The windfall profits tax, taxing the “rich”, weak on defense, a lack of understanding of American values, talking with terrorist, and a stature of weakness are all commonalities of Obama and Carter.
We can’t afford an Obama now, or ever. This is America and we need another Reagan. McCain is no Reagan but at least he understands the threat of terrorists to this nation. He will continue George Bush’s greatest legacy which is keeping America safe from the people that want to slit our throats.
They don’t want to slit our throats because of George Bush - which is what the left implies - they want to slit our throats because of our American values. The terrorists like Obama because Obama seems to despise the things about America that the terrorists do.
He despises Americans faith in the individual over a collective government; he despises corporation’s ability to make a profit, he despises the fact that we can speak out about him and our government, and he is embarrassed by American pride.
Most Americans are proud to be American. We see ourselves as the source of good in this world, endowed by our creator with inalienable rights; willing to protect the world from the likes of terrorists and despot’s; using our military to insure fair commerce between nations without extortion of those that would; he despises American’s instinctive reluctance to allow too much government control of anything; he would not wear an American flag pin; will he pledge allegiance? Will he protect our nation? Will he represent what America stands for?
The Carter years were a disgrace. That is why Carter has been spending the remainder of his years trying to create another legacy, because his presidential legacy can be summed up in one word; failure.
Do we need to take the Obama path of change? Change to where? Change to what? What is his definition of change? If he wants to change the way American’s feel about America that is change we don’t need. If he wants to change the way our economy relies on the ingenuity of individuals that is change we don’t need. If he wants to decimate our military capabilities, that is change we can’t afford. If he wants to change our system of merit to one of equality of outcome, that is change for the worse.
So what does Obama mean by change? If he wants to take us back to the Carter policies of the 70’s that is a change that will ruin America; again. Listen closely to Obama, and what he doesn’t say in his “glorious” rhetoric. There isn’t an ounce of substance, never mind an ounce of pride in anything he says. He is an empty vessel waiting to be guided by the forces that despise America. He is a Trojan Horse for the forces that despise the rights of you and me. I ask you to listen closely. God I miss Reagan…
True knowledge of American history is necessary to insure the future of the America we love… This is an important time in our country's history. We must be wise and measured as we choose our leaders going forward.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Democrat’s first instinct; close down free markets…
“Urgent: House democrats call for nationalization of refineries”. The reason: “Then we (the government) can control how much gets out into the market”. When you stop laughing or crying, I will go on. I’ll wait.
First; what gives the government the right to take over any private business? Think of the ramifications this could have on the economy and markets. The government can’t do anything right with the exception of our fighting men and women. But even in the military there are huge issues of efficiency in the day to day bureaucracy that could be much more efficient.
Second; you have to have oil to refine. Refineries turn crude into useable fuel. You can’t “control” what you don’t have. This can be chalked up to plain ignorance. Drill, Drill, Drill, Tax incentives for Research on renewable energy, Tax incentives for Research on renewable energy…
Third; where do we live, Venezuela? Russia? Communist China? Islamic Iran? Are we not America? The home of the individual entrepreneur, ingenuity, and the most efficient economic system in the world; capitalism?
These democrats must be exercised from our government. This is a fundamental battle for the heart and soul of America. We need to fight with all of our hearts to defeat this mindset. These democrats in the congress are dangerous. Yes, dangerous to our survival, dangerous for our continued prosperity, and dangerous for our children. Do it for our children. That is what the democrats say. Make it about the children. Throw out the left leaning republicans and democrats; for the children…
First; what gives the government the right to take over any private business? Think of the ramifications this could have on the economy and markets. The government can’t do anything right with the exception of our fighting men and women. But even in the military there are huge issues of efficiency in the day to day bureaucracy that could be much more efficient.
Second; you have to have oil to refine. Refineries turn crude into useable fuel. You can’t “control” what you don’t have. This can be chalked up to plain ignorance. Drill, Drill, Drill, Tax incentives for Research on renewable energy, Tax incentives for Research on renewable energy…
Third; where do we live, Venezuela? Russia? Communist China? Islamic Iran? Are we not America? The home of the individual entrepreneur, ingenuity, and the most efficient economic system in the world; capitalism?
These democrats must be exercised from our government. This is a fundamental battle for the heart and soul of America. We need to fight with all of our hearts to defeat this mindset. These democrats in the congress are dangerous. Yes, dangerous to our survival, dangerous for our continued prosperity, and dangerous for our children. Do it for our children. That is what the democrats say. Make it about the children. Throw out the left leaning republicans and democrats; for the children…
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Where is the outrage over McCain Feingold?
