Written by an 82 year old, very wise lady. She gives us a whole new slant on the amazing job Obama is doing:
That is right - I will say it "(THANK GOD FOR THE PRESIDENT)."
1. He destroyed the Clinton Political Machine - Driving a stake thru the heart of Hillary's Presidential aspirations - something that no Republican was ever able to do. Remember when a Hillary Presidency scared the daylights out of you!
2. He killed off the Kennedy Dynasty - No more Kennedy's trolling Washington looking for booze and women wanting rides home. American women and Freedom are safer tonight!
3. He is destroying the Democratic Party before our eyes!
Dennis Moore had never lost a race - quit
Evan Bayh had never lost a race - quit
Byron Dorgan had never lost a race - quit
Harry Reid - soon to be GONE
These are just a handful of the Democrats whose political careers Oba ma has destroyed! By the end of 2010 dozens more will be gone.
In December of 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. In the last two election cycles they had picked up 14 senate seats and 52 house seats. The press was touting the death of the&nb sp;Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. In just one year, Obama put a stop to all of this and will probably give the house, if not the senate back to the Republicans.
4. He has completely exposed liberals and progressives for what they are. Every Generation seems to need to relearn the lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge. He is bringing home the lesson very well.
Liberals tax, borrow and spend - check
Liberals won't bring themselves to protect America - check
Liberals want to take over the economy - check
Liberals think they know what is best for everyone - check
Liberals aren't happy till they are running YOUR life - check
5. He has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone since Reagan. In one year he has rejuvenated the Conservative movement and brought out to the streets millions of Freedom Loving Americans. Name me one other time in your life that you saw your friends and neighbors this interested in taking back America !
6. His amazing leadership has sparked the greatest period of sales of firearms and ammunition this country has seen. Law abiding citizens have rallied and have provided a "stimulus" to the sporting goods field while other industries have failed, faded or moved off-shore.
7. In all honesty one year ago I was more afraid than I have been in my life. Not of the economy but of the direction our country was going. I thought Americans had forgotten what this country was all about. My neighbors, friends and strangers proved to me that my lack of confidence of the Greatness and Wisdom of the American people was flat wrong.
8. When the American People wake up, no smooth talking teleprompter reader can fool them!
Barack Obama woke up these Great Americans! Again I want to say Thank You Barack Obama! This is exactly the kind of hope and change we desperately needed.
Friday, May 28, 2010
A Passionate President
Why is it that the only time our president seems able to display passion is when he's going to make some rich fat cat pay or going to punish some oil company or some other group of politically incorrect unprotected group. He never shows any real passion for the suffering of the people, after all it must have happened at the hands of the rich.
It is a shame that we have a president who displays so little passion for suffering though displays a great deal of passion for making someone suffer.
Our president either pretends or really believes that hurting the energy industry, the banking industry, those who want to build homes, etc is somehow good for the common man. He declares that he's doing it for their good. It is as though he thinks by hurting one group you must be helping another.
This is akin to making people hate Michael Jackson or some other star for having 100's of millions of dollars as though they got it illegal or squeezed it out of someone. People like Obama never consider these people got their money because they sold a product people wanted to by and they felt the price they were paying for it was worth it.
Obama and people like him think that by taking the money of the rich it will somehow help the poor. My question is, "How does taking the money of a rich man help you?" Why is it that these people can see no difference between taking what the rich have earned and simply saying it's not ok to be rich. Is the next step to declare that you can simply never have more than a certain amount of money? Of course the only people qualified to determine just how much that would be are always the government and equally no one considers that those are the same people who are filthy rich themselves.
The Obamas and Pelosi's of the world always make sure the laws they pass don't apply to them. But then of course they shouldn't because they are the people who need all that money and power so they can make sure the rest of the greedy people aren't able to continue on with their greed.
