One has to wonder what's the matter with our nation. The congress has approximately and 11% approval rating yet approximately 90% of the incumbents will be re-elected.
Apparently everyone feels it is everyone else's representatives that are the bad apples.
America, WAKE UP!
If everyone from other states thinks your representative is doing the wrong thing maybe there's good reason for that.
Would it really be so bad to get rid of the one you currently have? Would it really be so bad to get rid of people who think they are entitled to that position? Do you really think NO ONE else can do the job as good or better than they can? Do you really think they're doing such a wonderful job?
Speaking for myself I can only say that Barbara Boxer, Lynn Woolsey, and Diane Feinstein have been some of the biggest blights on California and the rest of the Nation. Please don't get me started on Nancy Pelosi and Reid. These people all think we are idiots who need to be lead by the hand. They would make you afraid that they are the only ones that can save us. Have the really done such a great job?
Did Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Woolsey, Feinstein and others vote against any of the things that have been passed? Do you really think they are representing what you want to see happen in this nation?
These people and many others have continue to ignore what the people want and follow their socialist/communist/progressive agenda. They seem to think we have endless amounts of money to give them so they can give to it other people for us. They are SO generous with our money. What wonderful moral and caring people they are. They know they haven't squeezed every penny from our pockets yet in tax. There is always more we can give so they can feel good about their high moral value of generosity with other people's money.
Please consider carefully before you vote a single incumbent back in office. These people have no real concern for you. Their promises are hollow. They say what you want to hear then do what they want to do.
Maybe the American people really are as stupid as they think. After all we don't pay attention to what they promise versus what they deliver. These are people who voted for a 2500 page bill not one of them had read, They voted for 1300 page financial bill not one of them had read. Does this really sound like the actions of responsible representatives to you?
Does it really sound responsible when Pelosi says, "We need to pass this bill so we can find out what's in it."? There is another way to find out what is in a bill Nancy... IT'S CALLED READING.
The fact that you don't know what's in it means you didn't even write it so what exactly are you doing?
America we've already seen that the representatives we have aren't doing a very good job. Take a risk and vote in someone with real character.
Can you honestly say that you think Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Woolsey, Feinstein or any of the others have character? They certainly are characters, but I don't think we could say they have character!
It is time to get rid of these people. They will lie and distract in every way they can think of so that you'll just vote for them again. We don't need them.
We need "Joe the Plumbers" and common people in Washington; people will common sense; people who know, believe in, and will defend the constitution. We do not need people who despise the constitution and think it is a relic.
Consider for a moment if everyone wants only the other guys to throw their representatives out but don't want to throw their own out then we will have nothing more than the same. Instead of wanting everyone else to throw their bums out while you keep yours have some stones and get rid of your own. Lead by example.
THROW THE BUMS OUT!!
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Separation of Church and State
The idea that the separation of church and state is in the constitution is completely false. This was dreamed up by judges and added to the constitution when it was never in there and is still not in there. This is another case of judges simply finding things in the constitution that don't exist.
The constitution was not written to restrict individuals but to restrict the government. Obama and the progressives are bothered with this idea as they want the government to be able to do whatever it wants.
As stated above the constitution does not in any way restrict the citizens in regard to their religion. It also does not restrict the practice of their religion while in public office. What the constitution does do is restrict the government from passing any laws prohibiting the free exercise of their religion. It also prevents them from passing any laws establishing religion. It does not tell them that their religion is restricted from exercise while in government or that prayers or bible reading are in any way restricted in public office, public places, in the congress, on school grounds or any other public venue.
We need to find judges that respect the constitution and don't feel the need to constantly add to it the things they want it to say. This is judicial activism pure and simple. They ignore things that are clearly written in the constitution and add things that are nowhere to be found in the constitution.
Any senator has a write to exercise his religion, any teacher has a right to exercise their religion even in the class room. As soon as the government pass any law prohibiting that free exercise they have violated the constitution. It is not the teacher or the senator or governor who has violated the constitution it is the congress or the judge who has violated the constitution by passing a law or the equivalent thereof prohibiting that person from freely exercising their religion.
The constitution also does not guarantee freedom of religion only in private! The constitution puts no boundaries on where religion can be practiced freely.
The government is there to defend the rights we have from God. The government is not there to give us rights. Again I say they are there to protect those rights! If they do not do this then they are violating both the constitution and their vow to the constitution.
