Let me, first of all, offer congratulations to President elect Obama. The United States has a long standing tradition of conducting elections which result in a peaceful transfer of power. This time will be no different and stands as a model for the rest of the world.
As much as it pains me to say it, our current President is directly responsible for the democrat ascension to power. Make no mistake. George W. Bush is a republican. He is not, however, a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. And, as the leader or the republican party, he has been largely absent in that leadership role.
The result of his hands off political style has been two fold. Number one is that his party has been left to wander aimlessly in the political jungle that is Washington D.C. Number two is that the opposition party has had free reign in both moving political agenda and dominating the media with their message.
President Bush was used to working with democrats in Texas. In Washington D.C. most Texas democrats would be called republicans because their political ideology was not all that politically radical. His desire to work with D.C. democrats was greeted with the expected liberal lip service but there was no physical follow through on their part. Lack of leadership lead to a democrat takeover in the house and senate. Failing to learn anything from that defeat lead directly to the age of Obama and total democrat control in Washington D.C.
Unfortunately the model was out there for anyone to follow if they simply had the political will to do so. That model was established by Ronald Reagan. Regan still had the media to fight but he was largely successful in the political arena. The same media which warned that Reagan should not assume HE had a mandate simply based on a 49 state landslide..... was equally quick to assert that Clinton DID have a mandate even though he only garnered 43% of the vote. Failure of the Bush administration to follow the Reagan model lead to a complete lack of unity within the party and that showed up as as perceived political weakness.
Democrats play for keeps in matters of politics. Any sign of political weakness or uncertainty will be capitalized upon and exploited for political gain. Democrats have no desire to work with any other political party. Their sole goal is total and complete political power at all cost. They are good at talking a great game but what they say requires definition. For example the term "Bi-partisan" is used a lot. To a republican that term means working with the other side to formulate a piece of legislation based on a give and take policy in which both parties have something positive to show for their efforts. To a democrat that term means that the other side must cave and and give the democrats everything they want.
Our Founding Fathers specifically warned against single party rule. The entire concept or the separate but equal branches of government was solely for the purpose of preventing one party from running roughshod over the country. Soon, however, exactly what the founders feared the most will come to pass. Democrats will have absolute control in Washington D.C. Three of the justices on the Supreme Court are due to retire. All three had stated they would stay in office if a republican won this election. With Obama coming to office they will retire and liberal democrat justices will be their replacements. These will be people who, like Obama, have nothing but disdain for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They will be rubber stamped by the democrat controlled senate as the republicans can offer no opposition. The balance of the court will be shifted to the left for generations.
"What's wrong with that?" you might ask. Liberals do not hold to the letter of the law when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. Rather they see the Constitution as an impediment to accomplishing their goals. They prefer a "living breathing" concept by which they can change the document so that it supports their agenda. The example I love to give is that of a poker game. There are set rules for playing the game which offer consistent guidance during play so everyone knows what to expect in any given situation. No matter what hand you happen to hold the rules for play remain constant. Now then.... would you play poker with me if I changed the rules to suit the hand I held at the time? Of course not! But a liberal supreme court will do exactly that by "finding" in the constitution that which they wish to see.
For example.... just yesterday in the state of Virginia democrat Jim Moran made the following frightening statement: "We have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards means of redistributing wealth. And they may be able to maintain that for a while, but it doesn't work in the long run." Do you understand what you just read? This is a liberal government mindset that believes that what YOU work hard to earn isn't yours to keep and do with as you please. The fruits of YOUR labor belong to the government and THEY will tell you what you get to keep and what you must surrender.
If redistribution did, in fact, work then why is the left still calling for more? FDR started the redistribution of wealth with the New Deal program. We've had additional programs since then to include "The Great Society" and Clinton's programs. Since FDR these programs have taken well over a trillion dollars from the "haves" and given it to the "have nots." Enough wealth has been transferred over the years that every "poor" person in America should be a millionaire. Yet there are still folks who do well and those who do not. Why? Ambition.
If you have a strong desire to succeed and do what is necessary then you can succeed. If your ambition has been taken away from you by years of big government welfare programs.... then you are likely to remain unsuccessful. Even if the government GAVE the poor all the money they want.... say a million dollars.... in less than two years 99.8% of those people would be statistically poor again. Government had deliberately failed to give these people the skills and tools to be able to handle monetary success. This is by design in order to always have a class of people who need government to take care of them.
Thus we are about to enter the age of Obama and total democrat control in Washington. The damage this cabal will be able to wreak on American is almost beyond comprehension. But then again can a President who was endorsed by the likes of Hammas, the Palestinian Liberation Front, Mahmoud Amadinejad - President of Iran and Kim Jong-il - President of North Korea really be all that bad?
