August 2009 was one for the record books. In no uncertain terms, it reminded the Washington elite that they are replaceable. What August 2009 ought to have taught Republicans is the tremendous role grassroots involvement can play when the citizenry is educated and engaged and Jefferson County Republicans were among the nations most vocal and involved. Town Hall after Town Hall, concerned citizens traded in their Saturday morning rituals for a visit with their elected officials. Week after week, they listened on as Congress inanely consigned their frustrations to the nation’s circular files. So caught up in their own invincibility our nation’s leaders boldly and unapologetically spent our money and pillaged our private sector industries.
Many of them are now up for re-election.
The country is at an obvious crossroads and one much more pivotal than that which presented itself to Barack Obama and John McCain in the 2008 Presidential Election. Most would agree the last Presidential cycle was little more than a war of empty speeches. It was fought in an intellectual arena which allowed for empty platitudes to harness actual votes. The fight now before us is far richer in reason and inherently more precarious for elected officials who had assumed President Obama’s coat tails would have dragged them a bit a further than October of 2009. The American People are livid. Voters are growing tired of the sort of change the President has been peddling. Even Keith Olbermann would be hard-pressed to deny the swelling disdain for President Obama’s agenda.
At the close of August recess, the American People had succeeded in making their opinions known. Nevertheless, it is now nearly October and Congress is keenly aware of American forgetfulness. As the nation redirects its focus to the 2010 election cycle, it is imperative the Republicans maintain their offensive momentum. Colorado has a vital role to play in that process. As 2009 draws to a close the Mile High State is primed to undergo two highly volatile campaign battles. Colorado’s current Democratic Governor, Bill Ritter, faces a weary uphill battle to re-election. With his waning approval ratings, some formidable Republican opponents have already thrown their hats into the ring. In conjunction with Ritter’s vulnerable positioning Senator Bill Bennet’s days in the halls of the U.S. Senate seem inarguably numbered as well. And much like his executive counterpart, Bennet is not lacking for prominent Republican opposition.
Our government’s domestic growth has soared to new heights and its commitment to international appeasement has left many Americans rightfully worried for the safety of our country. As easy as it would be to rest the better portion of the blame on the Obama Administration, we must accept that our party’s abysmal performance in the 2006 election battle was much to blame. In organization, platform solidarity and participation, we failed the country. Here at home, the Jefferson County GOP learned a great deal about the broad-sweeping consequences of internal party strife. Cycle after cycle, Colorado Republicans have grown more divided in their loyalties and efforts, resulting in ever-increasing irrelevance. That dynamic must change. Jefferson Country Republicans have an exhaustive and up-hill battle to contend with. The road to the Primary will bring with it countless Republican debates and GOP’ers must remember to caution their words and control their emotions. More vital than Republican victory is the re-emergence of an America that believes in the private sector and stands up to the rhetoric of international despots.
This autumn, slighted Americans tuned in as their representatives’ arrogantly criticized the boycotts of the President’s agenda as nothing more than the posturing of an irrelevant, bigoted and fanatical fringe group. Republicans have long insisted that their message of Conservatism is simply a devotion to the principals upon which this nation was founded. Now is the time to test the veracity of that claim.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Old Guard or The New Guard: McInnis vs. Penry
Where has fiscal Conservativism gone? The actions in recent months of our President and Federal Legislators have unleashed a litany of outrage among the voting body. Moreover, contrary to our mass media’s insistence, Conservatives cannot boast a monopoly on the nation’s growing frustrations. The immense bi-partisan concern for our government’s outrageous spending has swelled to epic proportions. Our elected officials’ treatment of our hard-earned dollars have left many asking what has happened to fiscal responsibility. It has left most conservatives asking what has happened to the Republican Party. There is no denying the Democrats have not been known for their fiscal discipline but Republicans, at least during the Reagan years, had once been able to boast of a reasonable degree of spending restraint.
As we approach the sunset of 2009, a new era of monumental spending has erupted. Undoubtedly, our current Democratic leadership is to blame for much of our bloated budget but Republicans are not exactly free of guilt. That growing ambiguity between the spending habits of Democrats and Republicans segues nicely into Colorado’s 2010 Gubernatorial Republican buzz. Of particular interest is the state’s captivatingly diverse concoction of Republican Candidates. With current Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s approval rating plummeting as consistently as President Obama’s, the spotlight has begun to shift to the growing list of Republican contenders. Three names currently fill that list, two of which I will address in this article. In this climate of swelling government spending and subsequent voter outrage, I thought I would dedicate an article to the fiscal track records of Colorado’s three Republican Candidates vying for the party’s gubanertorial ticket.