Ask your non-representing representatives what they think of Christianity and if it should be ok to pray pray in school or even lead a class in prayer. If they are opposed to it or worse still would support a law restricting it then they are not a representative you want and they should be out of office as quickly as you can get rid of them.
A representative who would take your First Amendment right will take any right. Sadly we've already had our fair share of representatives who have said the government either has the power to do what it wants or that it should.
Our representatives seem not interested at all in restricting government in any way at all, but they have certainly demonstrated a great deal of willingness to restrict individuals in almost every area of life. What you can do on your own property, what plants you can plant, what wood you can burn, if you can burn wood at all, who should be allowed to marry, where and when you can pray, where and when you can read your bible, what kind of bullets you can have for your gun. How much energy you can use.
Our leaders revel in controlling the lives of the American people and that is not their job! Their job and the oath is to protect and defend the constitution. Their oath is not to restrict and direct the lives of the American people.
I still find it amazing that so many incumbents keep getting back into office. What is the matter with the people. Do they not pay any attention. Do they really think these people are doing such a wonderful job? Do these people really represent the values of the people? If they do does that mean that our values are also against the constitution? if that is the case then we deserve to lose the American way of life and the freedoms our founding fathers fought, bled and died for.
The government does not have the right to tell you when and where you can practice your religion. It is od that they are so adamant about this right regarding the religion of Islam but don't give the same courtesy to Christianity.
If you have a representative that isn't willing to defend and protect your right and the right of every American to practice their religion then you have a representative who is willing to have a dictatorship and do away with the constitution.
Consider this carefully because in the elections coming up voting the same people back in office will mean voting for more of the same as what we've gotten. Do you really think what we've gotten from them is so good?
If you say you don't like these people and you don't approve of what they're doing then why would you vote them back in office?!! Think about what it says about you if you say you don't approve of what someone else is doing and yet you vote them back in office. It either says you're plain stupid and their propaganda as totally fooled you, you really want what they're doing, or you simply can't be bothered to become informed and vote intelligently.
The constitution was not written to restrict individuals but to restrict the government. Obama and the progressives are bothered with this idea as they want the government to be able to do whatever it wants.
As stated above the constitution does not in any way restrict the citizens in regard to their religion. It also does not restrict the practice of their religion while in public office. What the constitution does do is restrict the government from passing any laws prohibiting the free exercise of their religion. It also prevents them from passing any laws establishing religion. It does not tell them that their religion is restricted from exercise while in government or that prayers or bible reading are in any way restricted in public office, public places, in the congress, on school grounds or any other public venue.
We need to find judges that respect the constitution and don't feel the need to constantly add to it the things they want it to say. This is judicial activism pure and simple. They ignore things that are clearly written in the constitution and add things that are nowhere to be found in the constitution.
Any senator has a write to exercise his religion, any teacher has a right to exercise their religion even in the class room. As soon as the government pass any law prohibiting that free exercise they have violated the constitution. It is not the teacher or the senator or governor who has violated the constitution it is the congress or the judge who has violated the constitution by passing a law or the equivalent thereof prohibiting that person from freely exercising their religion.
The constitution also does not guarantee freedom of religion only in private! The constitution puts no boundaries on where religion can be practiced freely.
The government is there to defend the rights we have from God. The government is not there to give us rights. Again I say they are there to protect those rights! If they do not do this then they are violating both the constitution and their vow to the constitution.
Ask your non-representing representatives what they think of Christianity and if it should be ok to pray pray in school or even lead a class in prayer. If they are opposed to it or worse still would support a law restricting it then they are not a representative you want and they should be out of office as quickly as you can get rid of them.
A representative who would take your First Amendment right will take any right. Sadly we've already had our fair share of representatives who have said the government either has the power to do what it wants or that it should.
Our representatives seem not interested at all in restricting government in any way at all, but they have certainly demonstrated a great deal of willingness to restrict individuals in almost every area of life. What you can do on your own property, what plants you can plant, what wood you can burn, if you can burn wood at all, who should be allowed to marry, where and when you can pray, where and when you can read your bible, what kind of bullets you can have for your gun. How much energy you can use.
Our leaders revel in controlling the lives of the American people and that is not their job! Their job and the oath is to protect and defend the constitution. Their oath is not to restrict and direct the lives of the American people.
