I love the movie "A Few Good Men." One of the best parts of the movie is the exchange between Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson near the end of the movie. I think most of you know the one I'm talking about, but here it is just in case:
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to...
Col. Jessep: You want answers?!!!
Kaffee: I want the truth!!!
Col. Jessep: You can't handle the truth!
This is how I feel today after spending a few minutes reading up on the political news of the day. Some of the major news outlets are covering the ongoing questions over the Obama Administration's response to the Benghazi Terrorist attacks. These same news outlets are also covering the fact that the IRS was targeting right leaning political non-profit groups for "extra scrutiny". And now today we have the news that the Justice Department seized and unprecedented number phone records from the AP as part of an on-going investigation into security leaks.
Predictably, those on the left are either stating that these "scandals" are much ado about nothing, or they are trying to deflect attention from these issues by pointing out that the House Republicans just voted to end overtime pay. This opinion piece from CBS News charts the typical response from the left today. In fact, the following from this opinion piece gets to the crux of the issue for the writer. "These twin controversies will spur more congressional hearings. That, in turn, means months more of disclosures, rabbit holes, and partisan attacks. For many liberals, this is the obvious point of the politically motivated Benghazi inquiries: to pin the president down and leave him ineffective."
Personally, I don't view the Benghazi inquiries and purely political. Four Americans died and some of us want to know the truth of what happened and was the more our elected leaders could have or should have done. We need to learn from tragedy so it doesn't repeat.
But that's not what this blog is about. This blog is about truth. The writer of that opinion piece is not interested in the truth of what happened. He is more interested in the political spin and defending his side. This is the problem with the truth...it can often be ugly, and often for the "side" you support. For those on the left, you would have been up in arms had a Republican administration acted this way, but you want it ignored when it's your guy in there. For those on the right who are happy that this is going on, you better be okay with an investigation when (or if) your side ever wins an election and does something stupid.
The truth is rarely easy to face. That's why we lie to each other and accept lies so willingly. Facing the truth means confronting our own ugliness and our own mistakes. It means making difficult, life changing, and frequently unpopular decisions. But, when we have the truth and we are prepared to accept it, it is liberating. For me, accepting the truth that both the right and the left in this country are in this for political gain was freeing. I was no longer beholden to one side or one ideology. Granted, I'm still a conservative, but I recognize that the Republicans aren't all good and the Democrats aren't all bad, and that both parties are capable of screwing up royally. And when they do, Democrat or Republican, we need to know about it...the whole ugly truth.
To borrow from "A Few Good Men", I know I can handle the truth. Can you?
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, May 13, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Reform We Actually Need
I've seen a lot of my friends posting on Facebook over the last 24 hours or so in an outrage that the Senate blocked the passage of the gun control reform bill. This bill, among other things, increased the scrutiny on background checks for prospective gun buyers.
Now before I go further, let me state that I am not a gun owner, nor do I plan to own a gun. There's no reason for me to have one. But, I do respect the rights of those who want to own a gun, whether it be for hunting purposes, hobby shooting, or for a greater sense of security. I agree with the provision in the 2nd Amendment to Keep and Bear Arms. I believe that an armed public is a great deterrent to a tyrannical government.
I think we can all agree that the Newtown, CT tragedy was the event that spurred this current gun debate. I believe this tragedy was more a failure of our society to recognize and treat mental illness than it was a failure of gun control. From all accounts, Adam Lanza's mother was a law abiding citizen that had every right to own a firearm. I am not convinced that any stricter gun control laws would have prevented the Newtown tragedy. Further, as the Boston marathon bombing proves, crazy people will find ways to murder and wound people without guns.
On Wednesday, Chuck Grassley (R - IA) and Ted Cruz (R - TX) introduced an alternative to the gun legislation. You probably haven't heard about this, because it doesn't fit the liberal agenda talking point of restricting gun ownership. Instead, this law makes it easier for law abiding citizens to get guns, while providing funding for stronger prosecution of criminals who attempt to buy a gun and fail the background check. This bill also provides for more assistant U.S Attorneys and more ATF agents. Most importantly, this bill provides funding for resources devoted to the mentally ill and funding for schools to spend on safety measures.
So, we have a bill that directly addresses what happened in Newtown, CT, and this bill will never see the light of day in the Senate because it doesn't include stricter gun control measures. This is the most clear evidence that those pushing the failed Senate bill were never in this to address what happened in Newtown. They simply used that event as the catalyst to push for something that has been on the liberal agenda for a long time, stricter gun control laws.
We have an autistic child who occasionally has a violent outburst. We have been fortunate to be able to get really good help for our son and he is doing great! But I know what a struggle it is to have a child that has a mental illness. I know the stigma that can come with this, such as the stares from other adults when your seemingly "normal" kid has an outburst in the grocery store. To make it worse, some educators and other parents who don't believe in "special needs" feel compelled to tell you why you've failed as a parent, and that if you were just "stricter and more disciplined" your child would be "normal".
A real movement could have begun to start to get people with mental disorders the help they need! Further, this could have removed the stigma that comes with a mental disorder by educating the public. Instead, those elected to lead us chose to make this a political fight and ignored the real issues that continue to cause these tragic events in our society. That is the secondary tragedy in all of this.
Now before I go further, let me state that I am not a gun owner, nor do I plan to own a gun. There's no reason for me to have one. But, I do respect the rights of those who want to own a gun, whether it be for hunting purposes, hobby shooting, or for a greater sense of security. I agree with the provision in the 2nd Amendment to Keep and Bear Arms. I believe that an armed public is a great deterrent to a tyrannical government.
I think we can all agree that the Newtown, CT tragedy was the event that spurred this current gun debate. I believe this tragedy was more a failure of our society to recognize and treat mental illness than it was a failure of gun control. From all accounts, Adam Lanza's mother was a law abiding citizen that had every right to own a firearm. I am not convinced that any stricter gun control laws would have prevented the Newtown tragedy. Further, as the Boston marathon bombing proves, crazy people will find ways to murder and wound people without guns.
On Wednesday, Chuck Grassley (R - IA) and Ted Cruz (R - TX) introduced an alternative to the gun legislation. You probably haven't heard about this, because it doesn't fit the liberal agenda talking point of restricting gun ownership. Instead, this law makes it easier for law abiding citizens to get guns, while providing funding for stronger prosecution of criminals who attempt to buy a gun and fail the background check. This bill also provides for more assistant U.S Attorneys and more ATF agents. Most importantly, this bill provides funding for resources devoted to the mentally ill and funding for schools to spend on safety measures.
So, we have a bill that directly addresses what happened in Newtown, CT, and this bill will never see the light of day in the Senate because it doesn't include stricter gun control measures. This is the most clear evidence that those pushing the failed Senate bill were never in this to address what happened in Newtown. They simply used that event as the catalyst to push for something that has been on the liberal agenda for a long time, stricter gun control laws.
We have an autistic child who occasionally has a violent outburst. We have been fortunate to be able to get really good help for our son and he is doing great! But I know what a struggle it is to have a child that has a mental illness. I know the stigma that can come with this, such as the stares from other adults when your seemingly "normal" kid has an outburst in the grocery store. To make it worse, some educators and other parents who don't believe in "special needs" feel compelled to tell you why you've failed as a parent, and that if you were just "stricter and more disciplined" your child would be "normal".
A real movement could have begun to start to get people with mental disorders the help they need! Further, this could have removed the stigma that comes with a mental disorder by educating the public. Instead, those elected to lead us chose to make this a political fight and ignored the real issues that continue to cause these tragic events in our society. That is the secondary tragedy in all of this.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
President Obama's To Do List
I have recently come to possess a copy of an essay written by a young Barack Obama . I thought I'd share it here. It's written in the form of a problem statement, followed by his solution:
What I would do if I were President, by Barry Obama:
Problem: The First Amendment. It reads:
"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."
Solution: Destroy religious freedom by passing a health care law that forces Christians to go against their very core beliefs. To discourage religion, belittle those who openly practice religion. Use the term "bitter clingers" to describe these folks.
Problem: The Second Amendment. It reads:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Solution: Take advantage of a national tragedy to force gun control legislation and executive orders down the throats of law abiding Americans, while ignoring any other possible reasons for the tragedy.
...
Ok, you get the idea. It goes on and on to talk about growing the powers of the Executive Branch through the appointment of Czars and the unprecedented use of Executive Orders. It talks about gaining control of the courts by appointing liberal, idealist judges that are willing to ignore the law and just make it up as they go along. There's a particularly long and boring part of taxing the crap out of "the rich" to ensure "fairness". He also talks about borrowing unprecedented sums of money to fund programs that will make "his subjects totally dependent on his regime" (his words, not mine).
His teacher gave him an F and recommended he see the school counselor to address his "issues". I wonder if he ever talked to that school counselor???
What I would do if I were President, by Barry Obama:
Problem: The First Amendment. It reads:
"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."
Solution: Destroy religious freedom by passing a health care law that forces Christians to go against their very core beliefs. To discourage religion, belittle those who openly practice religion. Use the term "bitter clingers" to describe these folks.
Problem: The Second Amendment. It reads:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Solution: Take advantage of a national tragedy to force gun control legislation and executive orders down the throats of law abiding Americans, while ignoring any other possible reasons for the tragedy.
...
Ok, you get the idea. It goes on and on to talk about growing the powers of the Executive Branch through the appointment of Czars and the unprecedented use of Executive Orders. It talks about gaining control of the courts by appointing liberal, idealist judges that are willing to ignore the law and just make it up as they go along. There's a particularly long and boring part of taxing the crap out of "the rich" to ensure "fairness". He also talks about borrowing unprecedented sums of money to fund programs that will make "his subjects totally dependent on his regime" (his words, not mine).
