw all two thousand and seven hundred pages of the healthcare plan at the people.
And the healthcare plan struck the ground and paper exploded everywhere. And paper dust filled the air and it was difficult to breath. And people couldn't walk, or even see, for all the paper that was all over the land. And paper was on the roads and paper filled the fields. And all the animals and all the people were covered with paper. And the people gathered the paper together upon heaps: and the land stank.
But despite the paper plague upon the land, the hearts of the people were still hardened, for they knew that they were dealing with a false prophet. And the people spake saying,
Well, at least that's the end of the health care plan.
But Obama had made copies.
In the end, there was corruption, and lying, and deceit, and intimidation.
And there was debt as far as the eye could see. And the children of the United States were so burdened with taxes that there was no money left to invest, and there was no more innovation and no more entrepreneurs. And the constitution was changed and people weren't free to speak their minds anymore. And people couldn't sell their homes without approval from the government. And people couldn't sell their cars without approval from the government. And the United States was only one state in a world government. And the United Nations ran the world. And the people had no redress for their grievances.
All this happened and it was not good. It was not good at all.
Want to change the ending? Then End the Change!
Monday, April 19, 2010
A Proposal For Updating The US Constitution
For Making The Constitution More Compatible With The Modern Age
This proposal has been created and authorized by our organization, the Bastion of Urban Renewal and Progress (BURP). This is a community organization which has its home office on the upper west side of Manhattan, and is dedicated to the betterment of humanity, the cleanliness of the earth and the causes of equality within and between all nations.
We here at our organization (BURP) have always considered the constitution a living and breathing document that should be updated periodically to reflect the changing needs of our community. However, it has gotten more difficult over the years to take a document that was written in the 18th century and keep it contemporary. Therefore, rather than amend the constitution, and continue to put tape and paper clips on an old and out-dated document, it is time for a complete re-writing of the constitution. We will start here with the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights.
The first amendment to the constitution reads thusly:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Many people in our organization were shocked to learn that the phrase “Wall of separation between church and state” was not actually in the document. We need to remedy this. The phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” seems fine on the surface but we want to be careful in limiting the power of what congress can do. We want congress to be able to freely pass laws for the benefit of the many people who may not know what is in their best interests.
It is also important to define what religion is. Is a religion anything that prays to a God? Is it anything that utilizes a church? And how can a church be defined? All this needs to be written into the new document so that there is no ambiguity.
Just to digress for a moment, we are not concerned about the intent of the so-called “Founders”. Our goal in this re-writing is to come up with a fair and just document by which the country can be moved into the modern age and to stop being governed by outdated and unfair concepts.
The phrase “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is a problem. Congress must have the power to prohibit religious practices because it conflicts with the new “Wall of Separation” clause.
Speaking of the important “Wall of Separation” clause and just as a side anecdote to this, I had a conversation the other day with my son Rainbow. He told me that at school the teacher was talking about the “big bang” theory and how all life was formed by the random combination of trillions of molecules and atoms. Another student actually had the nerve to offer the ill-advised opinion that maybe it wasn’t random, that maybe there was an intelligent design to all this. Can you imagine the arrogance of people to think that they were created by some invisible mythical being rather than the random combination of molecules? Now if someone wants to have a misguided opinion, that is his or her right but to try to force that religious view on a classroom of kids is exactly the kind of situation that this new revised constitution will stop. My son Rainbow should not have to listen to the rantings of a religious fanatic in a classroom setting.
As for “Freedom of Assembly” and “petitioning government for grievances” – these have become huge problems. We are very concerned that the freedom of congress to act in the best interests of the people has been severely limited by this ill-defined clause. Clearly the “founders” did not anticipate such things as talk radio, the internet, cable TV and so forth. The improvements to the printing press, alone, make much of the language concerning “freedom of speech” obsolete.
We have seen recently with the tea party movement that government clearly needs to have a role in how and when people can assemble and petition the government for a “redress of grievances”. We have seen how people can distort what congress and the president are trying to do. Congress and the president must and shall have the freedom to do what is in the best interests of the people and must be able to restrict the people from putting out information that contradicts the good intentions of the government.
So, without further adieu, here is the new revised first amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
There is a distinct separation between church and state. Church is defined as any dwelling, be it of brick, metal, or other structural materials, or any boundary whatsoever, where there is reverence or prayer being given to any being or entity which cannot be substantiated through scientific means. Church is distinct from the word religion which is defined as any belief system that involves prayer or devotion to any being that cannot be scientifically verified. Prayer is defined as words or gestures, thoughts or feelings directed towards a being or entity that cannot be verified through the scientific method. Worship of the sun, the earth, water, or any other physically verifiable, scientific entity is not considered a “church” or “religion” under this definition and therefore is not subject to restrictions.
Whereas the church and the state are considered to be two distinct entities, all activities associated with the church, including but not limited to prayer, religious clothing and jewelry, religious ornaments such as trees or candle holders with religious intent, are not to be permitted in buildings that are owned, operated or rented by the government or used by the government for any purpose, be it official or otherwise.
Whereas the practicing of religion, regardless of the location of the said practice, involves the training of people in such practices, and whereas these practices, thoughts and opinions are likely to be brought into government offices or schools, either consciously or subconsciously, it is incumbent upon the congress to restrict these practices . Congress, therefore, shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. In rare circumstances, private religious events may be permissible but congress shall have the authority to levy a tax on the religious event and to monitor the proceedings in such an matter as is deemed appropriate.
Whereas people (people being defined as living beings of the homo sapien species who are not a member of the United States congress, senate, judiciary or executive branch of government) have gathered in public places and contradicted the words, intentions, policies, and strategies of congress and whereas said people have made it difficult for the government to act in their interests, and whereas said people have violated the right of congress and the executive branch of government to levy new taxes, and whereas these same said people have raised money to disseminate information in a manner not approved of by congress, we do declare on this 17th day of April in the year of our Mother Earth of Two thousand ten the following:
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in congress and the senate ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of the congress and the senate.