Presidential candidate John McCain suggested that the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Habeas Corpus for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was, “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country”, I agree with George Will's assessment. I would also say the implications of the infringement on free political speech, as defined in McCain Feingold, is as concerning as the current Supreme Court decision. As George Will points out, we must always balance the governments power to detain people indefinitely. What George Will calls "The Most Fearsome Power".
Although I have faith in the military, like any government organization, there is an opportunity to over step their bounds. I don't believe these terrorists should have access to our civilian courts but I would like to see a military tribunal determine the status of each prisoner being held to quell the critics that suggest "innocent victims" are being held without just cause. My gut says that they are holding the most dangerous of our enemies. In that vein we need to make sure they don’t end up being brought here to stand trial. I am still gathering more details but I trust George Will’s instincts about having some oversight.
The point here is where is the outrage against McCain Feingold? He has sponsored and has passed legislation that limits our speech at the most critical time; during an election. I believe this needs to be pointed out. As for his presidential contender, Barrack Obama, he has not shown he deserves his Harvard Law degree. He actually compared the Nuremberg trials to support this decision, not understanding it was an International Tribunal, not a trial conducted in an American court.
Obama stated that Nuremburg showed that we as Americans are above others for having the sense to put the Nazis on trial. As if the US was the place they were tried and it was a US court. It was an international military tribunal and they were hung. There is no comparison and it highlights his ignorance as an individual. Now I am not saying that I would know everything about history, but I am smart enough to keep my mouth shut when I don’t know a subject. There is huge intelligence in knowing when not to speak. Unfortunately, Obama is not that smart.
Terrorism can not be fought through the criminal justice system; period. We tried that and the result was 911. Let's learn from history and not repeat it. That would probably be good advice for the Obama campaign.
We need better choices in candidates; period... You get the government you ignore. Rich Hand Author…
Although I have faith in the military, like any government organization, there is an opportunity to over step their bounds. I don't believe these terrorists should have access to our civilian courts but I would like to see a military tribunal determine the status of each prisoner being held to quell the critics that suggest "innocent victims" are being held without just cause. My gut says that they are holding the most dangerous of our enemies. In that vein we need to make sure they don’t end up being brought here to stand trial. I am still gathering more details but I trust George Will’s instincts about having some oversight.
The point here is where is the outrage against McCain Feingold? He has sponsored and has passed legislation that limits our speech at the most critical time; during an election. I believe this needs to be pointed out. As for his presidential contender, Barrack Obama, he has not shown he deserves his Harvard Law degree. He actually compared the Nuremberg trials to support this decision, not understanding it was an International Tribunal, not a trial conducted in an American court.
Obama stated that Nuremburg showed that we as Americans are above others for having the sense to put the Nazis on trial. As if the US was the place they were tried and it was a US court. It was an international military tribunal and they were hung. There is no comparison and it highlights his ignorance as an individual. Now I am not saying that I would know everything about history, but I am smart enough to keep my mouth shut when I don’t know a subject. There is huge intelligence in knowing when not to speak. Unfortunately, Obama is not that smart.
Terrorism can not be fought through the criminal justice system; period. We tried that and the result was 911. Let's learn from history and not repeat it. That would probably be good advice for the Obama campaign.
We need better choices in candidates; period... You get the government you ignore. Rich Hand Author…
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Free Speech Under Attack…
A Canadian magazine is being sued by a Muslim group for an article they say was “mocking and biting”, whatever that means? We here in the US still have the first amendment protections but they are slowly being chipped away by elitists, leftists, and groups like the one suing the Canadian magazine.
We better take the right to criticize government, and groups that we disagree with, regardless of political correctness, very seriously. We also need to understand how dangerous it is to have thought police, hate speech police, or any government Gestapo with the ability to arbitrarily throw us in jail because we “offended” someone with words.
The left is the real danger. The people who advocate for hate laws, and regularly criticize conservatives for being intolerant are truly the intolerant. Our government has become too big, intrusive, and dangerous.
We must reduce the role of government in our lives and celebrate individuals again. Don’t take it for granted. We are the only nation left that values individual freedom over government control. But we need to protect it; always…
We better take the right to criticize government, and groups that we disagree with, regardless of political correctness, very seriously. We also need to understand how dangerous it is to have thought police, hate speech police, or any government Gestapo with the ability to arbitrarily throw us in jail because we “offended” someone with words.
The left is the real danger. The people who advocate for hate laws, and regularly criticize conservatives for being intolerant are truly the intolerant. Our government has become too big, intrusive, and dangerous.
We must reduce the role of government in our lives and celebrate individuals again. Don’t take it for granted. We are the only nation left that values individual freedom over government control. But we need to protect it; always…
Monday, June 9, 2008
If We Are To Survive We Must Act…
This is a MUST READ article, written by Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite columnists and thinkers. Iran has stated they are going to kill us, and one of our presidential candidates wants to “talk” to our assassins first. The next 4 years will be critical for our nation’s survival or Iran’s. Who will survive intact is the question.