His teacher gave him an F and recommended he see the school counselor to address his "issues". I wonder if he ever talked to that school counselor???
Monday, December 31, 2012
Fiscal Cliff - This is Absurd!
I haven't taken to this blog for politics in quite a while, but I decided it's time to do so today, as we edge closer to the so called "fiscal cliff". If the Congress can't reach a deal today, mandatory tax increases and spending cuts will go into effect tomorrow, affecting every American. I've followed the debate and have come to the conclusion that this entire thing is just absurd.
First off, the only reason we've reached this point is because our Congress couldn't agree on a deficit reduction deal after the Simpson-Bowles committee made their recommendations. So, they kicked the can down the road, and here we are. The fact that our elected leaders can't ever compromise and figure anything out is completely absurd! This is why we need term limits. Our leaders are so concerned about protecting their power and getting re-elected that they are paralyzed when it comes to taking action. Seriously, give me a team of 5 people and we could fix this...it would be painful, but we could fix it. It's just a math problem, there's always a solution.
Secondly, make no mistake the entire debate going on right now is about nothing more than raising taxes on those making over $250,000 (or maybe it's $450,000 depending on the day) per year. Sure, our so-called leaders are paying lip service to spending cuts and unemployment benefits, but this all comes down to tax cuts. President Obama and the Democrats are willing to drive us over the fiscal cliff to get their precious tax increases on the "wealthy". Obama and the Dems are confident they can go down this path because they know the left-wing media will paint the Republicans as villains for wanting to protect tax rates for "the rich", while sacrificing the middle and lower incomes. And, sadly, Obama and the Dems are right, this is exactly what the media will do.
Now, the Republicans are far from perfect, and I think they are being stupid right now. Even though I'm completely against tax increases without meaningful spending reforms, the Republicans have to give in on this one. Obama is going to get his tax increases one way or the other. That's the key point in all of this...Obama gets what he wants whether or not Congress comes to an agreement here. No matter what happens today, Obama will get the higher taxes on the rich he campaigned on! To me, that's the biggest story here. For someone who claims he cares about the middle class, Obama seems more than willing to play chicken with middle class taxes to get his coveted tax increases.
This is the ugly truth about this President and his left-wing cronies that no one in the main stream media will say. At the end of the day, President Obama cares more about advancing his Socialist agenda than he does about protecting the "middle class". The "agenda" is more important than the people this agenda will hurt.
The Republicans are not blameless in this. They should have realized this by now and acted. With the fawning left-wing media, there's no way the Republicans come out of this looking good, but they should have the guts to act and do what is right for most Americans. We do not need a tax increase in this economy...not unless it's accompanied by meaningful spending reform, which it most certainly will not be at this point. But the Republicans can't win here.
Frankly, the Republicans shouldn't even be afraid to take this loss. If you believe in the conservative economic theories, any tax increase at this point, even if it's just on "the rich", will result in some type of economic down turn. So, if the Republicans just get out of the way and let this go through, then Obama and the Democrats have to own the consequences of this action, which I believe will be another recession. Make no mistake, the next recession will be Obama's recession. And that should lead the way to a Conservative revolution in 2014 and 2016. The Republicans have to think long term here, because in the short term, they are going to lose.
First off, the only reason we've reached this point is because our Congress couldn't agree on a deficit reduction deal after the Simpson-Bowles committee made their recommendations. So, they kicked the can down the road, and here we are. The fact that our elected leaders can't ever compromise and figure anything out is completely absurd! This is why we need term limits. Our leaders are so concerned about protecting their power and getting re-elected that they are paralyzed when it comes to taking action. Seriously, give me a team of 5 people and we could fix this...it would be painful, but we could fix it. It's just a math problem, there's always a solution.
Secondly, make no mistake the entire debate going on right now is about nothing more than raising taxes on those making over $250,000 (or maybe it's $450,000 depending on the day) per year. Sure, our so-called leaders are paying lip service to spending cuts and unemployment benefits, but this all comes down to tax cuts. President Obama and the Democrats are willing to drive us over the fiscal cliff to get their precious tax increases on the "wealthy". Obama and the Dems are confident they can go down this path because they know the left-wing media will paint the Republicans as villains for wanting to protect tax rates for "the rich", while sacrificing the middle and lower incomes. And, sadly, Obama and the Dems are right, this is exactly what the media will do.
Now, the Republicans are far from perfect, and I think they are being stupid right now. Even though I'm completely against tax increases without meaningful spending reforms, the Republicans have to give in on this one. Obama is going to get his tax increases one way or the other. That's the key point in all of this...Obama gets what he wants whether or not Congress comes to an agreement here. No matter what happens today, Obama will get the higher taxes on the rich he campaigned on! To me, that's the biggest story here. For someone who claims he cares about the middle class, Obama seems more than willing to play chicken with middle class taxes to get his coveted tax increases.
This is the ugly truth about this President and his left-wing cronies that no one in the main stream media will say. At the end of the day, President Obama cares more about advancing his Socialist agenda than he does about protecting the "middle class". The "agenda" is more important than the people this agenda will hurt.
The Republicans are not blameless in this. They should have realized this by now and acted. With the fawning left-wing media, there's no way the Republicans come out of this looking good, but they should have the guts to act and do what is right for most Americans. We do not need a tax increase in this economy...not unless it's accompanied by meaningful spending reform, which it most certainly will not be at this point. But the Republicans can't win here.
Frankly, the Republicans shouldn't even be afraid to take this loss. If you believe in the conservative economic theories, any tax increase at this point, even if it's just on "the rich", will result in some type of economic down turn. So, if the Republicans just get out of the way and let this go through, then Obama and the Democrats have to own the consequences of this action, which I believe will be another recession. Make no mistake, the next recession will be Obama's recession. And that should lead the way to a Conservative revolution in 2014 and 2016. The Republicans have to think long term here, because in the short term, they are going to lose.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Let's Just Stop and Think About This
So, I was playing Sudoku while watching Wheel of Fortune on NBC, mainly just to kill time until the Olympics started. During one of the commercial breaks, I saw a brand new ad by President Obama. In this ad, the voice over guy is saying that Mitt Romney only paid 14% in taxes on his $20 million dollar income in 2010 and that this is likely less than you pay. The ad goes on to say that Romney wants to give tax breaks to millionaires while taxing you more.
There is so much in here. First, Obama and his team are again playing the "class card" pitting us "commoners" against the "elites." Further, while this ad is not wrong, it's somewhat misleading. A quick google search uncovered this article from the Tuscon Sentinel. First if you look at strictly income tax, the ad is a lie...only 3% of the population pays a higher income tax rate than Mitt Romney. However, if you include payroll taxes, then the ad is correct, as most of Romney's income is from dividends and capital gains, so he doesn't pay the typical payroll taxes that most people do pay. Also, in fairness, Mitt Romney does pay a lower tax rate than most people at his income level, largely due to the fact that he donates a significant portion of his income to charity.
Finally, the ad concludes with the point that Romney's tax policy as currently stated will eventually have to result in tax increases on the middle class, but doesn't explain why. Again, a little digging on google is required, but you can quickly find out that a report by the Tax Policy Center determined that Romney would have to eliminate certain tax breaks that middle class families rely on in order to 1) reduce income tax rates across the board and 2) remain revenue neutral. Most of the media is reporting this as positive for Obama, but again, a little googling and you can find that Romney's plan isn't specific enough to really draw the conclusions that were drawn. Forbes has a nice article on this that I think is somewhat fair, though I'll admit Forbes is typically right leaning.
Ok, this is gonna be a long blog, because it took all that background to get to my main point. The President's point in this ad is obviously to get you 1) mad that Romney pays less in taxes than you (again, debatable) and 2) fearful that Romney's policies will result in higher taxes on you. Frankly, the President is doing you and I, all of us really, a disservice by this type of campaigning. In fairness the Romney camp is doing the same thing with some of their advertising, but given that I am conservative, Obama's ads tend to get my ire up more so I'm focusing on this ad. There are so many conversations we should be having based on the material just in this ad, but both parties have decided that we're too stupid or lack the attention span to hold these conversations.
Here are two examples of real policy debates we should be having based solely on the material in this political ad:
1) Is it right to tax investment income at a lower rate than earned income? That's contributing to Romney's tax rate being so low. I think that would be a good debate to have in the country.
2) Our tax code is screwed up. Who among us wouldn't do what Romney does and take all the deductions possible? We all do it...leaving money on the table is not smart, especially in this economy. How are we gonna fix the tax code to make it more simple and more fair? That's a debate some have tried to have in the past and they get vilified...see Steve Forbes and the flat tax.
Sadly folks, we've brought this upon ourselves. We've become a generation of sound bytes. If you can't get it in 10 seconds, it's not worth it. Both candidates for President are just campaigning to us in the way that is most effective, and that's a sad commentary on the state of our society.
We can change this though, and we have to start now, because I believe our nation is on the precipice. My personal belief is that if we tip one way, we go the way or Western European Socialism, but if we tip the other way, we can recapture what has made the United States the greatest nation in the history of the world. But, we can only do this if we get informed and start thinking about these issues.
How can we do this? Well, here's what has worked in my life. First off, stop listening to or reading only one news source. I had to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, as all it did was made me mad at the other side and being angry prevented my from thinking about what it is I really believe. Turns out, I believe most of what Limbaugh spouts, but now that I don't listen, I'm capable of articulating it in my own words. I've also started reading multiple news sources, especially on controversial issues. You often have to go to Foxnews and MSNBC or CNN to get the entire story, since the new agencies are very biased one way or the other.