Scott McInnis, former five-term Colorado Congressman from Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, announced his Gubernatorial Candidacy in May of this year. What McInnis brings to the political table is evident: experience. It should come as no surprise then that his campaign has chosen to build their message around the former Congressman’s proven track record. More specifically, the campaign has gone to great lengths to highlight McInnis’ record of fiscal discipline, something most voters will likely take into consideration as they cast their 2010 ballots. Colorado’s state budget deficit has been growing alongside its national counterpart for some time. Many feel that government program expansion in conjunction with rising unemployment and exorbitant tax increases are much to blame. McInnis has made consistent efforts toward linking the state’s rising unemployment with an executive leader whose fiscal experiences and disciplines are scant.
Running on the same message of return to fiscal conservatism but with a whole-heartedly new approach, State Senate Minority Leader, Josh Penry, threw his hat into the gubernatorial ring in July. Penry, a thirty three year old success story, has challenged McInnis’ call for more experience in our leadership by arguing the failure of that exact group of leaders to carry the torch of fiscal conservatism for the better portion of the last decade. According to Penry’s campaign message, only through the emergence of a fresh new generation of Republican leaders, will the solution to the party’s current identity crisis be resolved. Like McInnis, Penry promises an administration of fiscal Conservatism. Unlike McInnis, Penry asserts that only new guard Republicans can be trusted with the responsibility of a renewed commitment to Reagan Conservatism. Whether the solution to our party turmoil is found in the reinvigoration of experienced and proven leaders or by way of fresh new faces, one point is inarguable: Ritter’s support among Colorado voters is in serious jeopardy.
Both at the state level and nationally, Republicans have some monumentally important decisions to make in the coming months. Indeed, some have come to view Colorado’s current gubernatorial ticket as a reflection of the larger decision currently before the party. With our nation in fiscal peril, what path more likely guarantees a return to a Reagan policy of fiscal responsibility? With any degree of appreciation for the fiscal principals of our Founding Fathers, there is no denying Conservative ideals of limited government and a decreased burden on American taxpayers are the only roadmap to economic recovery. Thus the 2010 question before the Republican Party: will it turn to the wisdom of the past or forward to the wave of the future? Only time will tell.
As we approach the sunset of 2009, a new era of monumental spending has erupted. Undoubtedly, our current Democratic leadership is to blame for much of our bloated budget but Republicans are not exactly free of guilt. That growing ambiguity between the spending habits of Democrats and Republicans segues nicely into Colorado’s 2010 Gubernatorial Republican buzz. Of particular interest is the state’s captivatingly diverse concoction of Republican Candidates. With current Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s approval rating plummeting as consistently as President Obama’s, the spotlight has begun to shift to the growing list of Republican contenders. Three names currently fill that list, two of which I will address in this article. In this climate of swelling government spending and subsequent voter outrage, I thought I would dedicate an article to the fiscal track records of Colorado’s three Republican Candidates vying for the party’s gubanertorial ticket.
Scott McInnis, former five-term Colorado Congressman from Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, announced his Gubernatorial Candidacy in May of this year. What McInnis brings to the political table is evident: experience. It should come as no surprise then that his campaign has chosen to build their message around the former Congressman’s proven track record. More specifically, the campaign has gone to great lengths to highlight McInnis’ record of fiscal discipline, something most voters will likely take into consideration as they cast their 2010 ballots. Colorado’s state budget deficit has been growing alongside its national counterpart for some time. Many feel that government program expansion in conjunction with rising unemployment and exorbitant tax increases are much to blame. McInnis has made consistent efforts toward linking the state’s rising unemployment with an executive leader whose fiscal experiences and disciplines are scant.