I still find it amazing that so many incumbents keep getting back into office. What is the matter with the people. Do they not pay any attention. Do they really think these people are doing such a wonderful job? Do these people really represent the values of the people? If they do does that mean that our values are also against the constitution? if that is the case then we deserve to lose the American way of life and the freedoms our founding fathers fought, bled and died for.
The government does not have the right to tell you when and where you can practice your religion. It is od that they are so adamant about this right regarding the religion of Islam but don't give the same courtesy to Christianity.
If you have a representative that isn't willing to defend and protect your right and the right of every American to practice their religion then you have a representative who is willing to have a dictatorship and do away with the constitution.
Consider this carefully because in the elections coming up voting the same people back in office will mean voting for more of the same as what we've gotten. Do you really think what we've gotten from them is so good?
If you say you don't like these people and you don't approve of what they're doing then why would you vote them back in office?!! Think about what it says about you if you say you don't approve of what someone else is doing and yet you vote them back in office. It either says you're plain stupid and their propaganda as totally fooled you, you really want what they're doing, or you simply can't be bothered to become informed and vote intelligently.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Private Property No More
The 9th Circuit Court in California has determined that the right to private property no longer exists here. They have said that police can now come on your property (driveway) and plant GPS devices on your car to track you wherever you go. Their reasoning is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy there.
It seems where judges are concerned if you can see it then it's not private. I can't help but wonder how those same judges would feel if people just came up on their driveway and put other things on their cars. After all they have no reasonable right to expect those things not to be tampered with since they are all visible. The fact that they own it no longer means anything to those judges. I can only assume this means they don't mind if people come on to their property as long or track where they go and what they do.
I have to admit I wouldn't mind doing that on a regular basis to all of those judges since they no longer feel they have any reasonable expectation of privacy on any part of their property visible to the public.
It always surprises me when judges make such clearly unconstitutional judgments that they are not taken to court and held culpable for the damages they've allowed by their rulings. It also surprises me that more people don't do just what I've suggested above. They should be hounded about this till they see just how wrong they are. Do these men and women have no common sense whatever? Do they really care to defend and protect the constitution according to their oath or are they determined to rewrite the parts of it they don't like?
It seems where judges are concerned if you can see it then it's not private. I can't help but wonder how those same judges would feel if people just came up on their driveway and put other things on their cars. After all they have no reasonable right to expect those things not to be tampered with since they are all visible. The fact that they own it no longer means anything to those judges. I can only assume this means they don't mind if people come on to their property as long or track where they go and what they do.
I have to admit I wouldn't mind doing that on a regular basis to all of those judges since they no longer feel they have any reasonable expectation of privacy on any part of their property visible to the public.
It always surprises me when judges make such clearly unconstitutional judgments that they are not taken to court and held culpable for the damages they've allowed by their rulings. It also surprises me that more people don't do just what I've suggested above. They should be hounded about this till they see just how wrong they are. Do these men and women have no common sense whatever? Do they really care to defend and protect the constitution according to their oath or are they determined to rewrite the parts of it they don't like?
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Obama - Muslim or Christian
It seems the nation is caught up in the controversy. Obama has completely avoided answering the issue directly, indirectly or through his mouthpieces. I have never heard him publicly renounce Islam or the Prophet Mohammed an doubt we will ever hear him do such a thing.
He has certainly gone out of his way to bow, literally to Muslim leaders of other countries, something no other president has done in our history.
One of the people he credits with being a spiritual leader is the Rev. Wright who was a Muslim before he got involved with Black Liberation Theology, His college mentor was a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. He went to school in Indonesia, a Muslim nation and had Muslim teachers there. It is possible he converted to Christianity? I'm sure it is possible but he has certainly never spoken of the experience. It seems more often than not that calling himself a Christian is more for the sake of political expedience rather than as a matter of fact.
For some reason it has taken more than a year before anyone was even willing to suggest that he was a socialist and to this day people seem afraid to say that of him. It surprises me that people are more afraid to declare the obvious or lat least what seems to have strong evidence to support it and yet there is no pressure on him to explain himself.