The second thing I've had to do is not let myself react emotionally. If I do that, I've failed. Instead, if something hits me emotionally, I stop and think about why that is. Then I analyze the issue and determine where I really stand.
Finally, we all have to do some research and get informed. I spent 40 minutes tonight on this blog and researching. That's not much time really, and now I'm much smarter on this issue.
I'm hoping this doesn't come across as preachy. I'm hoping that it will come across as a plea for all of us, Democrat, Republican or Independent, to get informed and start having meaningful debate on the issues, rather than just reacting with hate or anger towards the other side. That's the only way we're gonna fix this mess.
There is so much in here. First, Obama and his team are again playing the "class card" pitting us "commoners" against the "elites." Further, while this ad is not wrong, it's somewhat misleading. A quick google search uncovered this article from the Tuscon Sentinel. First if you look at strictly income tax, the ad is a lie...only 3% of the population pays a higher income tax rate than Mitt Romney. However, if you include payroll taxes, then the ad is correct, as most of Romney's income is from dividends and capital gains, so he doesn't pay the typical payroll taxes that most people do pay. Also, in fairness, Mitt Romney does pay a lower tax rate than most people at his income level, largely due to the fact that he donates a significant portion of his income to charity.
Finally, the ad concludes with the point that Romney's tax policy as currently stated will eventually have to result in tax increases on the middle class, but doesn't explain why. Again, a little digging on google is required, but you can quickly find out that a report by the Tax Policy Center determined that Romney would have to eliminate certain tax breaks that middle class families rely on in order to 1) reduce income tax rates across the board and 2) remain revenue neutral. Most of the media is reporting this as positive for Obama, but again, a little googling and you can find that Romney's plan isn't specific enough to really draw the conclusions that were drawn. Forbes has a nice article on this that I think is somewhat fair, though I'll admit Forbes is typically right leaning.
Ok, this is gonna be a long blog, because it took all that background to get to my main point. The President's point in this ad is obviously to get you 1) mad that Romney pays less in taxes than you (again, debatable) and 2) fearful that Romney's policies will result in higher taxes on you. Frankly, the President is doing you and I, all of us really, a disservice by this type of campaigning. In fairness the Romney camp is doing the same thing with some of their advertising, but given that I am conservative, Obama's ads tend to get my ire up more so I'm focusing on this ad. There are so many conversations we should be having based on the material just in this ad, but both parties have decided that we're too stupid or lack the attention span to hold these conversations.
Here are two examples of real policy debates we should be having based solely on the material in this political ad:
1) Is it right to tax investment income at a lower rate than earned income? That's contributing to Romney's tax rate being so low. I think that would be a good debate to have in the country.
2) Our tax code is screwed up. Who among us wouldn't do what Romney does and take all the deductions possible? We all do it...leaving money on the table is not smart, especially in this economy. How are we gonna fix the tax code to make it more simple and more fair? That's a debate some have tried to have in the past and they get vilified...see Steve Forbes and the flat tax.
Sadly folks, we've brought this upon ourselves. We've become a generation of sound bytes. If you can't get it in 10 seconds, it's not worth it. Both candidates for President are just campaigning to us in the way that is most effective, and that's a sad commentary on the state of our society.
We can change this though, and we have to start now, because I believe our nation is on the precipice. My personal belief is that if we tip one way, we go the way or Western European Socialism, but if we tip the other way, we can recapture what has made the United States the greatest nation in the history of the world. But, we can only do this if we get informed and start thinking about these issues.
How can we do this? Well, here's what has worked in my life. First off, stop listening to or reading only one news source. I had to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, as all it did was made me mad at the other side and being angry prevented my from thinking about what it is I really believe. Turns out, I believe most of what Limbaugh spouts, but now that I don't listen, I'm capable of articulating it in my own words. I've also started reading multiple news sources, especially on controversial issues. You often have to go to Foxnews and MSNBC or CNN to get the entire story, since the new agencies are very biased one way or the other.
The second thing I've had to do is not let myself react emotionally. If I do that, I've failed. Instead, if something hits me emotionally, I stop and think about why that is. Then I analyze the issue and determine where I really stand.
Finally, we all have to do some research and get informed. I spent 40 minutes tonight on this blog and researching. That's not much time really, and now I'm much smarter on this issue.
I'm hoping this doesn't come across as preachy. I'm hoping that it will come across as a plea for all of us, Democrat, Republican or Independent, to get informed and start having meaningful debate on the issues, rather than just reacting with hate or anger towards the other side. That's the only way we're gonna fix this mess.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
This Ad is Wrong...but Educational
Yes, I'm actually sharing an Obama ad...
I'm choosing to share this ad because I think it's educational. In this 1 minute spot, the President mentions the wealthier or "those at the top" twice, and he mentions the middle class twice. The reason this is interesting to me is that this is how President Obama truly sees America. Through his actions and words over the last 4 years, it's clear to me that the President doesn't see us all as Americans. He sees us a rich or poor, black or white, democrat or republican, etc. So I ask, who is responsible for dividing America?
I also believe this is the most all-in that I've ever seen a Democrat on class warfare. Democrats always play class warfare, but with Clinton, Gore and John Kerry, I always felt like it was lip service to win votes. President Obama, in my opinion, is showing that he is a true believer in the Marxist philosophy of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Finally, the President states that the "Top Down Approach" proposed by Mitt Romney is the same thing that got us into this mess in the first place. We can argue whether or not that's true, but there's no arguing that Obama's approach hasn't fixed anything. President Obama is not proposing any new ideas from 2008. His 2008 ideas have resulted in an exploding national debt, unemployment over 8%, a wildly unpopular health care law and fears of a 2nd recession. You'd think the President would moderate and look to adapt, but instead he's doubling down. The definition of insanity is to continue doing the same thing and expect different results.
I'm choosing to share this ad because I think it's educational. In this 1 minute spot, the President mentions the wealthier or "those at the top" twice, and he mentions the middle class twice. The reason this is interesting to me is that this is how President Obama truly sees America. Through his actions and words over the last 4 years, it's clear to me that the President doesn't see us all as Americans. He sees us a rich or poor, black or white, democrat or republican, etc. So I ask, who is responsible for dividing America?
I also believe this is the most all-in that I've ever seen a Democrat on class warfare. Democrats always play class warfare, but with Clinton, Gore and John Kerry, I always felt like it was lip service to win votes. President Obama, in my opinion, is showing that he is a true believer in the Marxist philosophy of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Finally, the President states that the "Top Down Approach" proposed by Mitt Romney is the same thing that got us into this mess in the first place. We can argue whether or not that's true, but there's no arguing that Obama's approach hasn't fixed anything. President Obama is not proposing any new ideas from 2008. His 2008 ideas have resulted in an exploding national debt, unemployment over 8%, a wildly unpopular health care law and fears of a 2nd recession. You'd think the President would moderate and look to adapt, but instead he's doubling down. The definition of insanity is to continue doing the same thing and expect different results.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
A Slippery Slope
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States (henceforth known as SCOTUS), upheld pretty much all of President Obama's healthcare law, including the individual mandate, which says that individuals are required to have health insurance. In the 5-4 majority ruling, John Roberts, Chief Justice of SCOTUS, said that while the Commerce Clause does not allow the Federal Government to force individuals to purchase a product, the individual mandate is essentially a tax and Congress can levy taxes so therefore, it's legal. Do you follow that? SCOTUS said that the Federal Government forcing an individual to purchase a product is a tax!
Let's forget for a moment that President Obama said way back in 2009 in an interview with George Stephanapolis that the individual mandate wasn't a tax. "You can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase," is one of the quotes from the interview. Let's just think about the consequences of this ruling...it is now considered constitutional for the Federal Government to force you to buy a product under the guise of it being a tax. What's next???
-Don't want to buy those fluorescent light bulbs? Too bad, you have to, it's just another tax.
-Hate working out? That's too bad, we're an overweight society so you have to join a gym. Don't worry, it's just a tax.
-You have to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle. Sorry, just another tax.
-All Americans have the right to defend themselves, so everyone has to buy a gun. Just a small little tax.
Are some of those absurd? Maybe, but even 5 years ago we would have thought the Federal Government forcing people to buy health insurance was absurd. Where does it end?
This is one of the worst decisions ever made by the SCOTUS. Right up there with saying slavery is okay back in the day. I expected the 4 liberal judges to go this way because they don't typically follow the law, they just advance the liberal cause. But Chief Justice Roberts is supposed to know better. I guess Washington D.C. corrupts some faster than others.
If there is a bright spot in all this it's that President Obama now has to defend this atrocious law all through the election, and maybe we'll all finally find out what's in the law, unlike the people who actually voted on it in the first place.
Let's forget for a moment that President Obama said way back in 2009 in an interview with George Stephanapolis that the individual mandate wasn't a tax. "You can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase," is one of the quotes from the interview. Let's just think about the consequences of this ruling...it is now considered constitutional for the Federal Government to force you to buy a product under the guise of it being a tax. What's next???
-Don't want to buy those fluorescent light bulbs? Too bad, you have to, it's just another tax.
-Hate working out? That's too bad, we're an overweight society so you have to join a gym. Don't worry, it's just a tax.
-You have to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle. Sorry, just another tax.
-All Americans have the right to defend themselves, so everyone has to buy a gun. Just a small little tax.
Are some of those absurd? Maybe, but even 5 years ago we would have thought the Federal Government forcing people to buy health insurance was absurd. Where does it end?
This is one of the worst decisions ever made by the SCOTUS. Right up there with saying slavery is okay back in the day. I expected the 4 liberal judges to go this way because they don't typically follow the law, they just advance the liberal cause. But Chief Justice Roberts is supposed to know better. I guess Washington D.C. corrupts some faster than others.