Running on the same message of return to fiscal conservatism but with a whole-heartedly new approach, State Senate Minority Leader, Josh Penry, threw his hat into the gubernatorial ring in July. Penry, a thirty three year old success story, has challenged McInnis’ call for more experience in our leadership by arguing the failure of that exact group of leaders to carry the torch of fiscal conservatism for the better portion of the last decade. According to Penry’s campaign message, only through the emergence of a fresh new generation of Republican leaders, will the solution to the party’s current identity crisis be resolved. Like McInnis, Penry promises an administration of fiscal Conservatism. Unlike McInnis, Penry asserts that only new guard Republicans can be trusted with the responsibility of a renewed commitment to Reagan Conservatism. Whether the solution to our party turmoil is found in the reinvigoration of experienced and proven leaders or by way of fresh new faces, one point is inarguable: Ritter’s support among Colorado voters is in serious jeopardy.
Both at the state level and nationally, Republicans have some monumentally important decisions to make in the coming months. Indeed, some have come to view Colorado’s current gubernatorial ticket as a reflection of the larger decision currently before the party. With our nation in fiscal peril, what path more likely guarantees a return to a Reagan policy of fiscal responsibility? With any degree of appreciation for the fiscal principals of our Founding Fathers, there is no denying Conservative ideals of limited government and a decreased burden on American taxpayers are the only roadmap to economic recovery. Thus the 2010 question before the Republican Party: will it turn to the wisdom of the past or forward to the wave of the future? Only time will tell.
Friday, September 4, 2009
President Obama Speaks to the Nation's Youth: Why Many Parents are Disturbed
This coming Tuesday, President Barak Obama will stand before a televised audience, an audience not the American Voter. Not yet that is. On Tuesday, September 8th, the President will collectively address our nation’s children on what will serve for most, as their first day of school. His speech is expected to include such noble reminders as the importance of education and the virtues of working hard. In many respects, the idea of a Presidential Address to our children seems a reasonable means for educating our students in civic awareness. In fact, much of the anticipated content is in perfect keeping with many of our most basic Conservative principals. Why then the public outrage?
On his radio show last night, Mario Solis Marich encouraged anyone with an intelligent justification for the angry response to news of the President’s speech to please speak up. The answer is really quite simple. A growing number of Americans do not trust President Obama. The cult of personality that has grown to define this administration has left many Americans justifiably apprehensive about Barak Obama, the man. This paranoia is not restricted to the Right. On Progressive Talk Radio, talk show hosts such as Thom Hartmann have gone to great lengths to differentiate between Obama Policy and Obama celebrity. Since his inauguration in January, the president has acted upon a great many policy objectives he vowed just last year to actively campaign against.
His official policy decisions have run so contrary to “Candidate Obama’s” campaign promises that his ardent supporters have had to perform intellectual gymnastics in an effort to defend his administrative decisions. He has delivered countless speeches so inanely riddled with convenient ambiguities he has left even the most politically savvy scratching their heads in confusion. In doing so, he has exploited the American People’s trust. They can no longer boast confidence in an Obama Administration that means what it says and says what it means. It should come then as no surprise that some parents might be reticent about entrusting their children’s impressionable young minds to a leader who not only lacks integrity but seems at the same time dogged in his quest to revolution the United States. For all of his charm and inarguable charisma, President Obama has been praised neither for candor nor humility.
At the same time, do I fear that students will come home from school on the evening of the 8th pledging servitude to the great leader Barack Obama as Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher and so many other persons of little consequence have already done? No, I give our children far more credit than that. But I do respect their parents’ right to decline participation in the event and so should the school boards. Very likely, President Obama will deliver an undisruptive speech as regards staying in school and pursuing dreams. All the same, his mind-boggling sense of political invincibility, despite his plummeting poll numbers has many wondering where he will ever draw the line on his political invasiveness. So as a growing number of uneasy parents pledge to keep their children home or take them fishing on the 8th, I challenge the Administration to rethink their pre-conceived notions about the sort of the “change” the American People were looking for back in November. We will always, in keeping with our nation’s first presidential precedent, pledge our allegiance to an ideology of freedom and individual liberty and never to a man with a crown.
On his radio show last night, Mario Solis Marich encouraged anyone with an intelligent justification for the angry response to news of the President’s speech to please speak up. The answer is really quite simple. A growing number of Americans do not trust President Obama. The cult of personality that has grown to define this administration has left many Americans justifiably apprehensive about Barak Obama, the man. This paranoia is not restricted to the Right. On Progressive Talk Radio, talk show hosts such as Thom Hartmann have gone to great lengths to differentiate between Obama Policy and Obama celebrity. Since his inauguration in January, the president has acted upon a great many policy objectives he vowed just last year to actively campaign against.