That the gathering of people to protest the good policies of congress without the consent of congress is pernicious and illegal.
That criticism of the President, whether through print, broadcast, internet, or radio, is tantamount to incitement to violence and is illegal, unless that President is deemed, by a special commission (see more on this commission in the addendum to the First Amendment to the Constitution), to be worthy of said criticism.
Well, that’s it for the new First Amendment! You can download the addendum to the first amendment in PDF format (all 36 pages), as well as the rider to the new first amendment (27 pages), at www.burp/newconstitution/thisisnotarealwebsite.com.
We here at our organization (BURP) are dedicated to creating a more perfect union. To this end, we have recognized that the people have encroached upon the freedom of congress. The government needs to get on with the job of ruining the country without interference. We will continue to work tirelessly to this end. Look for continued updates to the constitution as next time we will offer you our new second amendment!
This proposal has been created and authorized by our organization, the Bastion of Urban Renewal and Progress (BURP). This is a community organization which has its home office on the upper west side of Manhattan, and is dedicated to the betterment of humanity, the cleanliness of the earth and the causes of equality within and between all nations.
We here at our organization (BURP) have always considered the constitution a living and breathing document that should be updated periodically to reflect the changing needs of our community. However, it has gotten more difficult over the years to take a document that was written in the 18th century and keep it contemporary. Therefore, rather than amend the constitution, and continue to put tape and paper clips on an old and out-dated document, it is time for a complete re-writing of the constitution. We will start here with the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights.
The first amendment to the constitution reads thusly:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Many people in our organization were shocked to learn that the phrase “Wall of separation between church and state” was not actually in the document. We need to remedy this. The phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” seems fine on the surface but we want to be careful in limiting the power of what congress can do. We want congress to be able to freely pass laws for the benefit of the many people who may not know what is in their best interests.
It is also important to define what religion is. Is a religion anything that prays to a God? Is it anything that utilizes a church? And how can a church be defined? All this needs to be written into the new document so that there is no ambiguity.
Just to digress for a moment, we are not concerned about the intent of the so-called “Founders”. Our goal in this re-writing is to come up with a fair and just document by which the country can be moved into the modern age and to stop being governed by outdated and unfair concepts.
The phrase “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is a problem. Congress must have the power to prohibit religious practices because it conflicts with the new “Wall of Separation” clause.
Speaking of the important “Wall of Separation” clause and just as a side anecdote to this, I had a conversation the other day with my son Rainbow. He told me that at school the teacher was talking about the “big bang” theory and how all life was formed by the random combination of trillions of molecules and atoms. Another student actually had the nerve to offer the ill-advised opinion that maybe it wasn’t random, that maybe there was an intelligent design to all this. Can you imagine the arrogance of people to think that they were created by some invisible mythical being rather than the random combination of molecules? Now if someone wants to have a misguided opinion, that is his or her right but to try to force that religious view on a classroom of kids is exactly the kind of situation that this new revised constitution will stop. My son Rainbow should not have to listen to the rantings of a religious fanatic in a classroom setting.
As for “Freedom of Assembly” and “petitioning government for grievances” – these have become huge problems. We are very concerned that the freedom of congress to act in the best interests of the people has been severely limited by this ill-defined clause. Clearly the “founders” did not anticipate such things as talk radio, the internet, cable TV and so forth. The improvements to the printing press, alone, make much of the language concerning “freedom of speech” obsolete.
We have seen recently with the tea party movement that government clearly needs to have a role in how and when people can assemble and petition the government for a “redress of grievances”. We have seen how people can distort what congress and the president are trying to do. Congress and the president must and shall have the freedom to do what is in the best interests of the people and must be able to restrict the people from putting out information that contradicts the good intentions of the government.
So, without further adieu, here is the new revised first amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
There is a distinct separation between church and state. Church is defined as any dwelling, be it of brick, metal, or other structural materials, or any boundary whatsoever, where there is reverence or prayer being given to any being or entity which cannot be substantiated through scientific means. Church is distinct from the word religion which is defined as any belief system that involves prayer or devotion to any being that cannot be scientifically verified. Prayer is defined as words or gestures, thoughts or feelings directed towards a being or entity that cannot be verified through the scientific method. Worship of the sun, the earth, water, or any other physically verifiable, scientific entity is not considered a “church” or “religion” under this definition and therefore is not subject to restrictions.
Whereas the church and the state are considered to be two distinct entities, all activities associated with the church, including but not limited to prayer, religious clothing and jewelry, religious ornaments such as trees or candle holders with religious intent, are not to be permitted in buildings that are owned, operated or rented by the government or used by the government for any purpose, be it official or otherwise.
Whereas the practicing of religion, regardless of the location of the said practice, involves the training of people in such practices, and whereas these practices, thoughts and opinions are likely to be brought into government offices or schools, either consciously or subconsciously, it is incumbent upon the congress to restrict these practices . Congress, therefore, shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. In rare circumstances, private religious events may be permissible but congress shall have the authority to levy a tax on the religious event and to monitor the proceedings in such an matter as is deemed appropriate.
Whereas people (people being defined as living beings of the homo sapien species who are not a member of the United States congress, senate, judiciary or executive branch of government) have gathered in public places and contradicted the words, intentions, policies, and strategies of congress and whereas said people have made it difficult for the government to act in their interests, and whereas said people have violated the right of congress and the executive branch of government to levy new taxes, and whereas these same said people have raised money to disseminate information in a manner not approved of by congress, we do declare on this 17th day of April in the year of our Mother Earth of Two thousand ten the following:
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in congress and the senate ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of the congress and the senate.
That the gathering of people to protest the good policies of congress without the consent of congress is pernicious and illegal.
That criticism of the President, whether through print, broadcast, internet, or radio, is tantamount to incitement to violence and is illegal, unless that President is deemed, by a special commission (see more on this commission in the addendum to the First Amendment to the Constitution), to be worthy of said criticism.