If there is a bright spot in all this it's that President Obama now has to defend this atrocious law all through the election, and maybe we'll all finally find out what's in the law, unlike the people who actually voted on it in the first place.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Is This What Most People Deal With?
Many people over the past 2 days have said to me, "why don't you blog anymore?", or something to that effect. Note, I am defining "Many" as 3 people.
But, I do have a blog topic today. I read a headline today that Rick Santorum is suspending his campaign for President, virtually handing the Republican nomination to Mitt Romney. Now, I don't think Mitt is a bad guy, and I'll vote for him in the general election, but I'm not excited about it. I haven't ever been excited about a candidate for President in my voting life...EVER!!!
I was hoping this year would be the one where I could really get behind a candidate for President. I assumed, wrongfully, that the debacle called Obamacare and the disastrous Obama Presidency would embolden my fellow conservatives to finally vote for the real conservative choice in the Republican primary. But, as we do every year, we settled for the "moderate", letting the media tell us that Rick Santorum and Ron Paul wouldn't be able to beat President Obama in the general election. Too many of my fellow conservatives bought the media lie that Mitt was the only candidate who stood a chance against President Obama, and now we're left with a choice between a moderate conservative and a hard core leftist...just like we had 4 years ago, and we know how that turned out.
But enough of my whining. What I really started pondering is this...do most Americans feel this way every election year, whether because of apathy or just the general lack of good candidates we seem to be able to find? I am left to conclude that 75% of the country feels this way, and frankly, it stinks.
Wouldn't it be fun to have a real debate in this country about the issues of the day? Wouldn't it be so great to have someone who can really articulate their position without fear? But instead, we have 2 politicians...we have 2 guys who are gonna sling mud, nuance everything they say, and if elected, there won't be a big difference between the two. Frankly, I wouldn't vote at all this year, except I am convinced that Mitt Romney will attempt to dismantle Obamacare, or at least he will remove the mandate that faith based organizations have to provide contraception and abortion in their health plans. That's really the only issue I am voting on this year.
I hope that I'm wrong about Mitt Romney. I really hope that he has become more conservative than he was as Governor of Massachusetts. And, I sincerely hope that he gets elected and immediately repeals Obamacare and institutes fiscally responsible policies. I'm just very skeptical that any of this will happen.
But, I do have a blog topic today. I read a headline today that Rick Santorum is suspending his campaign for President, virtually handing the Republican nomination to Mitt Romney. Now, I don't think Mitt is a bad guy, and I'll vote for him in the general election, but I'm not excited about it. I haven't ever been excited about a candidate for President in my voting life...EVER!!!
I was hoping this year would be the one where I could really get behind a candidate for President. I assumed, wrongfully, that the debacle called Obamacare and the disastrous Obama Presidency would embolden my fellow conservatives to finally vote for the real conservative choice in the Republican primary. But, as we do every year, we settled for the "moderate", letting the media tell us that Rick Santorum and Ron Paul wouldn't be able to beat President Obama in the general election. Too many of my fellow conservatives bought the media lie that Mitt was the only candidate who stood a chance against President Obama, and now we're left with a choice between a moderate conservative and a hard core leftist...just like we had 4 years ago, and we know how that turned out.
But enough of my whining. What I really started pondering is this...do most Americans feel this way every election year, whether because of apathy or just the general lack of good candidates we seem to be able to find? I am left to conclude that 75% of the country feels this way, and frankly, it stinks.
Wouldn't it be fun to have a real debate in this country about the issues of the day? Wouldn't it be so great to have someone who can really articulate their position without fear? But instead, we have 2 politicians...we have 2 guys who are gonna sling mud, nuance everything they say, and if elected, there won't be a big difference between the two. Frankly, I wouldn't vote at all this year, except I am convinced that Mitt Romney will attempt to dismantle Obamacare, or at least he will remove the mandate that faith based organizations have to provide contraception and abortion in their health plans. That's really the only issue I am voting on this year.
I hope that I'm wrong about Mitt Romney. I really hope that he has become more conservative than he was as Governor of Massachusetts. And, I sincerely hope that he gets elected and immediately repeals Obamacare and institutes fiscally responsible policies. I'm just very skeptical that any of this will happen.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
This is Absurd
I am not going to defend what Rush Limbaugh said earlier this week. I think the personal attacks he made on Sandra Fluke are ridiculous and a big part of the reason why I quit listening to Rush over a year ago. I spent all my time listening to him either angry or getting angry at the other side, and it just wasn't worth my time, nor was it helping me to be the person I should be.
However, I am going to point out that what Sandra Fluke is going after is ridiculous! First the background on what got Rush into so much trouble. This is from Reuters:
"Fluke had appeared at a Democratic event on Capitol Hill at which she advocated for religion-affiliated institutions to cover contraception in health care plans. She said female students at Georgetown must pay for contraception out of pocket because the school won't cover it."
Oh my gosh!!! The have to pay for their own contraception? Out of Pocket?!!! No, that's so unfair (he says with tongue firmly in cheek).
In my opinion, this further illustrates the decline of our society. When did we get to the point that we felt we were entitled to contraception?!!! When did it become ok to be irresponsible and expect one's employer, educational institution or government to pick up the tab? That's what Rush should have said...essentially Ms. Fluke is advocating a world in which anyone can be irresponsible in their "relations" and not have to face any consequences!
Tell me, where does the Constitution say that the Federal Government has the right to force employers to pay for health insurance that covers contraception? Where does it say that the Federal Government has the right to force employers to pay for health insurance at all? Let me give you a little hint...it doesn't say that...anywhere. Remember, the Constitution is a document of positive rights...if it doesn't say it, technically the Federal Government can't do it. The Constitution was once a great document. Too bad we're not using it anymore!
So no, I'm not defending Rush Limbaugh. What he said was reprehensible, and I'm not going to shed a tear over the sponsors he loses because of this. But, I'm also not going to defend Sandra Fluke. What she said and believes is patently absurd. Sadly, I think she reflects the majority in what is increasingly becoming an absurd country.
However, I am going to point out that what Sandra Fluke is going after is ridiculous! First the background on what got Rush into so much trouble. This is from Reuters:
"Fluke had appeared at a Democratic event on Capitol Hill at which she advocated for religion-affiliated institutions to cover contraception in health care plans. She said female students at Georgetown must pay for contraception out of pocket because the school won't cover it."
Oh my gosh!!! The have to pay for their own contraception? Out of Pocket?!!! No, that's so unfair (he says with tongue firmly in cheek).
In my opinion, this further illustrates the decline of our society. When did we get to the point that we felt we were entitled to contraception?!!! When did it become ok to be irresponsible and expect one's employer, educational institution or government to pick up the tab? That's what Rush should have said...essentially Ms. Fluke is advocating a world in which anyone can be irresponsible in their "relations" and not have to face any consequences!
Tell me, where does the Constitution say that the Federal Government has the right to force employers to pay for health insurance that covers contraception? Where does it say that the Federal Government has the right to force employers to pay for health insurance at all? Let me give you a little hint...it doesn't say that...anywhere. Remember, the Constitution is a document of positive rights...if it doesn't say it, technically the Federal Government can't do it. The Constitution was once a great document. Too bad we're not using it anymore!
So no, I'm not defending Rush Limbaugh. What he said was reprehensible, and I'm not going to shed a tear over the sponsors he loses because of this. But, I'm also not going to defend Sandra Fluke. What she said and believes is patently absurd. Sadly, I think she reflects the majority in what is increasingly becoming an absurd country.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Amen!
Today at Mass, our pastor spoke out against the recent Health and Human Services decision on Obama-Care that will require all insurance providers to cover birth control and abortion. While he hit on important points like being active by letting our representatives know what we think about this decision, he also talked about the options the church has. First off, the church could go along with this, but that likely won't happen. Secondly, the church and affiliated organizations could cut health care to their employees, but again, that's not right for the employees. Third, if forced to, the American Bishops could refuse to comply, and then refuse to pay fines, and force the US Government to arrest them. How would that play on the 24 hour news cycle...a bunch of Catholic Bishops being marched off to jail for listening to their conscience and following the precepts of their faith? I can't imagine that there is any way the media could spin it so that the Obama administration wins that one.
But, prior to this President, I couldn't imagine living in a country where the Ruling Regime would force this kind of thing on us. As our Pastor said, "For evil to happen, good people must do nothing", and that was the main take away of the entire homily. For too long in this country, we've sat idly by while we let evil happen around us. When are we going to stop and say that we've had enough?!!!
Well, I for one, have had enough. I'm not going to apologize for my beliefs, and I'm not going to apologize for trying to teach my kids those beliefs. We all need to stand up and say that we've had enough. Start small...quit participating in entertainment that is unnecessarily degrading to a particular group of people. Spend time with your kids or your family. Teach your kids why abortion is wrong. Teach your kids why the Obama regime and a huge central government is wrong. Be good parents or grandparents. Frankly, it might be too late for our generation, but it's not too late for our kids. If we teach them to know right from wrong, there might be hope for the future. If we fail now, we are doomed to more President's like Obama, and probably worse.
Finally, get out there in 2012 and get Obama and his cronies voted out of office. Don't force the US Catholic Bishops to have to face jail time to make this point. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure most of them would be willing to endure jail time to stop this evil from happening, but let's try to stop it before that becomes necessary. Stop this the only way you can, with your vote! The primary mission of 2012 has to be to ensure that Barack Obama is a one term President. If we are successful in ousting President Obama, the next President's first act should be to sign an executive order stopping Obama-Care and all it's evil from becoming law. Let's make it happen!