His official policy decisions have run so contrary to “Candidate Obama’s” campaign promises that his ardent supporters have had to perform intellectual gymnastics in an effort to defend his administrative decisions. He has delivered countless speeches so inanely riddled with convenient ambiguities he has left even the most politically savvy scratching their heads in confusion. In doing so, he has exploited the American People’s trust. They can no longer boast confidence in an Obama Administration that means what it says and says what it means. It should come then as no surprise that some parents might be reticent about entrusting their children’s impressionable young minds to a leader who not only lacks integrity but seems at the same time dogged in his quest to revolution the United States. For all of his charm and inarguable charisma, President Obama has been praised neither for candor nor humility.
At the same time, do I fear that students will come home from school on the evening of the 8th pledging servitude to the great leader Barack Obama as Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher and so many other persons of little consequence have already done? No, I give our children far more credit than that. But I do respect their parents’ right to decline participation in the event and so should the school boards. Very likely, President Obama will deliver an undisruptive speech as regards staying in school and pursuing dreams. All the same, his mind-boggling sense of political invincibility, despite his plummeting poll numbers has many wondering where he will ever draw the line on his political invasiveness. So as a growing number of uneasy parents pledge to keep their children home or take them fishing on the 8th, I challenge the Administration to rethink their pre-conceived notions about the sort of the “change” the American People were looking for back in November. We will always, in keeping with our nation’s first presidential precedent, pledge our allegiance to an ideology of freedom and individual liberty and never to a man with a crown.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Something Worth Rebutting: David Axelrod's Message to the American People
On Friday, August 14th, a good friend of mine received an email from David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to the President. While unsure how I feel about the President of the United States disseminating mass political email messages to the American People, I have reasoned it incomparable to the poor taste of his appearance on George Lopez’ television show previews or his use of the word “wee wee” during a recent presidential speech on August 20th. Aside from his political modus operandi however, I find myself more perplexed by details of the message itself. In an effort to assure the American People that the President’s health “insurance” reform is not, as the Republicans have insisted, a veiled attempt at more government control, Axelrod inanely generates a list proving just that. The email details eight ways in which the government will regulate the manner in which insurance companies currently operate. Now, we all agree that some form of healthcare change must manifest soon if we are ever expected to emerge from this current system of exorbitant costs and defensive medicine. But what the President and Speaker Pelosi would have the American People believe is that their costly package is the only logical solution. The American People are not biting. If anything they are biting back, blind-siding the Democratic Leadership, in monumentally effective feet of grass roots citizen activism.
So what has the citizenry so restless? There are a number of problems with the President’s plan, a plan which evolves so regularly there now seems a swelling hostility on both sides of the isle. The Progressives’ frustrations aside, much of what has the Conservative camp up in arms can be found within the crux of Axelrod’s email. His message claims that the President’s package would end discrimination against pre-existing conditions. In his words, “Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.” At face value, this makes sense. Most Americans have either experienced this first hand or know someone else who has. That said Democrats have attempted to hijack this problem as a predominately Leftist concern though the reality is this has been an increasing concern among both political parties for some time. While the Right argue the immediate necessity of scaled back federal involvement, Axelrod insists on yet another government mandate. Just force the insurance companies to cover everyone. Problem solved, right? What the President is not saying is that forcing insurance companies to cover anyone at anytime will invariably raise premiums for all those currently insured. To add to the problem, insurance companies that will insure at any time and with more expensive premiums will also then discourage many from seeking coverage until the situation becomes absolutely imperative. This will invariably penalize the responsible insurance carrier who insures his/herself before the onset of an illness by increasing existing premiums to an even greater extent.
Axelrod continues. In the email’s second tenant, he promises an end to exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays. He explains that “Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.” First and foremost I find it preposterous that the President has the audacity to, at this financial juncture, fain any concern whatever for our out-of-pocket expenses. Our national deficit not withstanding, the laundry list of economic realities the Democrats insist upon ignoring is too exhaustive a catalog to detail in this article. Second, Democrats dismiss the reality, or right thereof, that Insurance companies are for-profit business who cannot be expected to operate in an organically free market capacity with even the current burdensome government involvement. Instead of allowing for an environment that fosters free market principals the Left insist upon incapacitating the insurance companies to an even greater extent with more regulation. Invariably, the companies will crumble under the pressure of exorbitant government mandates at which point the Progressives will decry the inadequacies of capitalism. It is what they have done to the oil companies, what they have done to the housing market and what they are attempting to do the automotive industry.