Many in the media are trying to side step the issue by once again making people feel that the must be bigots just for asking the question, or that they must be Muslim haters. They know that racist and bigot are two terms that are almost sure to shut down any further conversation on an issue and so they use that charge liberally. Sadly it seems to work all too often. Look what has happened with such words as nigger. This is a word that will be replaced in the dictionary before long with his hyphenated, N-Word. Even when it's not a negative thing but simply reporting what someone else actually said they cannot bring themselves to actually use the word. It is a shame we've had such an assault on our freedom of speech this way. Yet is is odd that it is fine for a black man to use the word CRACKER, but then the blacks have been slaves for the last 300 years... oh wait a minute... that ended 140 years ago, but we shouldn't let that bother us or maybe I should say that the politically correct among us feel that we should be continually bothered by it for as long as they want it to.
Dare I point out that there is an entire generation of people alive now that don't even remember Martin Luther King Jr. There is certainly no one now living in this country that experienced slavery at the hands of another American. It is time for us to let this go.
It is as much racism and bigotry for a black man to imply that every white man is somehow responsible for something that happened 140 years ago that they had no part in and certainly had no way to stop. We are responsible for what we do not and how we act... This means everyone not just white men. Is this not lumping people together on the basis of their skin rather than on their actions? Again you won't find a single media person willing to point this out.
This is the politically correct world we have come to live in that declares you dare not question anything certain protected groups of people do. Well we have a right to question those things and even to expect answers without being charged as racists and bigots.
We need to start demanding answers from those who are supposedly representing us.
He has certainly gone out of his way to bow, literally to Muslim leaders of other countries, something no other president has done in our history.
One of the people he credits with being a spiritual leader is the Rev. Wright who was a Muslim before he got involved with Black Liberation Theology, His college mentor was a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. He went to school in Indonesia, a Muslim nation and had Muslim teachers there. It is possible he converted to Christianity? I'm sure it is possible but he has certainly never spoken of the experience. It seems more often than not that calling himself a Christian is more for the sake of political expedience rather than as a matter of fact.
For some reason it has taken more than a year before anyone was even willing to suggest that he was a socialist and to this day people seem afraid to say that of him. It surprises me that people are more afraid to declare the obvious or lat least what seems to have strong evidence to support it and yet there is no pressure on him to explain himself.
Many in the media are trying to side step the issue by once again making people feel that the must be bigots just for asking the question, or that they must be Muslim haters. They know that racist and bigot are two terms that are almost sure to shut down any further conversation on an issue and so they use that charge liberally. Sadly it seems to work all too often. Look what has happened with such words as nigger. This is a word that will be replaced in the dictionary before long with his hyphenated, N-Word. Even when it's not a negative thing but simply reporting what someone else actually said they cannot bring themselves to actually use the word. It is a shame we've had such an assault on our freedom of speech this way. Yet is is odd that it is fine for a black man to use the word CRACKER, but then the blacks have been slaves for the last 300 years... oh wait a minute... that ended 140 years ago, but we shouldn't let that bother us or maybe I should say that the politically correct among us feel that we should be continually bothered by it for as long as they want it to.
Dare I point out that there is an entire generation of people alive now that don't even remember Martin Luther King Jr. There is certainly no one now living in this country that experienced slavery at the hands of another American. It is time for us to let this go.
It is as much racism and bigotry for a black man to imply that every white man is somehow responsible for something that happened 140 years ago that they had no part in and certainly had no way to stop. We are responsible for what we do not and how we act... This means everyone not just white men. Is this not lumping people together on the basis of their skin rather than on their actions? Again you won't find a single media person willing to point this out.
This is the politically correct world we have come to live in that declares you dare not question anything certain protected groups of people do. Well we have a right to question those things and even to expect answers without being charged as racists and bigots.
We need to start demanding answers from those who are supposedly representing us.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Democracy Not Democratic Republic
Too many people are not aware of what these two terms mean. One of them is code for socialism. We hear all the time that our government is a democracy, but it is not, or at least it was not meant to be by our founding fathers. When democrats constantly hammer on the term that we are a democracy it is because they are seeking socialism which always hides under the guise of a democracy. Hugo Chavez, calls his government a democracy, so did Castro.
Democracy does not always created the greatest good for a nation. Our founding fathers understood this. It was the reason they gave each state the same number of senators no matter what the population. This was so each state would have an equal voice about bills that were submitted for passage.
We are a democratic republic by representation. What this means is that we vote for the leaders of our states who then represent us, or are supposed to represent us before the Union. The same is also true when it comes to electing presidents. Every state is supposed to have a full states worthy of say about who is to be president. It was not meant to be a democracy for the election of president. The reason for this seems to be lost on many today because the concept of a democratic republic is not taught in school and is either not understood by the teachers due to the extreme amount of socialism and rewriting of history the schools have been undergoing for the last 50 years or because they are purposely teaching something different. The effect is the same.