But, prior to this President, I couldn't imagine living in a country where the Ruling Regime would force this kind of thing on us. As our Pastor said, "For evil to happen, good people must do nothing", and that was the main take away of the entire homily. For too long in this country, we've sat idly by while we let evil happen around us. When are we going to stop and say that we've had enough?!!!
Well, I for one, have had enough. I'm not going to apologize for my beliefs, and I'm not going to apologize for trying to teach my kids those beliefs. We all need to stand up and say that we've had enough. Start small...quit participating in entertainment that is unnecessarily degrading to a particular group of people. Spend time with your kids or your family. Teach your kids why abortion is wrong. Teach your kids why the Obama regime and a huge central government is wrong. Be good parents or grandparents. Frankly, it might be too late for our generation, but it's not too late for our kids. If we teach them to know right from wrong, there might be hope for the future. If we fail now, we are doomed to more President's like Obama, and probably worse.
Finally, get out there in 2012 and get Obama and his cronies voted out of office. Don't force the US Catholic Bishops to have to face jail time to make this point. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure most of them would be willing to endure jail time to stop this evil from happening, but let's try to stop it before that becomes necessary. Stop this the only way you can, with your vote! The primary mission of 2012 has to be to ensure that Barack Obama is a one term President. If we are successful in ousting President Obama, the next President's first act should be to sign an executive order stopping Obama-Care and all it's evil from becoming law. Let's make it happen!
Monday, January 23, 2012
Freedom of Religion?
This blog is to my fellow Catholics. You know who you are...you are the liberal Catholics that supported President Obama in the 2008 election and John Kerry before him. You are the Catholics who told me that we didn't need to worry about Obama's pro-choice public stance because privately he is pro-life and that he is open to conversation about the pro-life issues in a way other Democrats have not been. You are the Catholics that told me that the social programs widely supported by the Democrats and Obama were the most important reason to vote for Barack Obama.
You didn't listen to me when I told you that Obama was a Democrat first and foremost and that he would toe the party line, no matter the cost. You didn't listen to me when I said that Jesus didn't tell us to vote for people who would "feed his sheep" (see John 21:15-17), he told us to do it. We aren't free of our responsibility because we voted for some guy who promises to take other people's money and give it to the poor...we still have to get off our butts an act. I wonder if you wish you would have listened to me a little more carefully? Or are you one of those people who still blindly believes what Barack Obama says.
Here's why I ask...late last week, the Obama administration through the Health and Human Services (HHS) department, essentially declared war on religion and specifically the Catholic Church. This war stems from a mandate requiring all employers to provide health insurance for their employees that not only covers birth control and sterilization, but practically makes them free. Before this ruling came out, Obama called Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York to give him the news. As a supposed olive branch, the Obama administration gave the Catholic church an extra year to implement this. Archbishop Dolan said something along the lines of "President Obama gave us an extra year to figure out how to violate our conscience."
I can't imagine that many of you Catholic Obama supporters are thrilled with this. Even the most liberal Catholic leadership is speaking out against the President. Cardinal Roger Mahoney, archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles and a known liberal said that he "cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience" - and he has urged people to fight this law. Another liberal Catholic, Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, FL has vowed that he will drop insurance coverage for diocesan workers rather than comply. They are joined in outrage by the leaders of Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities, which combined employ approximately 70,000 people nationwide.
So, liberal Catholics everywhere? Are you happy with this decision by the Obama administration? Are you happy that the President has basically given the middle finger to the idea of freedom of religion and conscientious objection? You should be outraged. You should be giving all the Republican candidates a hard look right now. You should be praying that Obama will be voted out of office later this year. Finally, you should write President Obama immediately and tell him how disgusted you are with this mandate! People like me will never be able to stop this madness, but when Obama loses you, his precious supporters, he will have to take notice and listen.
You didn't listen to me when I told you that Obama was a Democrat first and foremost and that he would toe the party line, no matter the cost. You didn't listen to me when I said that Jesus didn't tell us to vote for people who would "feed his sheep" (see John 21:15-17), he told us to do it. We aren't free of our responsibility because we voted for some guy who promises to take other people's money and give it to the poor...we still have to get off our butts an act. I wonder if you wish you would have listened to me a little more carefully? Or are you one of those people who still blindly believes what Barack Obama says.
Here's why I ask...late last week, the Obama administration through the Health and Human Services (HHS) department, essentially declared war on religion and specifically the Catholic Church. This war stems from a mandate requiring all employers to provide health insurance for their employees that not only covers birth control and sterilization, but practically makes them free. Before this ruling came out, Obama called Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York to give him the news. As a supposed olive branch, the Obama administration gave the Catholic church an extra year to implement this. Archbishop Dolan said something along the lines of "President Obama gave us an extra year to figure out how to violate our conscience."
I can't imagine that many of you Catholic Obama supporters are thrilled with this. Even the most liberal Catholic leadership is speaking out against the President. Cardinal Roger Mahoney, archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles and a known liberal said that he "cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience" - and he has urged people to fight this law. Another liberal Catholic, Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, FL has vowed that he will drop insurance coverage for diocesan workers rather than comply. They are joined in outrage by the leaders of Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities, which combined employ approximately 70,000 people nationwide.
So, liberal Catholics everywhere? Are you happy with this decision by the Obama administration? Are you happy that the President has basically given the middle finger to the idea of freedom of religion and conscientious objection? You should be outraged. You should be giving all the Republican candidates a hard look right now. You should be praying that Obama will be voted out of office later this year. Finally, you should write President Obama immediately and tell him how disgusted you are with this mandate! People like me will never be able to stop this madness, but when Obama loses you, his precious supporters, he will have to take notice and listen.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Not Newt!!!
So, Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary. What once looked like a runaway for Mitt Romney became a race this week after Iowa recounted the votes and found that Rick Santorum actually won, and then Newt won South Carolina.
Newt Gingrich makes me feel icky all over, and now my nightmare scenario seems to be happening. Whoever wins South Carolina generally wins the nomination. If Newt wins the Republican Nomination, right now, I fee like I have to vote 3rd party. I know that Newt cheated on his previous wives and was reprimanded by Congress for ethics violations. If you will cheat on your wife, what won't you cheat on? What wouldn't you do to get elected?
I read today that many Conservatives don't support Romney because he has been bad on abortion in the past and he signed health care legislation in Massachusetts that is similar to Obamacare. He has repeatedly said that he is Pro Life and that what was right for Massachusetts is not necessarily right for the entire country. People don't believe Romney has changed, despite evidence that overall Romney is a good family man and someone who could be trusted to do what he says he will do. Newt on the other hand has given us no reason to trust him, yet for some reason, "Conservatives" say they believe he will be better than Romney. I just don't get it!!!
As a Christian, I know I should forgive Newt and give him a 2nd chance. Because of that, he will have an opportunity to show me that he's changed, but it's going to take some serious evidence of repentance for past mistakes for me to support Gingrich for the highest office in the land.
If the election were today, and my choice was between Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich, I'd vote Constitution or Liberatarian party in a heartbeat. I'm done voting for the lesser of 2 evils...and frankly if the choice were Obama or Gingrich, I'd have a hard time deciding which is the lesser of 2 evils.
Newt Gingrich makes me feel icky all over, and now my nightmare scenario seems to be happening. Whoever wins South Carolina generally wins the nomination. If Newt wins the Republican Nomination, right now, I fee like I have to vote 3rd party. I know that Newt cheated on his previous wives and was reprimanded by Congress for ethics violations. If you will cheat on your wife, what won't you cheat on? What wouldn't you do to get elected?
I read today that many Conservatives don't support Romney because he has been bad on abortion in the past and he signed health care legislation in Massachusetts that is similar to Obamacare. He has repeatedly said that he is Pro Life and that what was right for Massachusetts is not necessarily right for the entire country. People don't believe Romney has changed, despite evidence that overall Romney is a good family man and someone who could be trusted to do what he says he will do. Newt on the other hand has given us no reason to trust him, yet for some reason, "Conservatives" say they believe he will be better than Romney. I just don't get it!!!
As a Christian, I know I should forgive Newt and give him a 2nd chance. Because of that, he will have an opportunity to show me that he's changed, but it's going to take some serious evidence of repentance for past mistakes for me to support Gingrich for the highest office in the land.
If the election were today, and my choice was between Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich, I'd vote Constitution or Liberatarian party in a heartbeat. I'm done voting for the lesser of 2 evils...and frankly if the choice were Obama or Gingrich, I'd have a hard time deciding which is the lesser of 2 evils.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Caucusing like Crazy
On Tuesday of this week, we had the famous Iowa Caucus. You know, that was the vote where Mitt Romney (a.k.a. the Mittster), beat Rick Santorum by 8 votes. Despite rumors that the vote count was wrong, Santorum has taken the high road and said that it doesn't change the fact that the Iowa Caucus was essentially a tie.
The caucus is kind of a crazy process, and I can't really describe it for those who haven't gone. Ours lasted about an hour and featured lots of commentary from the voters. As Iowans, I think we did our duty...we weeded out the field. Michelle Bachman, who I really like, is out, and I think Rick Perry will follow soon. I really hope Bachman is the pick for VP by the eventual winner. By finishing 3rd, I think we're assured that Ron Paul won't be the nominee. Though I like Paul on a lot of issues, I just think he's too crazy in a few areas to support.
In general, I think the consensus at the caucus is that we had a good field of candidates. Nobody was really against any one specific candidate, which I think bodes well for the general election. We all have to keep in mind that defeating Obama in this the most important thing. I believe any of our candidates would be able to do that, though I am not a Newt fan.