Axelrod goes on to claim that the President’s proposal will end cost-sharing for preventive care. He states that “Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.” It is an inarguable truth that early screening helps save lives. It is not however fact, nor even remotely a budgetary expectation that preventive screenings will save money. The Leftist argument goes that if it saves even one life we ought to do all that we can and from a purely moral standpoint any decent person would agree. But no where in the Constitution does it state that the Nation ought to bankrupt itself for the service of one life, nor would it make any good sense to do so. The Left often confuses the moral obligations of the individual with that of the governing obligations of the state, thus leading them and us down a never-ending rabbit trail of new and evolving government responsibilities. They insist that we cover all people for all problems at all times, utterly disinterested in the economic reality of an eventual insolvency crisis like that which exist in our current Medicare and Postal Programs. The budgetary consequences of the President’s healthcare plan seem lost even on those Democrats in my generation; a group of people currently and consciously paying into a Social Security System so badly in need of money they are very likely not to have access to it their old age.
In addition to the misinformation regarding preventive care costs, the President’s proposal assumes that all citizens would take advantage of regular check-ups and health screenings if only they had affordable access to them. But as it stands today, many insured do have access to fully covered mammograms and other preventive procedures. Does that mean they set the appointments and test for those problems? Most certainly it is does not and there are several more obvious reasons why. Some people do not want to be told to lose 40 pounds as a means for alleviating knee and joint pain. Others tend to ignore frightening realities by avoiding the necessary screenings and still others are simply too lazy to get around to it. Far too often, the Left get caught up in what ought to be rather than what is. Right or wrong, not all citizens care nearly so much about preventing serious illness as the Left would like to believe. To prove that point I need only reference the United States’ some 47 million current smokers. The reality is many costly medical conditions to include diabetes, chronic knee problems and lung cancer are the result of poor personal choices such as overeating, a lack of physical activity and smoking. If people are not interested in improving upon their existing bad habits, a free screening is not likely to miraculously compel interest in a healthier lifestyle. Moreover, using free preventive screenings to unearth all pre-cancerous warning signs would oblige every American to be tested. Unless Liberals are ready to round people up and drag them by gun point to their local clinic, the only exceptional feature of this mandate is going to be it’s price tag on yours’ and my premiums.
President Obama’s blast email is a feeble attempt to dispel the so-called “myths” surrounding his healthcare overhaul. The Democrats would like for the American People to believe that the only difference between the two parties is that one is for change and the other against it. In actuality, the principal divergence lies in the President’s desire for increased government control and the Conservatives’ determination to stand in defense of our founding principals of free market economics and individual liberty. Try as they may, there is no convincing the American People that the town hall protesters are organized mobs, a small faction of the population and not indicative of the national mood. The outrage over our leaders’ arrogance is palpable and the citizen outrage irrefutable. Moreover, endeavoring to dismiss the obvious citizen indignation with accusations of racism and Nazism is not only irresponsible, it is inherently unwise. As our Representatives return to the Hill in September and as President Obama’s word morphing continues, there is no doubt that the citizen activism will continue. If the President is as intelligent as even his opponents deem him to be, he will tune into growing national resentment lest he go down in history as America’s next one-term President.
So what has the citizenry so restless? There are a number of problems with the President’s plan, a plan which evolves so regularly there now seems a swelling hostility on both sides of the isle. The Progressives’ frustrations aside, much of what has the Conservative camp up in arms can be found within the crux of Axelrod’s email. His message claims that the President’s package would end discrimination against pre-existing conditions. In his words, “Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.” At face value, this makes sense. Most Americans have either experienced this first hand or know someone else who has. That said Democrats have attempted to hijack this problem as a predominately Leftist concern though the reality is this has been an increasing concern among both political parties for some time. While the Right argue the immediate necessity of scaled back federal involvement, Axelrod insists on yet another government mandate. Just force the insurance companies to cover everyone. Problem solved, right? What the President is not saying is that forcing insurance companies to cover anyone at anytime will invariably raise premiums for all those currently insured. To add to the problem, insurance companies that will insure at any time and with more expensive premiums will also then discourage many from seeking coverage until the situation becomes absolutely imperative. This will invariably penalize the responsible insurance carrier who insures his/herself before the onset of an illness by increasing existing premiums to an even greater extent.