If you have a president by majority those states with larger populations will be the only ones that matter as far as who is elected, this essentially means the states with lower population have no say in who their president will be and have to simply submit to the will of what other states have decided for them.
There is already a movement under way and it has been underway for a while, though no one has noticed. Our non-representing representatives knew they couldn't get an amendment to the constitution to do away with the electoral college which gives every state a say in who is president so they decided to do another end run around the constitution. What they're doing is passing laws that say their electors will all vote for whoever the majority voted for. This means that even those parts of a large state that vote one way while the major cities of that state vote another way will not have their votes ignored essentially. For the most part the large cities of the United States will decide every time who you president will be whether you want them to or not.
There are other advantages to the electoral college that have become largely ignored by the media and by those states wishing to have majority rule. In the case of the electoral college it was possible that a candidate might win th presidency by only 2% or 3% of the popular vote, but the electoral college would show an overwhelming win or landslide for that candidate. This helps a lot to unite the country behind that man and support him. If a president were to be voted into office based only on the majority there would be continual upheaval about who was president no matter who won because people would feel that almost 1/2 of them didn't want him and didn't like what he was now doing.
Even the media behaves this way already. After a president is voted into office almost everything he does or says is subjected to polls and presented to the people showing what the majority of the people think about what he did or said. We already see a great deal of rancor among the people just due to the reporting. Imagine how much worse it would be if the president were decided by the majority and for the next 20 or 40 years the people in South Dakota or Kansas realized their votes didn't make one bit of difference because the majority vote of 30 or 40 cities in the nation was constantly decided who the president was to be.
This is a situation begging for a civil war or civil unrest at the best. Once that happens it is only one step further before the government feels it needs to step in to put down "rebellion". This is where we're heading if the situation isn't stopped.
I only hope the people are made aware of just how vital this is to our way of government. If you don't understand the electoral college then you need to google it and find out what it means and how it works and please, though they generally have good information avoid wikipedia as they are very far left leaning in most of their views... If you want an example just try and find one article on their sight that has anything negative to say about Obama.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Obama The Birthday Boy
Doesn't anyone else find it odd that Obama is said to be celebrating his birthday for a week. People are calling it his "birthday week". Does anyone else ever celebrate their birthday for a week. Does he think he's a king or something where the land is supposed to throw huge celebration when the monarch has a birthday?
Does anyone else find it odd that on Obama's birthday his family is not with him bur rather they leave the country on a $500,000 vacation in Spain? Usually birthdays of family members are things to be celebrated together? Maybe their gift to him was to leave him alone?
You have to love the Marie Antoinette, let them eat cake attitude of Michelle Obama. She and the family leave on Obama's birthday along with 40 of her friends for a $500,000 vacation, most likely on our dime, while they have the nerve to tell us about tightening our belts.
Maybe Michelle was doing more research on a socialist nation and how wonderfully their green technology jobs are working in their nation so she can advise Obama to start forcing more of that stuff down our throat.
It is hard to tell what these people are thinking. It is mystifying, defies logic and compassion. The level of elitism they display is shameless and disgusting. Their seeming disdain of American ideals and even the constitution ought to appall anyone familiar with them. What is going on with the White House? Between them and the congress we have a group of people who seem in no way to represent either our values, or our desires as far as the way they should govern.
As I have said many times before we need to vote these people out of office as soon as we possibly can. Progressivism is rampant among our leaders. The only difference between republicans and democrats is the degree to which they are progressive.
We need to find people who as high government officials represent our values and not their own greed.
Does anyone else find it odd that on Obama's birthday his family is not with him bur rather they leave the country on a $500,000 vacation in Spain? Usually birthdays of family members are things to be celebrated together? Maybe their gift to him was to leave him alone?
You have to love the Marie Antoinette, let them eat cake attitude of Michelle Obama. She and the family leave on Obama's birthday along with 40 of her friends for a $500,000 vacation, most likely on our dime, while they have the nerve to tell us about tightening our belts.
Maybe Michelle was doing more research on a socialist nation and how wonderfully their green technology jobs are working in their nation so she can advise Obama to start forcing more of that stuff down our throat.