In my opinion, we are left with a 3 man race, with the Mittster as the clear favorite, Santorum as the underdog and Newt as the darkhorse. Romney has the most money and the best infrastructure to win. What remains to be seen is can he withstand the firestorm that Newt Gingrich is in the process of causing. Newt was really upset with the way Mitt's groups went after him in Iowa, essentially costing him the state. Newt is almost out of money, but he's staying in at this point to trash Romney, which may give Obama ammo to use against Romney if he wins the nomination. Newt has to be careful here.
This leaves us with Rick Santorum, who I really like. I think he's a true conservative, but also willing to be pragmatic when needed. I love his tax plan, which would really simplify things by reducing it to 2 tax brackets (28% and 10%) among other things. He also has a strong plan for deficit reduction and is a big proponent of "Made in America". I supported Santorum in the caucus because I felt he best represented my total vision for the country, both fiscally and socially. Ron Paul is stronger fiscally and it's possible Bachman is better socially, but no candidate brings the entire package like Santorum.
I normally advocate that we should select former governors as our Presidential candidates because Executive experience is important. That is one reason it took me so long to come around to Santorum. But in an election year where we only had 2 Governors to choose from, The Mittster and Perry, I had to go in another direction. Don't get me wrong, I like both Perry and The Mittster and I would support both in the general election against Obama. I just believe Mitt is a little too moderate on social issues to support when there are more socially conservative candidates, and Perry just didn't get me excited...hard to explain why. In the end, I just felt Santorum more aligned with what I believe on all issues.
Check out Santorum's webpage if you are interested. If you aren't, that's ok. I do like Romney as well and I think he is a strong leader. I will strongly support Romney if he wins the nomination as I expect he will. But I want to do my part to give Santorum a chance.
The media is now out in full force against Santorum, calling him a big government Republican and a racist, among other things. They are taking quotes out of context and using them against him. I just encourage you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions. The media wants Romney to win this nomination, which I don't fully understand. I believe Romney will easily beat Obama and may steal some conservative Dems away from Obama. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
The caucus is kind of a crazy process, and I can't really describe it for those who haven't gone. Ours lasted about an hour and featured lots of commentary from the voters. As Iowans, I think we did our duty...we weeded out the field. Michelle Bachman, who I really like, is out, and I think Rick Perry will follow soon. I really hope Bachman is the pick for VP by the eventual winner. By finishing 3rd, I think we're assured that Ron Paul won't be the nominee. Though I like Paul on a lot of issues, I just think he's too crazy in a few areas to support.
In general, I think the consensus at the caucus is that we had a good field of candidates. Nobody was really against any one specific candidate, which I think bodes well for the general election. We all have to keep in mind that defeating Obama in this the most important thing. I believe any of our candidates would be able to do that, though I am not a Newt fan.
In my opinion, we are left with a 3 man race, with the Mittster as the clear favorite, Santorum as the underdog and Newt as the darkhorse. Romney has the most money and the best infrastructure to win. What remains to be seen is can he withstand the firestorm that Newt Gingrich is in the process of causing. Newt was really upset with the way Mitt's groups went after him in Iowa, essentially costing him the state. Newt is almost out of money, but he's staying in at this point to trash Romney, which may give Obama ammo to use against Romney if he wins the nomination. Newt has to be careful here.
This leaves us with Rick Santorum, who I really like. I think he's a true conservative, but also willing to be pragmatic when needed. I love his tax plan, which would really simplify things by reducing it to 2 tax brackets (28% and 10%) among other things. He also has a strong plan for deficit reduction and is a big proponent of "Made in America". I supported Santorum in the caucus because I felt he best represented my total vision for the country, both fiscally and socially. Ron Paul is stronger fiscally and it's possible Bachman is better socially, but no candidate brings the entire package like Santorum.
I normally advocate that we should select former governors as our Presidential candidates because Executive experience is important. That is one reason it took me so long to come around to Santorum. But in an election year where we only had 2 Governors to choose from, The Mittster and Perry, I had to go in another direction. Don't get me wrong, I like both Perry and The Mittster and I would support both in the general election against Obama. I just believe Mitt is a little too moderate on social issues to support when there are more socially conservative candidates, and Perry just didn't get me excited...hard to explain why. In the end, I just felt Santorum more aligned with what I believe on all issues.
Check out Santorum's webpage if you are interested. If you aren't, that's ok. I do like Romney as well and I think he is a strong leader. I will strongly support Romney if he wins the nomination as I expect he will. But I want to do my part to give Santorum a chance.
The media is now out in full force against Santorum, calling him a big government Republican and a racist, among other things. They are taking quotes out of context and using them against him. I just encourage you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions. The media wants Romney to win this nomination, which I don't fully understand. I believe Romney will easily beat Obama and may steal some conservative Dems away from Obama. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
If You Love Me....
Remember back during the 2008 election when we Conservatives were saying that Barack Obama has a Messiah Complex? Well, maybe not all Conservatives, but definitely Rush Limbaugh, and me, to name 2 prominent Conservatives. Personally, I still believe that, and this week, President Obama gave me further confirmation that I'm correct on this one.
During a speech in North Carolina, President Obama, presumably off the teleprompter, said "If you love me, you got to help me pass this bill!" If the teleprompter told him to say that, I question whether the teleprompter is doing his job. This statement was made in reference to Obama's notional jobs bill.
How does this prove that Obama has a Messiah complex? Well, to borrow from Nuke, let's look at scripture. In John 21:15-19 we have the famous exchange when Jesus asks Peter 3 times if Peter loves Him. After each time Peter professes that he loves Jesus, Jesus gives Peter a command. For another example, let's go back to John 14:15, where we hear Jesus say "If you love Me, you will keep My Commandments."
In the light of what I just cited above, what Obama said does sound like an attempt to sound Messiah-like, doesn't it? Again Barack Obama is making it all about himself, rather than about the people in this country who are out of work. Rather than making some emotive statement like that, Obama should try to lead and actually present something that makes sense for creating jobs and growing the economy. But, I truly believe he doesn't have the faintest idea of how to do that.
To those who are super cynical who are thinking right now, "Why is it ok for Jesus to say what He said? Isn't He doing the same thing Obama is doing?", I would answer that the point is that it is all about Jesus. It's an entirely different thing...altogether. As Christians, we profess that Jesus is #1 in our life, and as such, when He says what He said in John 14 and John 21, we need to do what he asks.
That's all I have to say about that.
During a speech in North Carolina, President Obama, presumably off the teleprompter, said "If you love me, you got to help me pass this bill!" If the teleprompter told him to say that, I question whether the teleprompter is doing his job. This statement was made in reference to Obama's notional jobs bill.
How does this prove that Obama has a Messiah complex? Well, to borrow from Nuke, let's look at scripture. In John 21:15-19 we have the famous exchange when Jesus asks Peter 3 times if Peter loves Him. After each time Peter professes that he loves Jesus, Jesus gives Peter a command. For another example, let's go back to John 14:15, where we hear Jesus say "If you love Me, you will keep My Commandments."
In the light of what I just cited above, what Obama said does sound like an attempt to sound Messiah-like, doesn't it? Again Barack Obama is making it all about himself, rather than about the people in this country who are out of work. Rather than making some emotive statement like that, Obama should try to lead and actually present something that makes sense for creating jobs and growing the economy. But, I truly believe he doesn't have the faintest idea of how to do that.
To those who are super cynical who are thinking right now, "Why is it ok for Jesus to say what He said? Isn't He doing the same thing Obama is doing?", I would answer that the point is that it is all about Jesus. It's an entirely different thing...altogether. As Christians, we profess that Jesus is #1 in our life, and as such, when He says what He said in John 14 and John 21, we need to do what he asks.
That's all I have to say about that.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Is It That Time Again?
It's getting close to caucus season in Iowa...ok, really it's not. But, almost all the Republican candidates for President are hanging out in Iowa a lot this summer. As such, I'm hearing a lot from these candidates, even though I'm trying not to.
This year, I'm torn, because I really like Michelle Bachman, and I think she would create the most interesting race against President Obama. Bachman is like a smarter version of Sarah Palin...she definitely won't make any of the blunders Palin has along the way. Don't get me wrong, I think Sarah Palin is great, but I don't think she should be President.
Anyway, back to Bachman. I think she has a lot of upside, and she definitely annoys my liberal friends. One friend told me that Bachman is just a "noise maker". So, for the shear entertainment value, I really want to support Bachman.
But, the other day we got a letter from the Ron Paul campaign. The letter was signed by his son Rand (Senator from KY), so I have to assume he at least consulted on the letter. As I read through the letter, I found that I agreed with 99% of what Ron Paul stands for. I struggle with some of his isolationist views in terms of our military, but economically and socially, I'm right there with him.
At this point, I'm left with a choice. If I'm honest about my political beliefs and the direction I want to see our country take, I have to support Ron Paul. If I want to be entertained, and end up with a candidate who is also really solid, I have to support Michelle Bachman. Right now, I'm leaning towards being honest with myself, but the side that wants to be entertained is still trying to win out.
I guess I have to make a decision by January 2012...better keep working on it.
This year, I'm torn, because I really like Michelle Bachman, and I think she would create the most interesting race against President Obama. Bachman is like a smarter version of Sarah Palin...she definitely won't make any of the blunders Palin has along the way. Don't get me wrong, I think Sarah Palin is great, but I don't think she should be President.
Anyway, back to Bachman. I think she has a lot of upside, and she definitely annoys my liberal friends. One friend told me that Bachman is just a "noise maker". So, for the shear entertainment value, I really want to support Bachman.
But, the other day we got a letter from the Ron Paul campaign. The letter was signed by his son Rand (Senator from KY), so I have to assume he at least consulted on the letter. As I read through the letter, I found that I agreed with 99% of what Ron Paul stands for. I struggle with some of his isolationist views in terms of our military, but economically and socially, I'm right there with him.