Axelrod continues. In the email’s second tenant, he promises an end to exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays. He explains that “Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.” First and foremost I find it preposterous that the President has the audacity to, at this financial juncture, fain any concern whatever for our out-of-pocket expenses. Our national deficit not withstanding, the laundry list of economic realities the Democrats insist upon ignoring is too exhaustive a catalog to detail in this article. Second, Democrats dismiss the reality, or right thereof, that Insurance companies are for-profit business who cannot be expected to operate in an organically free market capacity with even the current burdensome government involvement. Instead of allowing for an environment that fosters free market principals the Left insist upon incapacitating the insurance companies to an even greater extent with more regulation. Invariably, the companies will crumble under the pressure of exorbitant government mandates at which point the Progressives will decry the inadequacies of capitalism. It is what they have done to the oil companies, what they have done to the housing market and what they are attempting to do the automotive industry.
Axelrod goes on to claim that the President’s proposal will end cost-sharing for preventive care. He states that “Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.” It is an inarguable truth that early screening helps save lives. It is not however fact, nor even remotely a budgetary expectation that preventive screenings will save money. The Leftist argument goes that if it saves even one life we ought to do all that we can and from a purely moral standpoint any decent person would agree. But no where in the Constitution does it state that the Nation ought to bankrupt itself for the service of one life, nor would it make any good sense to do so. The Left often confuses the moral obligations of the individual with that of the governing obligations of the state, thus leading them and us down a never-ending rabbit trail of new and evolving government responsibilities. They insist that we cover all people for all problems at all times, utterly disinterested in the economic reality of an eventual insolvency crisis like that which exist in our current Medicare and Postal Programs. The budgetary consequences of the President’s healthcare plan seem lost even on those Democrats in my generation; a group of people currently and consciously paying into a Social Security System so badly in need of money they are very likely not to have access to it their old age.
In addition to the misinformation regarding preventive care costs, the President’s proposal assumes that all citizens would take advantage of regular check-ups and health screenings if only they had affordable access to them. But as it stands today, many insured do have access to fully covered mammograms and other preventive procedures. Does that mean they set the appointments and test for those problems? Most certainly it is does not and there are several more obvious reasons why. Some people do not want to be told to lose 40 pounds as a means for alleviating knee and joint pain. Others tend to ignore frightening realities by avoiding the necessary screenings and still others are simply too lazy to get around to it. Far too often, the Left get caught up in what ought to be rather than what is. Right or wrong, not all citizens care nearly so much about preventing serious illness as the Left would like to believe. To prove that point I need only reference the United States’ some 47 million current smokers. The reality is many costly medical conditions to include diabetes, chronic knee problems and lung cancer are the result of poor personal choices such as overeating, a lack of physical activity and smoking. If people are not interested in improving upon their existing bad habits, a free screening is not likely to miraculously compel interest in a healthier lifestyle. Moreover, using free preventive screenings to unearth all pre-cancerous warning signs would oblige every American to be tested. Unless Liberals are ready to round people up and drag them by gun point to their local clinic, the only exceptional feature of this mandate is going to be it’s price tag on yours’ and my premiums.
President Obama’s blast email is a feeble attempt to dispel the so-called “myths” surrounding his healthcare overhaul. The Democrats would like for the American People to believe that the only difference between the two parties is that one is for change and the other against it. In actuality, the principal divergence lies in the President’s desire for increased government control and the Conservatives’ determination to stand in defense of our founding principals of free market economics and individual liberty. Try as they may, there is no convincing the American People that the town hall protesters are organized mobs, a small faction of the population and not indicative of the national mood. The outrage over our leaders’ arrogance is palpable and the citizen outrage irrefutable. Moreover, endeavoring to dismiss the obvious citizen indignation with accusations of racism and Nazism is not only irresponsible, it is inherently unwise. As our Representatives return to the Hill in September and as President Obama’s word morphing continues, there is no doubt that the citizen activism will continue. If the President is as intelligent as even his opponents deem him to be, he will tune into growing national resentment lest he go down in history as America’s next one-term President.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
OBAMACARE
For those of us in the Conservative camp, it is no secret that President Obama’s sense of urgency has had a great deal to do with his awareness that any amount of scrutiny would likely obliterate his ambitious and disturbingly socialistic healthcare agenda. Where the president lacks awareness however, is in his appreciation of the spirit of a free people. Even the least educated American understands freedom in its most basic form. While not all Americans might be able to offer, in text book clarity, the definitions of freedom and liberty, most every American can discern the withholding of them.