It is hard to tell what these people are thinking. It is mystifying, defies logic and compassion. The level of elitism they display is shameless and disgusting. Their seeming disdain of American ideals and even the constitution ought to appall anyone familiar with them. What is going on with the White House? Between them and the congress we have a group of people who seem in no way to represent either our values, or our desires as far as the way they should govern.
As I have said many times before we need to vote these people out of office as soon as we possibly can. Progressivism is rampant among our leaders. The only difference between republicans and democrats is the degree to which they are progressive.
We need to find people who as high government officials represent our values and not their own greed.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Congress Irrelevant
I am aware that for some this couldn't be better news, but for those of us that value the constitution nothing could be worse. Our constitution is based on the balance of powers. When that balance is lost our nation is in serious trouble. This is the problem many other nations have suffered from almost from the beginning and as a result have come to quick and terrible end.
When all of the power rests with one or only a few men you have a tyranny and your freedoms are quickly lost or taken. After all if one man holds the power what need does he have to consult you on what he wants to do. Unless he is a benevolent dictator you will quickly find that what you want does matter to him at all.
We currently have a congress that doesn't seem to mind making itself irrelevant and impotent. The reason for this is quite clear. They don't mind that President Obama is doing an end run around them for immigration "reform" or that he would do an end run around them on energy reform through cap and trade. They know that both of these are very hot button issues they don't want to touch. They've already done enough things the American people don't agree with and have now angered th American people so much that it seems many of them may not make it back into office after the 2010 midterm elections.
This congress would love to pass those extra laws but at this point they're avoiding it not wanting to push things even further. They are, however, more than happy to let those things be passed as regulations or executive orders because they agree with their agenda. What they don't seem to understand is that once they are made irrelevant then irrelevant they remain. Should they want to get their authority back they may well find they cannot.
Rather than defend the constitution as they swore to do when they took office they seem to loathe it and find it an impediment to the things they want to do. Most if not all of them are socialists to one degree or another. They feel it is the government's responsibility to take care of the people's needs. They seem to feel that we cannot be trusted to do what is best for us and so we must be made to do what is best for us.
This attitude has been growing for a long time. They understood that though they already believed it they had to bring the American people around to believing it, at least enough that they would be willing to accept it. Americans now readily accept that the government should take care of us in our old age as far as retirement, and now as far as much of our medical care as well. They have done an excellent job of selling us on these things. We have had Social Security for so long that it has become a given. It has been with us for nearly 100 years now and it has taken this long for it to finally start going broke. It is not that it had to go broke. What our representatives would have you forget or ignore is that they have been pilfering from Social Security for many of the pet programs leaving I.O.U.'s behind. After all they had more than enough in there for the moment and they'd pay it back later.
Now that the government has started down the road to complete bankruptcy they don't have the money to put back in their. They behave as though it is somehow our fault that we haven't been putting enough in and want us to put yet more in. Of course they also want us to forget or not consider that the more we put in the more they will pilfer. These are people with no ethics or character.
Nancy Pelosi can stare right into the camera and say this is the most ethical congress we've ever had. She may actually believe this is true but if she does it is only because she doesn't know the meaning of the word ethical or she uses it differently than all other English Speaking people. If what congress has been doing passes as ethical in her mind then it is just one more reason that we need to get rid of her and her ilk from the seats of power.
It is a sad day when many or even most of our leaders hold their people in disdain. They behave as though we are too ignorant to see just how much good they are doing us with our own money. They behave as though they know best and we are at best misguided children that need discipline.
You have only to listen to a few of the town halls they've held to hear the contempt they hold for the people. This contempt they have has only caused the American people to hold them in contempt.
Pelosi is not the only one. Reid is now promising to get the public option for health care. He and the others in congress made it clear that this health care bill was only the beginning and that they had plans to get the rest of what they wanted. Reid has made no secret of this.
The thing that mystifies me is how the people can forget so quickly just how bad these people are! I'm surprised that any of these people have more than 10% support yet in many cases they still have large numbers of people willing to vote for them.
Don't think I'm just picking on democrats. The whole of congress is rotten. Oh I know there may be a few good people there, and even for this I would only go so far as to say "MAY" be. I don't think that even getting rid of the few "good" ones would really hurt. John McCain has stood up for the immigration reform that was going to grant amnesty and yet those in Arizona seem to have already forgotten this and are ready to vote him back in yet again. He is a chameleon like all the others in congress. He does not deserve to be sent back to congress any more than the others. He also seems to be a socialist, only of the more mild sort rather than the extremists such as Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Woolsey, Feinstein, and Waters, to name a few.