Well, that’s it for the new First Amendment! You can download the addendum to the first amendment in PDF format (all 36 pages), as well as the rider to the new first amendment (27 pages), at www.burp/newconstitution/thisisnotarealwebsite.com.
We here at our organization (BURP) are dedicated to creating a more perfect union. To this end, we have recognized that the people have encroached upon the freedom of congress. The government needs to get on with the job of ruining the country without interference. We will continue to work tirelessly to this end. Look for continued updates to the constitution as next time we will offer you our new second amendment!
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Deceptive Arguments And Specious Reasoning - Political Debate Gone Wrong
There are a lot of ways to win an argument and a lot of ways to deceive others into thinking you’ve won an argument. There is one set of rules to follow when you have facts on your side and a different set of rules when the facts are not with you. The first rule is to never use any of these rules in arguing with your wife. If you do, it should be under controlled circumstances and only when there is professional supervision.
There are situations of absolute fact. For example, OJ Simpson either killed two people or he didn’t. People may disagree as to what evidence shows but there is a Yes/No answer to the question of whether OJ did it or not. No matter what anyone believes, the event did happen in a particular way and was caused by specific actions.
Other situations are more theoretical. Global warming is a theory based on models and evidence. Whether it exists, is caused by human activity, the extent of damage (if any), what might or might not happen in the future, all has to be based on honest scientific inquiry. In the first situation with OJ, you are dealing with a known fact (two people were murdered) while in the second, you are dealing with a future event (some say an event that has started already), but in any case, one that is not as specific as a Yes/No answer can provide.
The last situation is one of morality and spirituality. Issues such as abortion or the death penalty fall into this third category. There is much passion in these debates. A belief in God is a matter of faith. The ongoing evolution vs. creationism debate also falls under this last category.
While there may be some issues that cross the line between these three categories, in most situations they will fall in one of these three groups and not more. When propaganda is used, it is usually done by blurring the distinction between these categories.
A good example of this is to look at how Al Gore argues the inevitability of global warming. First, backing up a step, if you are going to debate an issue, one of the best ways to do it is “Search and Destroy”. You find your opponent’s arguments, you list them one by one, and then you point out why they are specious or why their reasoning is faulty. When people have truth on their side, they are eager to display why the arguments of their opponents are wrong.
Getting back to Al Gore, when he is faced with a question challenging his belief in global warming, he never answers it. He simply labels people who don’t agree with him as “deniers” or “flat earthers”. Some people may not disagree, per se. They just may not be sure, not being as scientifically trained as Al Gore, they just want more of a debate before committing so much money, resources, and lifestyle changes to a theory that they don’t know enough about.
If Mr. Gore had the facts on his side, he would bring out all these challenges to then tear them down (“Search and Destroy”). Some arguments against global warming (there are many more):
- The ice in Antarctica has been growing since 1979.
- Temperature measurements during the 90s (the supposed warmest decade) did not use weather stations in some of the coldest climates which artificially increased the average.
- There is evidence of warming on other planets indicating that sun spot activity may be a cause of temporary warming.
- Ice core samples show the middle ages to be warmer than the present.
- The earth has been cooling in the last 15 years.
- Many of the same people who are now warning about global warming were warning about the coming ice age as recently as 1975!
- There is evidence, also from ice core samples, that the cause and effect of global warming is backwards. In other words, increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere didn’t cause global warming in the past but, in fact, periods of warming caused increased levels of CO2.
These are just some of many arguments against the theory of global warming. Not being a scientist, I would welcome hearing the other side to these points but all I hear is crickets. That no one does a “Search and Destroy” on these points leads me to believe they are true. Al Gore smears people who don’t believe global warming to be “settled science” and with that, hopes to stifle debate on the issue.
Stifling debate, by the way, is not the same thing as winning the debate. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has become a party that can’t debate on facts and therefore, they debate by character assassination. Whether it is global warming or the Tea Party movement, the left is constantly trying to impugn the integrity and motives of whoever has a different point of view. Personally, I would never want to stifle the opinions or speech of people on the left. Every time they speak, they tell you who they are and what they want to do. The fact that they don’t extend the same courtesy to people on the right is a great indicator of who is telling the truth and who is lying.
Uh-Oh, I think someone just fainted while reading this article. If anyone knows the address of the person that just fainted would you please get him or her some water? Maybe have him or her lie down and prop some pillows up so he or she can breathe. Please give him or her plenty of room….
The final straw in this Global Warming/Climate Change/Greenhouse Effect thing is when Mr. Gore labels people who want more evidence into global warming as equal to Holocaust deniers. Global warming is a theory. The Holocaust is a historical fact backed up by evidence including hundreds of thousands of witnesses, physical evidence, film archive and even admissions by some who committed the horrific acts. To compare this to a subjective theory such as global warming is an insult to the memories of the people who died in the Holocaust, as well as to the survivors and their children.
Barack Obama’s way of dealing with a challenge (not that he faces many from the main stream media) is different than Al Gore’s. Obama’s preferred method is to ramble meaningless phrases as if by the magic of his oratory skills, people will forget what the question was. Asked what his favorite Whitesox player was on opening day of the baseball season, he couldn’t just say he didn’t know or remember any. He talked about being an Oakland A’s fan while living in Hawaii, blathered a few other meaningless things about liking the Cubs as well but never answered the simple question! You’d expect that from a kid in third grade, not the President.
What is amazing about this is that Obama made a specific point of showing the world that he was a Whitesox fan. He pulled out a Whitesox cap to display in front of 40,000+ Washington Nationals fans and millions watching on TV. You’d think he’d be prepared to answer, just as a matter of common sense, some questions about the team since he made such an unnecessary spectacle of bringing it up. It makes you wonder, if he is that unprepared for a question that is the logical result of an action he has taken, then how is he to be trusted negotiating with Russia or China? Who knows, maybe he put on the Whitesox cap to give fans an excuse to boo. That way, he could say they were booing the cap, not him or his actions, but he couldn’t be that narcissistic, could he?