As much as it pains me to say it, our current President is directly responsible for the democrat ascension to power. Make no mistake. George W. Bush is a republican. He is not, however, a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. And, as the leader or the republican party, he has been largely absent in that leadership role.
The result of his hands off political style has been two fold. Number one is that his party has been left to wander aimlessly in the political jungle that is Washington D.C. Number two is that the opposition party has had free reign in both moving political agenda and dominating the media with their message.
President Bush was used to working with democrats in Texas. In Washington D.C. most Texas democrats would be called republicans because their political ideology was not all that politically radical. His desire to work with D.C. democrats was greeted with the expected liberal lip service but there was no physical follow through on their part. Lack of leadership lead to a democrat takeover in the house and senate. Failing to learn anything from that defeat lead directly to the age of Obama and total democrat control in Washington D.C.
Unfortunately the model was out there for anyone to follow if they simply had the political will to do so. That model was established by Ronald Reagan. Regan still had the media to fight but he was largely successful in the political arena. The same media which warned that Reagan should not assume HE had a mandate simply based on a 49 state landslide..... was equally quick to assert that Clinton DID have a mandate even though he only garnered 43% of the vote. Failure of the Bush administration to follow the Reagan model lead to a complete lack of unity within the party and that showed up as as perceived political weakness.
Democrats play for keeps in matters of politics. Any sign of political weakness or uncertainty will be capitalized upon and exploited for political gain. Democrats have no desire to work with any other political party. Their sole goal is total and complete political power at all cost. They are good at talking a great game but what they say requires definition. For example the term "Bi-partisan" is used a lot. To a republican that term means working with the other side to formulate a piece of legislation based on a give and take policy in which both parties have something positive to show for their efforts. To a democrat that term means that the other side must cave and and give the democrats everything they want.
Our Founding Fathers specifically warned against single party rule. The entire concept or the separate but equal branches of government was solely for the purpose of preventing one party from running roughshod over the country. Soon, however, exactly what the founders feared the most will come to pass. Democrats will have absolute control in Washington D.C. Three of the justices on the Supreme Court are due to retire. All three had stated they would stay in office if a republican won this election. With Obama coming to office they will retire and liberal democrat justices will be their replacements. These will be people who, like Obama, have nothing but disdain for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They will be rubber stamped by the democrat controlled senate as the republicans can offer no opposition. The balance of the court will be shifted to the left for generations.
"What's wrong with that?" you might ask. Liberals do not hold to the letter of the law when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. Rather they see the Constitution as an impediment to accomplishing their goals. They prefer a "living breathing" concept by which they can change the document so that it supports their agenda. The example I love to give is that of a poker game. There are set rules for playing the game which offer consistent guidance during play so everyone knows what to expect in any given situation. No matter what hand you happen to hold the rules for play remain constant. Now then.... would you play poker with me if I changed the rules to suit the hand I held at the time? Of course not! But a liberal supreme court will do exactly that by "finding" in the constitution that which they wish to see.
For example.... just yesterday in the state of Virginia democrat Jim Moran made the following frightening statement: "We have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards means of redistributing wealth. And they may be able to maintain that for a while, but it doesn't work in the long run." Do you understand what you just read? This is a liberal government mindset that believes that what YOU work hard to earn isn't yours to keep and do with as you please. The fruits of YOUR labor belong to the government and THEY will tell you what you get to keep and what you must surrender.
If redistribution did, in fact, work then why is the left still calling for more? FDR started the redistribution of wealth with the New Deal program. We've had additional programs since then to include "The Great Society" and Clinton's programs. Since FDR these programs have taken well over a trillion dollars from the "haves" and given it to the "have nots." Enough wealth has been transferred over the years that every "poor" person in America should be a millionaire. Yet there are still folks who do well and those who do not. Why? Ambition.
If you have a strong desire to succeed and do what is necessary then you can succeed. If your ambition has been taken away from you by years of big government welfare programs.... then you are likely to remain unsuccessful. Even if the government GAVE the poor all the money they want.... say a million dollars.... in less than two years 99.8% of those people would be statistically poor again. Government had deliberately failed to give these people the skills and tools to be able to handle monetary success. This is by design in order to always have a class of people who need government to take care of them.
Thus we are about to enter the age of Obama and total democrat control in Washington. The damage this cabal will be able to wreak on American is almost beyond comprehension. But then again can a President who was endorsed by the likes of Hammas, the Palestinian Liberation Front, Mahmoud Amadinejad - President of Iran and Kim Jong-il - President of North Korea really be all that bad?
No comments:
Post a Comment