I do not understand why people are so afraid to get rid of these people. Surely we can find people of better character than what they have displayed.
We desperately need to seek and elect men and women of character. We have grown to use to the idea that politicians lie. If you can't take them at their word then you shouldn't take them as your representative.
When all of the power rests with one or only a few men you have a tyranny and your freedoms are quickly lost or taken. After all if one man holds the power what need does he have to consult you on what he wants to do. Unless he is a benevolent dictator you will quickly find that what you want does matter to him at all.
We currently have a congress that doesn't seem to mind making itself irrelevant and impotent. The reason for this is quite clear. They don't mind that President Obama is doing an end run around them for immigration "reform" or that he would do an end run around them on energy reform through cap and trade. They know that both of these are very hot button issues they don't want to touch. They've already done enough things the American people don't agree with and have now angered th American people so much that it seems many of them may not make it back into office after the 2010 midterm elections.
This congress would love to pass those extra laws but at this point they're avoiding it not wanting to push things even further. They are, however, more than happy to let those things be passed as regulations or executive orders because they agree with their agenda. What they don't seem to understand is that once they are made irrelevant then irrelevant they remain. Should they want to get their authority back they may well find they cannot.
Rather than defend the constitution as they swore to do when they took office they seem to loathe it and find it an impediment to the things they want to do. Most if not all of them are socialists to one degree or another. They feel it is the government's responsibility to take care of the people's needs. They seem to feel that we cannot be trusted to do what is best for us and so we must be made to do what is best for us.
This attitude has been growing for a long time. They understood that though they already believed it they had to bring the American people around to believing it, at least enough that they would be willing to accept it. Americans now readily accept that the government should take care of us in our old age as far as retirement, and now as far as much of our medical care as well. They have done an excellent job of selling us on these things. We have had Social Security for so long that it has become a given. It has been with us for nearly 100 years now and it has taken this long for it to finally start going broke. It is not that it had to go broke. What our representatives would have you forget or ignore is that they have been pilfering from Social Security for many of the pet programs leaving I.O.U.'s behind. After all they had more than enough in there for the moment and they'd pay it back later.
Now that the government has started down the road to complete bankruptcy they don't have the money to put back in their. They behave as though it is somehow our fault that we haven't been putting enough in and want us to put yet more in. Of course they also want us to forget or not consider that the more we put in the more they will pilfer. These are people with no ethics or character.
Nancy Pelosi can stare right into the camera and say this is the most ethical congress we've ever had. She may actually believe this is true but if she does it is only because she doesn't know the meaning of the word ethical or she uses it differently than all other English Speaking people. If what congress has been doing passes as ethical in her mind then it is just one more reason that we need to get rid of her and her ilk from the seats of power.
It is a sad day when many or even most of our leaders hold their people in disdain. They behave as though we are too ignorant to see just how much good they are doing us with our own money. They behave as though they know best and we are at best misguided children that need discipline.
You have only to listen to a few of the town halls they've held to hear the contempt they hold for the people. This contempt they have has only caused the American people to hold them in contempt.
Pelosi is not the only one. Reid is now promising to get the public option for health care. He and the others in congress made it clear that this health care bill was only the beginning and that they had plans to get the rest of what they wanted. Reid has made no secret of this.
The thing that mystifies me is how the people can forget so quickly just how bad these people are! I'm surprised that any of these people have more than 10% support yet in many cases they still have large numbers of people willing to vote for them.
Don't think I'm just picking on democrats. The whole of congress is rotten. Oh I know there may be a few good people there, and even for this I would only go so far as to say "MAY" be. I don't think that even getting rid of the few "good" ones would really hurt. John McCain has stood up for the immigration reform that was going to grant amnesty and yet those in Arizona seem to have already forgotten this and are ready to vote him back in yet again. He is a chameleon like all the others in congress. He does not deserve to be sent back to congress any more than the others. He also seems to be a socialist, only of the more mild sort rather than the extremists such as Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Woolsey, Feinstein, and Waters, to name a few.
I do not understand why people are so afraid to get rid of these people. Surely we can find people of better character than what they have displayed.
We desperately need to seek and elect men and women of character. We have grown to use to the idea that politicians lie. If you can't take them at their word then you shouldn't take them as your representative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)