At this point, I'm left with a choice. If I'm honest about my political beliefs and the direction I want to see our country take, I have to support Ron Paul. If I want to be entertained, and end up with a candidate who is also really solid, I have to support Michelle Bachman. Right now, I'm leaning towards being honest with myself, but the side that wants to be entertained is still trying to win out.
I guess I have to make a decision by January 2012...better keep working on it.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Cold Turkey
A little over 2 weeks ago, I quit cold turkey on listening to Rush Limbaugh, or any conservative talk radio. Don't mistake this action. I am still a staunch conservative thinker and a Rush Limbaugh fan, however, I found that I could not listen to Rush without 1) Getting Angry and 2) Thinking Ill of Democrats, and especially our President.
Why is this a problem? Well, in taking my faith seriously, I've been hit over the head with the fact that we are all God's children, and Jesus taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves. That means that even Democrats are loved by God and thus should be loved by me. I wasn't able to do that very well when listening to Rush Limbaugh, because I found myself thinking horrible things about Democrats and Barack Obama. So, I decided to cut that out of my life for a while and see what happened.
Well, two weeks in, I can report that I'm a happier person. I'm still staying somewhat informed by watching my local news and listening to AP radio news and reading the Internet, but I'm also staying away from the spin, as much as possible. See, while I realize that the Republicans aren't always right, I was treating politics as a "sporting event" in which my side needed to win, even if they were wrong. Now, don't get me wrong, I still believe my side is right 99% of the time, but by not listening to Rush, I can more easily discern that 1% of wrongness.
The other thing I've realized is that I've been able to have better relationships with the Democrats in my life. I'm not always ready to pounce on them with the latest issue of the day in the interest of "winning." And now, when we do talk politics, I think I might be more persuasive because I don't just sound like I'm regurgitating Rush.
So, for now I'm going to continue this experiment of keeping my life a no spin zone. I do miss the entertainment value of Rush Limbaugh, but to be the type of person God wants me to be, I have to do without that form of entertainment at this point in my life.
Why is this a problem? Well, in taking my faith seriously, I've been hit over the head with the fact that we are all God's children, and Jesus taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves. That means that even Democrats are loved by God and thus should be loved by me. I wasn't able to do that very well when listening to Rush Limbaugh, because I found myself thinking horrible things about Democrats and Barack Obama. So, I decided to cut that out of my life for a while and see what happened.
Well, two weeks in, I can report that I'm a happier person. I'm still staying somewhat informed by watching my local news and listening to AP radio news and reading the Internet, but I'm also staying away from the spin, as much as possible. See, while I realize that the Republicans aren't always right, I was treating politics as a "sporting event" in which my side needed to win, even if they were wrong. Now, don't get me wrong, I still believe my side is right 99% of the time, but by not listening to Rush, I can more easily discern that 1% of wrongness.
The other thing I've realized is that I've been able to have better relationships with the Democrats in my life. I'm not always ready to pounce on them with the latest issue of the day in the interest of "winning." And now, when we do talk politics, I think I might be more persuasive because I don't just sound like I'm regurgitating Rush.
So, for now I'm going to continue this experiment of keeping my life a no spin zone. I do miss the entertainment value of Rush Limbaugh, but to be the type of person God wants me to be, I have to do without that form of entertainment at this point in my life.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Are Unions Needed Anymore?
Labor unions have been in the news a lot lately. This past week, the public employees union (most notably teachers) in Wisconsin was all over the news. The Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker (R), is attempting to pass a law that would remove the rights of the State Union employees to collectively bargain on the amount they pay for their health benefits and pension. This lead to a week of protests at the capital, teachers participating in a sick out, and Democrat lawmakers fleeing the state to avoid voting on this issue. Wisconsin currently has a $3.6 Billion dollar budget deficit, and a balanced budget amendment, so something has to give. Governor Walker has already said that either this bill goes through, or 6,000 state employees have to be laid off. I could do pages and pages on the Wisconsin issue, but I think anyone who reads this blog knows who I side with on this one. We're all gonna have to make sacrifices to turn things around, and that includes unionized workers.
The Wisconsin public workers union is not the only union in the news. The NFL Players Association and NFL owners are nearing an owner lockout because they can't agree on a revenue split. Looks like the NBA is up next. This got me thinking, are unions even needed in this country anymore? I would argue no, and here are several reasons why.
First, the statistic that I heard a while back is that only about 12% of all workers in this country are unionized. So, this means the other 88% of workers in this country get by without unionizing. It goes without saying that not all of those non-union employees are thrilled with their wages and benefits, but it does point to the fact that most jobs available today do not feel the need to unionize.
Second, unions end up causing expense issues that need not happen. For example, I would argue, and most experts would agree, that one of the main reasons for the GM and Chrysler collapses were union negotiated contracts. Sure, the management of those companies was equally at fault for signing those deals as well. But I would argue that the union nature of those deals made it more difficult for those companies to adapt when they should have...obviously Ford had a vision the others did not and reacted appropriately, so in fairness, this alone is not enough reason to say unions are no longer useful.
Third, and I think this might be the most important reason, conditions are vastly different now than 100 years ago when unions formed. When the unions formed, workers were paid pennies to work in dangerous conditions. At that time, unions absolutely had a place in American industry, and they drove some really good changes. We now have agencies like OSHA to help ensure workplace safety. We are also a much more mobile society now, so if you don't like the conditions of your current job, you have options that you didn't have 100 years ago.
Finally, unions are really career limiting. Once you sign into a union, you are subject to whatever the contract says, whether you perform far above expectations or far below expectations. Unions allow the bottom of the barrel to hang on for years and years and years, while keeping the top performers from being rewarded like they should be. In a global market where companies have to be competitive, they need to keep their top performers, and they need a mechanism to motivate, and if necessary, get rid of the bottom feeders. Unions stifle this ability for businesses.
I think unions are an institution that's time needs to come to an end. Really, the only reason unions stay around now are because they are a powerful political arm of the Democratic party, and Democrat politicians do whatever they can to keep the unions as strong as they can. Should 12% of the population have the power they have? Yet, they do because the Democrats need them. Look how President Obama reacted to the Wisconsin situation this week. His campaign arm (Organizing for America) is helping to organize the protests! This is the President of the United States, directly meddling where he has no Constitutional right to meddle. Frankly, Obama should have kept his mouth shut and stayed completely out of this. This is a state issue, so let the state work it out. But Obama had to stand up for his union cronies. He needs them if he wants to have any shot at a 2nd term and he knows it.
I don't know if you'll all agree with me on this one, but I think I make a good case that we don't need unions anymore. Now if I can just get people in a position to do something about these issue to start reading my blog.
The Wisconsin public workers union is not the only union in the news. The NFL Players Association and NFL owners are nearing an owner lockout because they can't agree on a revenue split. Looks like the NBA is up next. This got me thinking, are unions even needed in this country anymore? I would argue no, and here are several reasons why.
First, the statistic that I heard a while back is that only about 12% of all workers in this country are unionized. So, this means the other 88% of workers in this country get by without unionizing. It goes without saying that not all of those non-union employees are thrilled with their wages and benefits, but it does point to the fact that most jobs available today do not feel the need to unionize.
Second, unions end up causing expense issues that need not happen. For example, I would argue, and most experts would agree, that one of the main reasons for the GM and Chrysler collapses were union negotiated contracts. Sure, the management of those companies was equally at fault for signing those deals as well. But I would argue that the union nature of those deals made it more difficult for those companies to adapt when they should have...obviously Ford had a vision the others did not and reacted appropriately, so in fairness, this alone is not enough reason to say unions are no longer useful.
Third, and I think this might be the most important reason, conditions are vastly different now than 100 years ago when unions formed. When the unions formed, workers were paid pennies to work in dangerous conditions. At that time, unions absolutely had a place in American industry, and they drove some really good changes. We now have agencies like OSHA to help ensure workplace safety. We are also a much more mobile society now, so if you don't like the conditions of your current job, you have options that you didn't have 100 years ago.
Finally, unions are really career limiting. Once you sign into a union, you are subject to whatever the contract says, whether you perform far above expectations or far below expectations. Unions allow the bottom of the barrel to hang on for years and years and years, while keeping the top performers from being rewarded like they should be. In a global market where companies have to be competitive, they need to keep their top performers, and they need a mechanism to motivate, and if necessary, get rid of the bottom feeders. Unions stifle this ability for businesses.
I think unions are an institution that's time needs to come to an end. Really, the only reason unions stay around now are because they are a powerful political arm of the Democratic party, and Democrat politicians do whatever they can to keep the unions as strong as they can. Should 12% of the population have the power they have? Yet, they do because the Democrats need them. Look how President Obama reacted to the Wisconsin situation this week. His campaign arm (Organizing for America) is helping to organize the protests! This is the President of the United States, directly meddling where he has no Constitutional right to meddle. Frankly, Obama should have kept his mouth shut and stayed completely out of this. This is a state issue, so let the state work it out. But Obama had to stand up for his union cronies. He needs them if he wants to have any shot at a 2nd term and he knows it.
I don't know if you'll all agree with me on this one, but I think I make a good case that we don't need unions anymore. Now if I can just get people in a position to do something about these issue to start reading my blog.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Drive Time Pondering
I was driving home tonight, and I saw, yet another Barack Obama bumper sticker on a minivan that was ahead of me. This one said "Women for Obama" and the O was the stupid logo Obama used during the 2008 campaign. These Obama Bumper sticker sitings always get me thinking...
Anyway, here's the synopsis of the stream of thought I had, with some background info thrown in for completeness.