If he can’t answer a simple question about his favorite player, how is he to answer questions about health care or taxes? The answer to that is a 17 minute incoherent response to a question about whether or not the US is already too highly taxed to shoulder the additional burdens to pay for health care. If Obama had truth on his side, he wouldn’t need to spend 17 minutes on a disjointed dissertation while still not answering the question! Obama mixes in all tactics. He confuses fact with theory, and throws in a hefty dose of moralizing and somewhere in between all the meaningless words you are almost tempted to say “Stop already! I give up -- just stop talking!
The old joke says “How can you tell if a politician is lying?” Answer: “If his mouth is moving”. Some, however, lie more than others. Propaganda involves turning facts into subjective concepts while turning subjective concepts into facts. It involves taking bad policy and packaging it as an absolute moral good so that no one dare oppose it.
There are situations of absolute fact. For example, OJ Simpson either killed two people or he didn’t. People may disagree as to what evidence shows but there is a Yes/No answer to the question of whether OJ did it or not. No matter what anyone believes, the event did happen in a particular way and was caused by specific actions.
Other situations are more theoretical. Global warming is a theory based on models and evidence. Whether it exists, is caused by human activity, the extent of damage (if any), what might or might not happen in the future, all has to be based on honest scientific inquiry. In the first situation with OJ, you are dealing with a known fact (two people were murdered) while in the second, you are dealing with a future event (some say an event that has started already), but in any case, one that is not as specific as a Yes/No answer can provide.
The last situation is one of morality and spirituality. Issues such as abortion or the death penalty fall into this third category. There is much passion in these debates. A belief in God is a matter of faith. The ongoing evolution vs. creationism debate also falls under this last category.
While there may be some issues that cross the line between these three categories, in most situations they will fall in one of these three groups and not more. When propaganda is used, it is usually done by blurring the distinction between these categories.
A good example of this is to look at how Al Gore argues the inevitability of global warming. First, backing up a step, if you are going to debate an issue, one of the best ways to do it is “Search and Destroy”. You find your opponent’s arguments, you list them one by one, and then you point out why they are specious or why their reasoning is faulty. When people have truth on their side, they are eager to display why the arguments of their opponents are wrong.
Getting back to Al Gore, when he is faced with a question challenging his belief in global warming, he never answers it. He simply labels people who don’t agree with him as “deniers” or “flat earthers”. Some people may not disagree, per se. They just may not be sure, not being as scientifically trained as Al Gore, they just want more of a debate before committing so much money, resources, and lifestyle changes to a theory that they don’t know enough about.
If Mr. Gore had the facts on his side, he would bring out all these challenges to then tear them down (“Search and Destroy”). Some arguments against global warming (there are many more):
- The ice in Antarctica has been growing since 1979.
- Temperature measurements during the 90s (the supposed warmest decade) did not use weather stations in some of the coldest climates which artificially increased the average.
- There is evidence of warming on other planets indicating that sun spot activity may be a cause of temporary warming.
- Ice core samples show the middle ages to be warmer than the present.
- The earth has been cooling in the last 15 years.
- Many of the same people who are now warning about global warming were warning about the coming ice age as recently as 1975!
- There is evidence, also from ice core samples, that the cause and effect of global warming is backwards. In other words, increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere didn’t cause global warming in the past but, in fact, periods of warming caused increased levels of CO2.
These are just some of many arguments against the theory of global warming. Not being a scientist, I would welcome hearing the other side to these points but all I hear is crickets. That no one does a “Search and Destroy” on these points leads me to believe they are true. Al Gore smears people who don’t believe global warming to be “settled science” and with that, hopes to stifle debate on the issue.
Stifling debate, by the way, is not the same thing as winning the debate. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has become a party that can’t debate on facts and therefore, they debate by character assassination. Whether it is global warming or the Tea Party movement, the left is constantly trying to impugn the integrity and motives of whoever has a different point of view. Personally, I would never want to stifle the opinions or speech of people on the left. Every time they speak, they tell you who they are and what they want to do. The fact that they don’t extend the same courtesy to people on the right is a great indicator of who is telling the truth and who is lying.
Uh-Oh, I think someone just fainted while reading this article. If anyone knows the address of the person that just fainted would you please get him or her some water? Maybe have him or her lie down and prop some pillows up so he or she can breathe. Please give him or her plenty of room….
The final straw in this Global Warming/Climate Change/Greenhouse Effect thing is when Mr. Gore labels people who want more evidence into global warming as equal to Holocaust deniers. Global warming is a theory. The Holocaust is a historical fact backed up by evidence including hundreds of thousands of witnesses, physical evidence, film archive and even admissions by some who committed the horrific acts. To compare this to a subjective theory such as global warming is an insult to the memories of the people who died in the Holocaust, as well as to the survivors and their children.
Barack Obama’s way of dealing with a challenge (not that he faces many from the main stream media) is different than Al Gore’s. Obama’s preferred method is to ramble meaningless phrases as if by the magic of his oratory skills, people will forget what the question was. Asked what his favorite Whitesox player was on opening day of the baseball season, he couldn’t just say he didn’t know or remember any. He talked about being an Oakland A’s fan while living in Hawaii, blathered a few other meaningless things about liking the Cubs as well but never answered the simple question! You’d expect that from a kid in third grade, not the President.
What is amazing about this is that Obama made a specific point of showing the world that he was a Whitesox fan. He pulled out a Whitesox cap to display in front of 40,000+ Washington Nationals fans and millions watching on TV. You’d think he’d be prepared to answer, just as a matter of common sense, some questions about the team since he made such an unnecessary spectacle of bringing it up. It makes you wonder, if he is that unprepared for a question that is the logical result of an action he has taken, then how is he to be trusted negotiating with Russia or China? Who knows, maybe he put on the Whitesox cap to give fans an excuse to boo. That way, he could say they were booing the cap, not him or his actions, but he couldn’t be that narcissistic, could he?