Can't anyone but me see the hypocrisy in this? I wonder sometimes how many politicians we'd have if they were told they couldn't accept any campaign contributions until they had spent their own money down to the last 500,000 or some such number. This would insure they weren't in the rich group and also would insure that they couldn't become rich by getting in office.
I do not believe the founders of our nation ever intended public office to be a means of accumulating wealth. As a matter of fact I'm quite sure that they intended just the opposite. They put many things in place to make sure that people couldn't game the system to make money. They also made the pay of those jobs fairly low for the responsibility. They wanted to see people in office who understood what public service really meant.
Most in congress seem to view themselves as something quite special and feel that we should do the same. They almost behave as though they were royalty. They have a sense of entitlement to their positions. These are people who are probably singularly unfit to be in charge of the United States. They would make great monarch or an oligarchy in another country but they do not belong in positions of high power in the United States.
It is my sincerest hope that we will get rid of every one of them and that we will continue to do so till we find people who will represent the people instead of ruling the people. The United States is one of the few nations in the world that doesn't have rulers and was not set up to have rulers.
It is a shame that we have a president who displays so little passion for suffering though displays a great deal of passion for making someone suffer.
Our president either pretends or really believes that hurting the energy industry, the banking industry, those who want to build homes, etc is somehow good for the common man. He declares that he's doing it for their good. It is as though he thinks by hurting one group you must be helping another.
This is akin to making people hate Michael Jackson or some other star for having 100's of millions of dollars as though they got it illegal or squeezed it out of someone. People like Obama never consider these people got their money because they sold a product people wanted to by and they felt the price they were paying for it was worth it.
Obama and people like him think that by taking the money of the rich it will somehow help the poor. My question is, "How does taking the money of a rich man help you?" Why is it that these people can see no difference between taking what the rich have earned and simply saying it's not ok to be rich. Is the next step to declare that you can simply never have more than a certain amount of money? Of course the only people qualified to determine just how much that would be are always the government and equally no one considers that those are the same people who are filthy rich themselves.
The Obamas and Pelosi's of the world always make sure the laws they pass don't apply to them. But then of course they shouldn't because they are the people who need all that money and power so they can make sure the rest of the greedy people aren't able to continue on with their greed.
Can't anyone but me see the hypocrisy in this? I wonder sometimes how many politicians we'd have if they were told they couldn't accept any campaign contributions until they had spent their own money down to the last 500,000 or some such number. This would insure they weren't in the rich group and also would insure that they couldn't become rich by getting in office.
I do not believe the founders of our nation ever intended public office to be a means of accumulating wealth. As a matter of fact I'm quite sure that they intended just the opposite. They put many things in place to make sure that people couldn't game the system to make money. They also made the pay of those jobs fairly low for the responsibility. They wanted to see people in office who understood what public service really meant.
Most in congress seem to view themselves as something quite special and feel that we should do the same. They almost behave as though they were royalty. They have a sense of entitlement to their positions. These are people who are probably singularly unfit to be in charge of the United States. They would make great monarch or an oligarchy in another country but they do not belong in positions of high power in the United States.
It is my sincerest hope that we will get rid of every one of them and that we will continue to do so till we find people who will represent the people instead of ruling the people. The United States is one of the few nations in the world that doesn't have rulers and was not set up to have rulers.
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Nanny State
The Nanny State
It was considered a good thing when laws were passed against alcohol. It was considered to be a good thing when laws were passed against smoking. Now laws are being considered about what you eat. Everything from the amount of salt, meat, transfatty acids. Carbohydrates and the list goes on.
When it was something that offended other people everyone was all for it, but now it is coming down to whether you can eat cupcakes or donuts and people are getting a little fed up with what the government is doing. They even want to start passing laws on whether you can drink raw milk.
Do our legislators have nothing better to do than act like dieticians? Do they have nothing better to do than to decide what we eat and pass laws about those things? If this seems excessive to you it is beginning to seem that way to other people as well. I believe this problem exists in large part due to the fact that our leaders either think we are like children that need their guidance or that it is a matter of control. Whatever the reason they are now taking the stance that if the constitution does not forbid a thing than it is a power of the state, but that is not what the constitution does. The constitution makes it clear that the government has only certain things allowed to it and whatever is not allowed is forbidden. This is something our leaders are trying hard to change.