Living in a liberal area of the People's Republic of Iowa I see this often. I know the people around here aren't the most logical sort as demonstrated by their voting record, but by now I would have expected to see some of these bumper stickers scratched off, or blacked out, or something. I gotta think those normally right thinking people, who were swayed by Obama's fancy speeches and empty rhetoric are now realizing that they voted for a man wholly unqualified for the job he is doing.
Seriously, unemployment is still too high, the economy is recovering very slowly, we've had a disaster of a health care bill rammed down our throats and President Obama has botched just about every foreign policy decision he has made. Some of these people have to be having second thoughts. Maybe they're just too proud to admit it at this point. I guess we'll find out in 2012.
All this went through my head as I was driving home. It took about 6 seconds to have all those thoughts. The rest of my drive home was spent listening to quality radio and trying to stay warm.
Anyway, here's the synopsis of the stream of thought I had, with some background info thrown in for completeness.
Living in a liberal area of the People's Republic of Iowa I see this often. I know the people around here aren't the most logical sort as demonstrated by their voting record, but by now I would have expected to see some of these bumper stickers scratched off, or blacked out, or something. I gotta think those normally right thinking people, who were swayed by Obama's fancy speeches and empty rhetoric are now realizing that they voted for a man wholly unqualified for the job he is doing.
Seriously, unemployment is still too high, the economy is recovering very slowly, we've had a disaster of a health care bill rammed down our throats and President Obama has botched just about every foreign policy decision he has made. Some of these people have to be having second thoughts. Maybe they're just too proud to admit it at this point. I guess we'll find out in 2012.
All this went through my head as I was driving home. It took about 6 seconds to have all those thoughts. The rest of my drive home was spent listening to quality radio and trying to stay warm.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
From the "What Is Wrong With People" File
Warning, this blog is going to tick off both left wing nutjobs and right wing crazies.
Over the last several days, I've had a couple of moments where I've just said to myself, "What is wrong with people?" We're are a totally screwed up society, and there are 2 cases over the past couple of days that confirms this for me.
First, last Friday, Rush Limbaugh reported that 41% of all pregnancies in New York City end in abortion. The numbers are even higher among minorities, almost 60% for non-hispanic blacks. Frankly, this disgusted me. I knew the numbers were too high...heck 1 abortion is too many, but 41%?!!! This just shows me how morally bankrupt our society is and how far we've gone in abandoning personal responsibility.
We're morally bankrupt because in our "greatest" city, we're killing 41% of our babies. Even if you're not a Christian or even if you consider yourself pro-choice, that should disgust you. Further evidence of the morally bankrupt society...the take away from the story is that birth control programs in schools aren't working.
And, we've abandoned personal responsilibity because I was always taught by my parents that, if you do the deed you have to be ready for the consequences. Apparently, parents haven't been teaching that lesson to their children.
Then today I read that the Westboro Baptist Church is going to attempt to protest at the funeral of the 9 year old girl who was shot in Tuscon this weekend. These are the same idiots that protest military funerals. Fortunately, the Arizona lawmakers are fast tracking a bill to keep these idiots 300 feet away from the funeral. What kind of nutjobs believe things like they put in this statement..."God sent the shooter to deal with idolatrous America," and "Thank God for the Shooter"?
Now, I'll fully admit I don't read my Bible as often as I should, but I am Catholic so we have like 7 extra books in there, and I don't ever remember reading anything saying that I should show up at tragic events in people's lives and tell them that this happened because God is mad at them. In fact, what I remember reading is that God is Love, and you should love your neighbor. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Westboro Baptist Church, or any church for that matter, decided to reach out to these families with a message of God's love? Wouldn't that draw more people to God?
But instead of reaching out with love, these morons are reaching out with a message of hate. And all it will accomplish is making these families hate this church, and I'm sure some people will come away with a strong dislike of Christianity because of what this church is doing. I'm generally for free speech, but you have to be responsible with your speech. This is neither responsible nor consistent with the message of the Kingdom of God that Jesus Christ brought to this world.
These things just make me wonder, what the heck is wrong with people?
Over the last several days, I've had a couple of moments where I've just said to myself, "What is wrong with people?" We're are a totally screwed up society, and there are 2 cases over the past couple of days that confirms this for me.
First, last Friday, Rush Limbaugh reported that 41% of all pregnancies in New York City end in abortion. The numbers are even higher among minorities, almost 60% for non-hispanic blacks. Frankly, this disgusted me. I knew the numbers were too high...heck 1 abortion is too many, but 41%?!!! This just shows me how morally bankrupt our society is and how far we've gone in abandoning personal responsibility.
We're morally bankrupt because in our "greatest" city, we're killing 41% of our babies. Even if you're not a Christian or even if you consider yourself pro-choice, that should disgust you. Further evidence of the morally bankrupt society...the take away from the story is that birth control programs in schools aren't working.
And, we've abandoned personal responsilibity because I was always taught by my parents that, if you do the deed you have to be ready for the consequences. Apparently, parents haven't been teaching that lesson to their children.
Then today I read that the Westboro Baptist Church is going to attempt to protest at the funeral of the 9 year old girl who was shot in Tuscon this weekend. These are the same idiots that protest military funerals. Fortunately, the Arizona lawmakers are fast tracking a bill to keep these idiots 300 feet away from the funeral. What kind of nutjobs believe things like they put in this statement..."God sent the shooter to deal with idolatrous America," and "Thank God for the Shooter"?
Now, I'll fully admit I don't read my Bible as often as I should, but I am Catholic so we have like 7 extra books in there, and I don't ever remember reading anything saying that I should show up at tragic events in people's lives and tell them that this happened because God is mad at them. In fact, what I remember reading is that God is Love, and you should love your neighbor. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Westboro Baptist Church, or any church for that matter, decided to reach out to these families with a message of God's love? Wouldn't that draw more people to God?
But instead of reaching out with love, these morons are reaching out with a message of hate. And all it will accomplish is making these families hate this church, and I'm sure some people will come away with a strong dislike of Christianity because of what this church is doing. I'm generally for free speech, but you have to be responsible with your speech. This is neither responsible nor consistent with the message of the Kingdom of God that Jesus Christ brought to this world.
These things just make me wonder, what the heck is wrong with people?
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Beyond My Comprehension
I heard on the radio news that a far left political group called The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is going to be running an ad in Iowa, attacking President Obama as weak on taxes because he may compromise on repealing the Bush tax rates for all Americans, including "wealthy" American families making over $250,000 a year. Yes, I called them tax rates...they've been in effect long enough that they are now the tax rates, and not maintaining these rates is a tax increase. Just owning the argument...that's all.
As an interesting side note, the Pelosi followers in the House of Representatives passed a bill extending the Bush tax rates for the middle class, but implementing hikes back to the confiscatory Clinton era levels for single people making more than $200,000 and married couples making $250,000. House Republicans have already said that this bill has no chance of passing the Senate, so it's a purely politically ideological move by the people who were soundly defeated in the elections 1 month ago.
Anyway, back to my point. I can't understand the motivation of people who are so bent on taking other people's money that they would invest their own money to run ads that advocate the taking of other people's money. To me, that's what this ad by The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is doing. It's dividing America along economic lines and demanding that certain people pay more! Why would anyone ever think this is right or good?
I have theories. One theory is that these people simply hate people who have been successful because they believe they must have cheated their way to it. Another is that these lefties think that the job of the Government is to somehow force fairness in economics. Still another theory is that they feel that they are owed something by the government and to get what they are owed somebody has to pay the price. These are all my theories, but frankly I can't understand how anybody could possibly think this way.
Personally, I believe people are entitled to do with their money what they please. I think that some level of taxation is necessary, but I believe our government is bloated and spends too much, so I would never advocate tax increases until the government stops spending. I believe in helping my fellow man, but I believe in doing it on my terms, not on terms set by people in Washington. And, I believe hard work that leads to success should be rewarded, not despised.
The truth is, most of the people who we are talking about increasing taxes on, worked hard to get where they are. They are good at what they do because they take pride in their work and this has driven them to do better than others. They should not be punished or made the villain in this story. They should be held up as examples of what all Americans can be with just a little hard work and a lot of perseverance.
That's what I think anyway...maybe I need to run an ad.
As an interesting side note, the Pelosi followers in the House of Representatives passed a bill extending the Bush tax rates for the middle class, but implementing hikes back to the confiscatory Clinton era levels for single people making more than $200,000 and married couples making $250,000. House Republicans have already said that this bill has no chance of passing the Senate, so it's a purely politically ideological move by the people who were soundly defeated in the elections 1 month ago.
Anyway, back to my point. I can't understand the motivation of people who are so bent on taking other people's money that they would invest their own money to run ads that advocate the taking of other people's money. To me, that's what this ad by The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is doing. It's dividing America along economic lines and demanding that certain people pay more! Why would anyone ever think this is right or good?
I have theories. One theory is that these people simply hate people who have been successful because they believe they must have cheated their way to it. Another is that these lefties think that the job of the Government is to somehow force fairness in economics. Still another theory is that they feel that they are owed something by the government and to get what they are owed somebody has to pay the price. These are all my theories, but frankly I can't understand how anybody could possibly think this way.
Personally, I believe people are entitled to do with their money what they please. I think that some level of taxation is necessary, but I believe our government is bloated and spends too much, so I would never advocate tax increases until the government stops spending. I believe in helping my fellow man, but I believe in doing it on my terms, not on terms set by people in Washington. And, I believe hard work that leads to success should be rewarded, not despised.
The truth is, most of the people who we are talking about increasing taxes on, worked hard to get where they are. They are good at what they do because they take pride in their work and this has driven them to do better than others. They should not be punished or made the villain in this story. They should be held up as examples of what all Americans can be with just a little hard work and a lot of perseverance.
That's what I think anyway...maybe I need to run an ad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