If he can’t answer a simple question about his favorite player, how is he to answer questions about health care or taxes? The answer to that is a 17 minute incoherent response to a question about whether or not the US is already too highly taxed to shoulder the additional burdens to pay for health care. If Obama had truth on his side, he wouldn’t need to spend 17 minutes on a disjointed dissertation while still not answering the question! Obama mixes in all tactics. He confuses fact with theory, and throws in a hefty dose of moralizing and somewhere in between all the meaningless words you are almost tempted to say “Stop already! I give up -- just stop talking!
The old joke says “How can you tell if a politician is lying?” Answer: “If his mouth is moving”. Some, however, lie more than others. Propaganda involves turning facts into subjective concepts while turning subjective concepts into facts. It involves taking bad policy and packaging it as an absolute moral good so that no one dare oppose it.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Generational Insanity – The Stupidity And Greatness Of Each Generation
Every generation has its own style. Each era has a unique vocabulary, its own taboos and its own definition of what is considered cool or hip. Each era has its style of fashion, music and entertainment. Some fads and vocabulary are temporary and some make it past the generational stage and become permanent fixtures of society. Some go away but still leave their influence in other ways. The expressions; “That’s groovy man” and “Far Out!” have long been replaced by “At the end of the day” and “That’s how I roll!” Thankfully the expression “Don’t go there” seems to have seen its last days. Some styles or expressions are driven by technology such as “LOL” or “ROTFL”. At times, we use new expressions without thinking. They all of a sudden find themselves inside our vocabulary repertoire and we don’t know how they got in there or how we can get rid of them.
In a recent controversy, Tom Hanks spoke about United States racism during World War II. Most of the time, when actors get involved in political issues, they show how uninformed they are of the real world outside of a Hollywood film set. However, in this case Tom Hanks has a point. The U.S. was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor and then took appropriate action in everything it did to defend itself. But in marketing war to its citizenry, there were words used and characterizations made of the Japanese people that were over the line. We could have “sold” the war in the Pacific based on the horrible reality of the sneak attack without demonizing everyone of a particular race and culture. The same thing is true of the wars in Vietnam and Korea where other offensive terms and characterizations were used.
Today, we’ve gone in the exact opposite direction. The United States and, in fact most of the world, is at war with a fundamentalist form of Islam yet we are afraid to mention the true nature of the enemy. This does not mean that we have to use terms for Muslims that are comparable to words used in the past for the Japanese, Vietnamese or Koreans. At the same time, however, we can’t pretend that reality is something other than what it is. The threat of terrorism is real and won’t go away by pretending it doesn’t exist or by calling it by a different name.
It’s amazing how some things in society are considered taboo while others are acceptable. It’s even more amazing how what is taboo and acceptable changes over time. An old episode of the television show I Love Lucy had to show a husband and wife in different beds; it couldn’t even use the word “pregnant” on the air. Yet just about everyone, men and women alike were always smoking cigarettes! Today, you’ll see women kissing women on prime time TV, sexual innuendo all over the place but they won’t dare show someone smoking a cigarette! These are two distinctly different societies -- one society smokes like chimneys calling people of different races bad names while no one anywhere in the world has ever had sex. The other society has so many rules regarding how to speak about different cultures that they are afraid to say anything but they are all having sex with each other.
Language is a reflection of the society. Watch an old movie from the 30’s and you are likely to hear the coolest character in the film say something such as “That’s swell!” As the language gets updated and revised, so do the customs. Usually started by the younger generation in revolt of some perceived wrong, they feel the need to be different. They may grow their hair long and wear psychedelic colored clothes or they may wear 20 gold chains and polyester suits. They may wear baggy jeans (see dungarees) that reveal the boxer shorts within or they may have tattoos and piercings all over their body. Perhaps it’s a midriff shirt worn at just the right length to reveal the tattoo on the back. And when, exactly, did butt cracks become a statement of style? I guess it depends on whose butt crack it is, to answer my own question.
Every generation thinks it knows better than the previous one. Eventually, the customs of every generation fade away and give in to newer ones. Each generation laughs at previous generations thinking that they, the current generation, are the coolest, the smartest, and the most aware. They are always laughed at by the generation coming up behind them. The cycle never ends. The generation that has been replaced is permanently memorialized in the books, in the movies and in the music that it has produced.
When history is looked at objectively, some generations face more problems than others. Some react differently, causing either good or harm. As time passes, it is important to understand that each generation has a responsibility, at the end of the day (Argghhh!), to understand that it is not as unique as it thinks it is. For this reason, it is important that no generation of people leave such a legacy that future generations lose the ability to laugh at the previous one. No single generation should have so much importance as to limit what the following generation can or can’t accomplish. Each generation should have an equal chance to be just as stupid and annoying as the previous one.
While there are things to be laughed at in each generation, there are also things that each generation adds to our society. It is important to take the good out of every generation. It is in this way that we gain accumulated knowledge and wisdom. By taking the best out of every generation and understanding that the current generation will always be limited by issues of a particular time, we can continue to grow as a country or as a society. We need to learn from history, rather than abandon it or label it as “old fashioned”. In a sense, this idea of understanding that the present is always clouded by the moirés, fashions, styles, and biases of any particular time and that the past is something to be respected is the definition of conservatism.
The founding fathers, whom recent generations would label as dead white males, understood that everything had to be balanced. They brilliantly balanced the power of states to the federal government, the power of the legislative branch vs. the power of the executive and the judicial branches. What is lesser known is how they knew to balance the whims of one generation against the proven successes and failures of previous generations. This is why the constitution makes it difficult to change or amend a law or a bill. The framers of the constitution recognized that the perceived needs of any present time may not always be in the best interests of future generations.
In Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on January 28, 2010, he said the following:
"if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, a supermajority, then the responsibility to govern is now yours, as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions."
In saying this, President Obama showed that he either doesn’t understand the constitution or that he doesn’t respect the constitution. He has his logic completely backwards. The framers wanted to make the process difficult so that if a law was changed or created, it would have to be something that transcended the ambitions of any individuals. It is precisely that reason why the framers made it so that 60 votes are required. Barack Obama was trying to criticize the Republicans but he was actually criticizing the constitution, itself. In effect, it is his own ambitions that he is putting ahead of the constitution. It was precisely for this type of person that the framers made it so that 60 votes would be necessary!
Ralph Waldo Emerson once said “All times are good times if we but knew how to use them.” We obviously haven’t always used our times in the best ways. There have been times of fear and insanity where people have rationalized absolute evils such as slavery and mass extermination. Other times have shown incredible innovation, ingenuity and kindness. Because at any given time, the way people perceive reality can change, it is important to keep the present in perspective to the known successes and failures of the past. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the current United States administration. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid all think they are bigger than anything that came before them and that is a recipe for disaster.
In a recent controversy, Tom Hanks spoke about United States racism during World War II. Most of the time, when actors get involved in political issues, they show how uninformed they are of the real world outside of a Hollywood film set. However, in this case Tom Hanks has a point. The U.S. was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor and then took appropriate action in everything it did to defend itself. But in marketing war to its citizenry, there were words used and characterizations made of the Japanese people that were over the line. We could have “sold” the war in the Pacific based on the horrible reality of the sneak attack without demonizing everyone of a particular race and culture. The same thing is true of the wars in Vietnam and Korea where other offensive terms and characterizations were used.
Today, we’ve gone in the exact opposite direction. The United States and, in fact most of the world, is at war with a fundamentalist form of Islam yet we are afraid to mention the true nature of the enemy. This does not mean that we have to use terms for Muslims that are comparable to words used in the past for the Japanese, Vietnamese or Koreans. At the same time, however, we can’t pretend that reality is something other than what it is. The threat of terrorism is real and won’t go away by pretending it doesn’t exist or by calling it by a different name.
It’s amazing how some things in society are considered taboo while others are acceptable. It’s even more amazing how what is taboo and acceptable changes over time. An old episode of the television show I Love Lucy had to show a husband and wife in different beds; it couldn’t even use the word “pregnant” on the air. Yet just about everyone, men and women alike were always smoking cigarettes! Today, you’ll see women kissing women on prime time TV, sexual innuendo all over the place but they won’t dare show someone smoking a cigarette! These are two distinctly different societies -- one society smokes like chimneys calling people of different races bad names while no one anywhere in the world has ever had sex. The other society has so many rules regarding how to speak about different cultures that they are afraid to say anything but they are all having sex with each other.
Language is a reflection of the society. Watch an old movie from the 30’s and you are likely to hear the coolest character in the film say something such as “That’s swell!” As the language gets updated and revised, so do the customs. Usually started by the younger generation in revolt of some perceived wrong, they feel the need to be different. They may grow their hair long and wear psychedelic colored clothes or they may wear 20 gold chains and polyester suits. They may wear baggy jeans (see dungarees) that reveal the boxer shorts within or they may have tattoos and piercings all over their body. Perhaps it’s a midriff shirt worn at just the right length to reveal the tattoo on the back. And when, exactly, did butt cracks become a statement of style? I guess it depends on whose butt crack it is, to answer my own question.
Every generation thinks it knows better than the previous one. Eventually, the customs of every generation fade away and give in to newer ones. Each generation laughs at previous generations thinking that they, the current generation, are the coolest, the smartest, and the most aware. They are always laughed at by the generation coming up behind them. The cycle never ends. The generation that has been replaced is permanently memorialized in the books, in the movies and in the music that it has produced.
When history is looked at objectively, some generations face more problems than others. Some react differently, causing either good or harm. As time passes, it is important to understand that each generation has a responsibility, at the end of the day (Argghhh!), to understand that it is not as unique as it thinks it is. For this reason, it is important that no generation of people leave such a legacy that future generations lose the ability to laugh at the previous one. No single generation should have so much importance as to limit what the following generation can or can’t accomplish. Each generation should have an equal chance to be just as stupid and annoying as the previous one.
While there are things to be laughed at in each generation, there are also things that each generation adds to our society. It is important to take the good out of every generation. It is in this way that we gain accumulated knowledge and wisdom. By taking the best out of every generation and understanding that the current generation will always be limited by issues of a particular time, we can continue to grow as a country or as a society. We need to learn from history, rather than abandon it or label it as “old fashioned”. In a sense, this idea of understanding that the present is always clouded by the moirés, fashions, styles, and biases of any particular time and that the past is something to be respected is the definition of conservatism.
The founding fathers, whom recent generations would label as dead white males, understood that everything had to be balanced. They brilliantly balanced the power of states to the federal government, the power of the legislative branch vs. the power of the executive and the judicial branches. What is lesser known is how they knew to balance the whims of one generation against the proven successes and failures of previous generations. This is why the constitution makes it difficult to change or amend a law or a bill. The framers of the constitution recognized that the perceived needs of any present time may not always be in the best interests of future generations.
In Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on January 28, 2010, he said the following:
"if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, a supermajority, then the responsibility to govern is now yours, as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions."
In saying this, President Obama showed that he either doesn’t understand the constitution or that he doesn’t respect the constitution. He has his logic completely backwards. The framers wanted to make the process difficult so that if a law was changed or created, it would have to be something that transcended the ambitions of any individuals. It is precisely that reason why the framers made it so that 60 votes are required. Barack Obama was trying to criticize the Republicans but he was actually criticizing the constitution, itself. In effect, it is his own ambitions that he is putting ahead of the constitution. It was precisely for this type of person that the framers made it so that 60 votes would be necessary!