Nancy Pelosi seems to feel that Americans are simply made at incumbents but doesn’t question why that would be. I suppose she thinks it’s just a natural cycle of politics, and up till now it probably has been. This is no longer the case. Americans are catching on that our leaders are going to far and are fed up with it.
We have leaders ready to support bills they haven’t even read as the best thing since sliced bread and at the same time we have other leaders willing to condemn other laws as human rights violations. One they were willing to support was the health care bill, almost 3000 pages long and none of them seemed to know what was in it because in all probability none of them had any hand in writing it. This is a bill that will definitely affect all Americans. Then we come to the immigration bill passed in Arizona and we have a leader willing to condemn it but couldn’t take the time to read it in spite of the fact that it was only 10 pages long (the way a bill should be). After being caught that he hadn’t read the bill it was then announced that they would get a TEAM on reading the bill. Isn’t Holder a lawyer? Why do you need a TEAM to read 10 pages. This is more of the typical waste our federal government exercises all the time.
It is time we got rid of these people and got some people in Washington who can and will exercise a long lost skill, COMMON SENSE!
It was considered a good thing when laws were passed against alcohol. It was considered to be a good thing when laws were passed against smoking. Now laws are being considered about what you eat. Everything from the amount of salt, meat, transfatty acids. Carbohydrates and the list goes on.
When it was something that offended other people everyone was all for it, but now it is coming down to whether you can eat cupcakes or donuts and people are getting a little fed up with what the government is doing. They even want to start passing laws on whether you can drink raw milk.
Do our legislators have nothing better to do than act like dieticians? Do they have nothing better to do than to decide what we eat and pass laws about those things? If this seems excessive to you it is beginning to seem that way to other people as well. I believe this problem exists in large part due to the fact that our leaders either think we are like children that need their guidance or that it is a matter of control. Whatever the reason they are now taking the stance that if the constitution does not forbid a thing than it is a power of the state, but that is not what the constitution does. The constitution makes it clear that the government has only certain things allowed to it and whatever is not allowed is forbidden. This is something our leaders are trying hard to change.
Nancy Pelosi seems to feel that Americans are simply made at incumbents but doesn’t question why that would be. I suppose she thinks it’s just a natural cycle of politics, and up till now it probably has been. This is no longer the case. Americans are catching on that our leaders are going to far and are fed up with it.
We have leaders ready to support bills they haven’t even read as the best thing since sliced bread and at the same time we have other leaders willing to condemn other laws as human rights violations. One they were willing to support was the health care bill, almost 3000 pages long and none of them seemed to know what was in it because in all probability none of them had any hand in writing it. This is a bill that will definitely affect all Americans. Then we come to the immigration bill passed in Arizona and we have a leader willing to condemn it but couldn’t take the time to read it in spite of the fact that it was only 10 pages long (the way a bill should be). After being caught that he hadn’t read the bill it was then announced that they would get a TEAM on reading the bill. Isn’t Holder a lawyer? Why do you need a TEAM to read 10 pages. This is more of the typical waste our federal government exercises all the time.
It is time we got rid of these people and got some people in Washington who can and will exercise a long lost skill, COMMON SENSE!
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Illegal Immigration
I find myself continually amazed with the "immigration issue" because of the way it is constantly framed. As with so many things concerning the government they choose to rename things and thus try to take away points of debate. In the case of immigration they desperately needed to find another term than illegal. They quickly happened upon “Undocumented”. This term doesn’t have the connotation of illegal only delinquent or something that is a mistake or a lapse on the part of breaking the law. The method used is very crafty. Once they start using the term undocumented they can then leave off using any modifier and just start talking about them as immigrants. After all aren’t we a land of immigrants? How un-American to be against immigration. But at the point you allow that into the conversation you have already left off with any sense of legality.