Hitler expressed the same disdain for the west and our culture in the 1930’s, and history tells us what he did. The appeasers then, like many of our politicians today and especially Obama, want to repeat the same mistake. The only thing that Iran and the Islamic terrorists understand is definitive action. Words are used as a weapon against the west. We value words and agreements between parties, they don’t. They use this understanding of us as a weapon against us; period.
Unless we take the threats from Iran and others seriously enough to take action, their plan continues to work in their favor. It buys time, knowledge, and nukes. We will be defeated at the table of negotiation because we will be alone there, while the bombs start dropping on western targets. And history, if there is any then, will tell us that the strategy used by our enemy was the knowledge that they knew we would do anything we could to stall action against them.
We must act; period!
Hitler expressed the same disdain for the west and our culture in the 1930’s, and history tells us what he did. The appeasers then, like many of our politicians today and especially Obama, want to repeat the same mistake. The only thing that Iran and the Islamic terrorists understand is definitive action. Words are used as a weapon against the west. We value words and agreements between parties, they don’t. They use this understanding of us as a weapon against us; period.
Unless we take the threats from Iran and others seriously enough to take action, their plan continues to work in their favor. It buys time, knowledge, and nukes. We will be defeated at the table of negotiation because we will be alone there, while the bombs start dropping on western targets. And history, if there is any then, will tell us that the strategy used by our enemy was the knowledge that they knew we would do anything we could to stall action against them.
We must act; period!
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Marriage is About Supporting Healthy Children…
Recently the California Supreme Court ruled the state must recognize gay “marriage”. Not only has the court over stepped its bounds, it is a wrong decision. Marriage between a man and woman is by far the healthiest environment to raise children in, and it is in the best interest of society to maintain this fundamental definition, and institution that has served society so well.
By suggesting that the state support an alternative to traditional marriage is to plainly state that this is no longer the case, which would be false on its face, and undermine an institution that is best for the future of our society. That does not mean that individuals can’t enter into a contract that supports another person in a relationship by including them in a legal document like a will, or living will, but it does not constitute what’s best for a healthy society; marriage between men and women procreating.
The driving force to change the definition of marriage is a need that the gay community has to be accepted as “equal”. They are equal as individuals but not as partners in “marriage”. Gay couples may be a better alternative to raising children in abusive relationships or in the case where no family exists at all. But it is not the best option or even close to equivalent when you have a loving couple, man and woman, in a healthy relationship providing role models that will lead to a healthy society, perpetuating its existence through future marriage and child bearing.
We should not change the definition of marriage and in fact we should strengthen its resolve by once and for all defining marriage between a man and a woman. We must take a stand here or we risk a total disintegration in the value of marriage which will hurt society in the long run. There is a reason we don’t allow people to marry multiple partners, why is it different for gay couples? If this is not resolved, what is to stop an assault on marriage from every group with differing definitions of “marriage”? Nothing and that’s the point. We must protect our ability to nurture institutions that are good for society. Not every heterosexual marriage is good for society, and every marriage does not produce children. But only one arrangement allows for the possibility of a continued society and the healthiest way to raise children; traditional marriage. It is worth keeping such a sacred tradition by protecting its status as the preferred arrangement for preserving our society…
By suggesting that the state support an alternative to traditional marriage is to plainly state that this is no longer the case, which would be false on its face, and undermine an institution that is best for the future of our society. That does not mean that individuals can’t enter into a contract that supports another person in a relationship by including them in a legal document like a will, or living will, but it does not constitute what’s best for a healthy society; marriage between men and women procreating.
The driving force to change the definition of marriage is a need that the gay community has to be accepted as “equal”. They are equal as individuals but not as partners in “marriage”. Gay couples may be a better alternative to raising children in abusive relationships or in the case where no family exists at all. But it is not the best option or even close to equivalent when you have a loving couple, man and woman, in a healthy relationship providing role models that will lead to a healthy society, perpetuating its existence through future marriage and child bearing.
We should not change the definition of marriage and in fact we should strengthen its resolve by once and for all defining marriage between a man and a woman. We must take a stand here or we risk a total disintegration in the value of marriage which will hurt society in the long run. There is a reason we don’t allow people to marry multiple partners, why is it different for gay couples? If this is not resolved, what is to stop an assault on marriage from every group with differing definitions of “marriage”? Nothing and that’s the point. We must protect our ability to nurture institutions that are good for society. Not every heterosexual marriage is good for society, and every marriage does not produce children. But only one arrangement allows for the possibility of a continued society and the healthiest way to raise children; traditional marriage. It is worth keeping such a sacred tradition by protecting its status as the preferred arrangement for preserving our society…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)