Ralph Waldo Emerson once said “All times are good times if we but knew how to use them.” We obviously haven’t always used our times in the best ways. There have been times of fear and insanity where people have rationalized absolute evils such as slavery and mass extermination. Other times have shown incredible innovation, ingenuity and kindness. Because at any given time, the way people perceive reality can change, it is important to keep the present in perspective to the known successes and failures of the past. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the current United States administration. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid all think they are bigger than anything that came before them and that is a recipe for disaster.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A Letter To The President
Hi Barack,
You don’t mind if I call you Barack, do you? In the recent healthcare summit, you referred to all the Senators by their first names so I thought it would be appropriate here, considering that a little over a year ago, you were just a simple Senator yourself.
Barack, you keep reminding everyone that you won the election. The fact that you won the election should be demonstrated by your deeds and actions. We know you’re the President. We get that already. Whether a President, a corporate exec, or the manager of a baseball team, a good leader doesn’t need to remind people of what his position is. If your leadership was profound and strong, you wouldn’t need to constantly, and quite frankly a bit obnoxiously, bring up that you are the president. I can’t imagine Vince Lombardi reminding the Green Bay Packers that he was their coach. That group of football players knew who their coach was and they respected him for who he was as a person, not for the position he held.
Saying that you are the president doesn’t give you the respect that goes with the position. That has to be earned. The election was only the interview. Now you’ve got to start working and I have a number of concerns. Let’s start with your answer to Senator McCain in the healthcare summit. Again, you pointed out for the umpteenth time that the election was over. Senator McCain pointed out that you misrepresented yourself on your ‘job application’. You said you’d put the health care debates on C-Span. You said this eight times and not as mere passing references. You went into great detail about how you were going to do this and haven’t explained why you didn’t. When a job applicant says he can or will do a task and then either doesn’t do it or is incapable of doing it, I find it a reason for dismissal, unless I can get a reasonable explanation. A reasonable explanation is not for the job applicant to tell me; “You hired me, I’m the new Analyst. I got the job”. “Wrong” I would tell him, “you HAD the job.”
Barack, I’ve heard you and your representatives say that your election was a mandate on the policies that you are proposing. If you were so proud and confident that your policies were what the people wanted, then why weren’t you up front with the people BEFORE you got elected? For example, if you said that you would propose additional spending that would put the projected deficit at 20 times that which you inherited from Bush; do you think you would have gotten elected? If you said that you planned on bringing terrorists to trial in civilian courts, do you think you would have gotten elected? If you brought out the 2,700 page monstrosity of health care “reform” before the election do you think you would have gotten elected? Incidentally, just as an aside, you could do some good work for the environment if you’d stop printing all these health care plans! If you won’t consider the will of the people, please consider the trees! If you told the people before the election that you would take over banks and car companies do you think you would have gotten elected? If you told people that you would traipse around the world apologizing for the things that most of us think make our country great, do you think you would have gotten elected?
My point in bringing these things up Barack, is that if you’re going to point out that your election gives you carte blanche to do whatever you want, then I think it’s important to point out back to you that your election was NOT a mandate to do the things you are trying to do. People did not vote for you to do these things. You didn’t campaign on doing these things so how can you now say that you have a mandate to do these things?
You drive me crazy Barack. The thing that bothers me most is that I don’t feel that you have a lot of respect for the American people. Yes you won the election with 52% of the votes but many of those were votes you wouldn’t have gotten if people actually knew what they were getting. What makes this worse, though, is that you have the chutzpa to talk about the 52% of these votes as some kind of mandate but are willing to outright dismiss polls which show that 60% to 70% of the American people are against your healthcare proposal. Those people are, apparently, too stupid to understand your brilliant plan. So when 52% of the people vote for you, based on misleading information, that is a mandate but when 60% or 70% of the people vote against your plan, that is a matter of them not understanding your plan?
Look Barack, you and I both know what’s going on here. The last thing you want is for people to “understand” your plan for healthcare. That’s why you tried to push it through in August before anyone even had a chance to read the 2,000+ page monstrosity. You said that it had to be passed right away or there would be dire consequences. Well, it’s seven months later and there aren’t any dire consequences. In fact, the health care in the United States, with all its faults, is still the best in the world. There are far more important things to concern ourselves with. This is your priority, it is not the priority of the country but that doesn’t seem to concern you.
In fact, Barack, when you say that you haven’t “explained” or “communicated” your plan well enough, what you are really saying is that you haven’t been able to misrepresent your plan well enough. The excessive costs of the plan, the health care rationing, putting choices in the hands of government rather than in the hands of individuals and doctors, the back room shady deals; all of this is an embarrassment to your administration but you want to try to paint the people who see your plan for the catastrophe that it is as being too dumb to understand it. I know that this is a tactic of one of your heroes, Saul Alinsky. Your idea is to make the radical seem main stream and to criticize and attack those who are against it as the radicals.
It’s not working Barack. Your purported eloquence has been overshadowed by your actual arrogance. Your speeches are, quite frankly, boring. The only people still excited by your rhetoric are Chris Matthews and the six people that watch his show. What really ticks me off is when you, Reid, and Pelosi talk about getting this done for the American people when it is the American people who keep telling you that they don’t WANT this!
I guess you’re going to try to push this through no matter what. I know you’re not stupid Barack. You’ve become boring and predictable, but you’re not stupid. You have an agenda which is obvious by the crowd you’ve always hung out with. You’ve put your agenda above what the people want and above the good of the country. You try to present yourself as someone who will listen to the other side but at your health care summit, you cut people off the moment that they brought up points that conflicted any of your own.
Barack, you can’t cut off the voice of the American people the way you tried to cut off the voice of people against your health care plan at that summit. You are not the King of the United States, although you may think you are. You are the top representative of the American people and you must answer to the American people, not the other way around. The people have seen you for what you are Barack, and they don’t like what they are seeing. I’m insulted to have a president who thinks so little of the American people that he is willing to so completely disregard their will.