Once they’ve assumed a legality or at least that we shouldn’t hold it against them because they only want to work and find decent jobs, you are then left being the bad guy if you stand against what they’re doing. You are then the bad guy for calling them illegal or law breakers.
The reality is that every day they are here without visas, immigration papers, or green cards they are here illegally and by definition are breaking the law. This means they are not law abiding citizens. If a person continues to steal but obeys every other law of the land you would still not call him a law abiding person, why then do we call illegal immigrants law abiding. They are not!!
Applying the term criminal to a person who breaks the law and is still breaking the law is certainly valid. At least it seems to be in every way except where immigration is concerned and then it is only in regard to Mexicans that it applies. It is rather like talking about terrorists and not wanting to mention Islam. Can anyone think of a terrorist attack that hasn’t been committed by a Muslim in the last 10 years?
It is for this reason that I don’t have a problem with someone being called an illegal immigrant and indeed am for it all the more. To distract the conversation by saying they add to the economy is still to ignore their illegal actions in the first place.
I wonder if the government or the IRS would accept this kind of reasoning. We don’t need to pay taxes because we’re adding to the economy just by working so it should be find to just be undocumented workers. After all isn’t this what they’re calling the illegal immigrants. So if they’re so law abiding where is their social security money? Where are their taxes…ALL OF THEM! Does this mean that we don’t need to pay all of our taxes? If so then I’m all for this undocumented thing as long as it gets to apply to us as well. Eventually they can offer us Tax Amnesty status. After all if enough people aren’t paying their taxes the only thing to do is give them all amnesty.
I wonder if our non-representing representatives will vote for a bill for that? If we’re simply going to ignore any law that makes a large group of people angry then I say we should start at the tax law. That certainly makes more than enough people angry and as such we shouldn’t have to abide by it. Certainly if undocumented workers (Mexicans) don’t have to abide by it then we certainly should be exempt from it as well!
Once they’ve assumed a legality or at least that we shouldn’t hold it against them because they only want to work and find decent jobs, you are then left being the bad guy if you stand against what they’re doing. You are then the bad guy for calling them illegal or law breakers.
The reality is that every day they are here without visas, immigration papers, or green cards they are here illegally and by definition are breaking the law. This means they are not law abiding citizens. If a person continues to steal but obeys every other law of the land you would still not call him a law abiding person, why then do we call illegal immigrants law abiding. They are not!!
Applying the term criminal to a person who breaks the law and is still breaking the law is certainly valid. At least it seems to be in every way except where immigration is concerned and then it is only in regard to Mexicans that it applies. It is rather like talking about terrorists and not wanting to mention Islam. Can anyone think of a terrorist attack that hasn’t been committed by a Muslim in the last 10 years?
It is for this reason that I don’t have a problem with someone being called an illegal immigrant and indeed am for it all the more. To distract the conversation by saying they add to the economy is still to ignore their illegal actions in the first place.
I wonder if the government or the IRS would accept this kind of reasoning. We don’t need to pay taxes because we’re adding to the economy just by working so it should be find to just be undocumented workers. After all isn’t this what they’re calling the illegal immigrants. So if they’re so law abiding where is their social security money? Where are their taxes…ALL OF THEM! Does this mean that we don’t need to pay all of our taxes? If so then I’m all for this undocumented thing as long as it gets to apply to us as well. Eventually they can offer us Tax Amnesty status. After all if enough people aren’t paying their taxes the only thing to do is give them all amnesty.
I wonder if our non-representing representatives will vote for a bill for that? If we’re simply going to ignore any law that makes a large group of people angry then I say we should start at the tax law. That certainly makes more than enough people angry and as such we shouldn’t have to abide by it. Certainly if undocumented workers (Mexicans) don’t have to abide by it then we certainly should be exempt from it as well!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)