So in closing Barack, I know you are not going to change. You are driven by your agenda as you always have been, but as you said yourself; “That’s what elections are for”. I just hope that by the time we throw you, Reid, and Pelosi out of office, that you haven’t created a hole that is too deep to climb out of.
You don’t mind if I call you Barack, do you? In the recent healthcare summit, you referred to all the Senators by their first names so I thought it would be appropriate here, considering that a little over a year ago, you were just a simple Senator yourself.
Barack, you keep reminding everyone that you won the election. The fact that you won the election should be demonstrated by your deeds and actions. We know you’re the President. We get that already. Whether a President, a corporate exec, or the manager of a baseball team, a good leader doesn’t need to remind people of what his position is. If your leadership was profound and strong, you wouldn’t need to constantly, and quite frankly a bit obnoxiously, bring up that you are the president. I can’t imagine Vince Lombardi reminding the Green Bay Packers that he was their coach. That group of football players knew who their coach was and they respected him for who he was as a person, not for the position he held.
Saying that you are the president doesn’t give you the respect that goes with the position. That has to be earned. The election was only the interview. Now you’ve got to start working and I have a number of concerns. Let’s start with your answer to Senator McCain in the healthcare summit. Again, you pointed out for the umpteenth time that the election was over. Senator McCain pointed out that you misrepresented yourself on your ‘job application’. You said you’d put the health care debates on C-Span. You said this eight times and not as mere passing references. You went into great detail about how you were going to do this and haven’t explained why you didn’t. When a job applicant says he can or will do a task and then either doesn’t do it or is incapable of doing it, I find it a reason for dismissal, unless I can get a reasonable explanation. A reasonable explanation is not for the job applicant to tell me; “You hired me, I’m the new Analyst. I got the job”. “Wrong” I would tell him, “you HAD the job.”
Barack, I’ve heard you and your representatives say that your election was a mandate on the policies that you are proposing. If you were so proud and confident that your policies were what the people wanted, then why weren’t you up front with the people BEFORE you got elected? For example, if you said that you would propose additional spending that would put the projected deficit at 20 times that which you inherited from Bush; do you think you would have gotten elected? If you said that you planned on bringing terrorists to trial in civilian courts, do you think you would have gotten elected? If you brought out the 2,700 page monstrosity of health care “reform” before the election do you think you would have gotten elected? Incidentally, just as an aside, you could do some good work for the environment if you’d stop printing all these health care plans! If you won’t consider the will of the people, please consider the trees! If you told the people before the election that you would take over banks and car companies do you think you would have gotten elected? If you told people that you would traipse around the world apologizing for the things that most of us think make our country great, do you think you would have gotten elected?
My point in bringing these things up Barack, is that if you’re going to point out that your election gives you carte blanche to do whatever you want, then I think it’s important to point out back to you that your election was NOT a mandate to do the things you are trying to do. People did not vote for you to do these things. You didn’t campaign on doing these things so how can you now say that you have a mandate to do these things?
You drive me crazy Barack. The thing that bothers me most is that I don’t feel that you have a lot of respect for the American people. Yes you won the election with 52% of the votes but many of those were votes you wouldn’t have gotten if people actually knew what they were getting. What makes this worse, though, is that you have the chutzpa to talk about the 52% of these votes as some kind of mandate but are willing to outright dismiss polls which show that 60% to 70% of the American people are against your healthcare proposal. Those people are, apparently, too stupid to understand your brilliant plan. So when 52% of the people vote for you, based on misleading information, that is a mandate but when 60% or 70% of the people vote against your plan, that is a matter of them not understanding your plan?
Look Barack, you and I both know what’s going on here. The last thing you want is for people to “understand” your plan for healthcare. That’s why you tried to push it through in August before anyone even had a chance to read the 2,000+ page monstrosity. You said that it had to be passed right away or there would be dire consequences. Well, it’s seven months later and there aren’t any dire consequences. In fact, the health care in the United States, with all its faults, is still the best in the world. There are far more important things to concern ourselves with. This is your priority, it is not the priority of the country but that doesn’t seem to concern you.
In fact, Barack, when you say that you haven’t “explained” or “communicated” your plan well enough, what you are really saying is that you haven’t been able to misrepresent your plan well enough. The excessive costs of the plan, the health care rationing, putting choices in the hands of government rather than in the hands of individuals and doctors, the back room shady deals; all of this is an embarrassment to your administration but you want to try to paint the people who see your plan for the catastrophe that it is as being too dumb to understand it. I know that this is a tactic of one of your heroes, Saul Alinsky. Your idea is to make the radical seem main stream and to criticize and attack those who are against it as the radicals.
It’s not working Barack. Your purported eloquence has been overshadowed by your actual arrogance. Your speeches are, quite frankly, boring. The only people still excited by your rhetoric are Chris Matthews and the six people that watch his show. What really ticks me off is when you, Reid, and Pelosi talk about getting this done for the American people when it is the American people who keep telling you that they don’t WANT this!
I guess you’re going to try to push this through no matter what. I know you’re not stupid Barack. You’ve become boring and predictable, but you’re not stupid. You have an agenda which is obvious by the crowd you’ve always hung out with. You’ve put your agenda above what the people want and above the good of the country. You try to present yourself as someone who will listen to the other side but at your health care summit, you cut people off the moment that they brought up points that conflicted any of your own.
Barack, you can’t cut off the voice of the American people the way you tried to cut off the voice of people against your health care plan at that summit. You are not the King of the United States, although you may think you are. You are the top representative of the American people and you must answer to the American people, not the other way around. The people have seen you for what you are Barack, and they don’t like what they are seeing. I’m insulted to have a president who thinks so little of the American people that he is willing to so completely disregard their will.
So in closing Barack, I know you are not going to change. You are driven by your agenda as you always have been, but as you said yourself; “That’s what elections are for”. I just hope that by the time we throw you, Reid, and Pelosi out of office, that you haven’t created a hole that is too deep to climb out of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)