President Obama’s healthcare objectives appear, in their most superficial descriptions, as echoing charity, love of neighbor and good will toward men. Once dissected however, their true impact suggests a plan far different than the reform proposal being peddled by the President in his never-ending torrent of town halls and campaign style press conferences. Frustrated by the recent and broad sweeping naiveté of so many Americans’ belief in an altruistic, wholly self-sacrificial President Obama, I do accept as true that as the sheath is removed over the course of the August recess, Americans from coast to coast will begin to sense the power-hungry, big government stench of the proposed overhaul.
Inside the walls of Congress, real debate over President Obama’s healthcare reform has been scant at best and one-sided in the most generous of descriptions. In contrast, Americans the country round have begun to engage in rigorous debate regarding the sweeping implications of such an alteration in our current healthcare system. Undeniably, many who support the plan do so out of concern for the uninsured around them, an element not at all lost on the President who is regularly heard and seen exploiting that compassion for the sake of his personal objectives. What few realize however, is the massive government augmentation that would most certainly manifest as a result of such a shift in how our healthcare is delivered. What even fewer grasp is the commensurate diminishment of personal liberty that would accompany such a growth in government. This basic principal of government size is something that our Founding Fathers understood well. As described by Mark Levin in his highly acclaimed book, “Liberty and Tyranny,”
“For the Conservative, the lesson comes back to man’s imperfection. Even good men are capable of bad things. The disgrace of slavery is a disgrace of the human condition – as is all tyranny. Man’s institutions, like man himself, are imperfect. They can be used for good or bad, and they have been used for both. Therefore, diffusing authority among many imperfect men – by enumerating federal power, separating power within the federal government, and sharing power with the states, isolates and limits tyranny. “
The founders understood the necessity of a small national government for they witnessed, first hand, the peril of the alternative. President Obama’ plan for more government control might have seduced portions of the population for a time, but give the American people time to contemplate the particulars, time to reason the personal impact of his proposal and there is no doubt, if this is the American I know and love, that his agenda will meet a fateful end.
President Obama’s healthcare objectives appear, in their most superficial descriptions, as echoing charity, love of neighbor and good will toward men. Once dissected however, their true impact suggests a plan far different than the reform proposal being peddled by the President in his never-ending torrent of town halls and campaign style press conferences. Frustrated by the recent and broad sweeping naiveté of so many Americans’ belief in an altruistic, wholly self-sacrificial President Obama, I do accept as true that as the sheath is removed over the course of the August recess, Americans from coast to coast will begin to sense the power-hungry, big government stench of the proposed overhaul.
Inside the walls of Congress, real debate over President Obama’s healthcare reform has been scant at best and one-sided in the most generous of descriptions. In contrast, Americans the country round have begun to engage in rigorous debate regarding the sweeping implications of such an alteration in our current healthcare system. Undeniably, many who support the plan do so out of concern for the uninsured around them, an element not at all lost on the President who is regularly heard and seen exploiting that compassion for the sake of his personal objectives. What few realize however, is the massive government augmentation that would most certainly manifest as a result of such a shift in how our healthcare is delivered. What even fewer grasp is the commensurate diminishment of personal liberty that would accompany such a growth in government. This basic principal of government size is something that our Founding Fathers understood well. As described by Mark Levin in his highly acclaimed book, “Liberty and Tyranny,”
“For the Conservative, the lesson comes back to man’s imperfection. Even good men are capable of bad things. The disgrace of slavery is a disgrace of the human condition – as is all tyranny. Man’s institutions, like man himself, are imperfect. They can be used for good or bad, and they have been used for both. Therefore, diffusing authority among many imperfect men – by enumerating federal power, separating power within the federal government, and sharing power with the states, isolates and limits tyranny. “
The founders understood the necessity of a small national government for they witnessed, first hand, the peril of the alternative. President Obama’ plan for more government control might have seduced portions of the population for a time, but give the American people time to contemplate the particulars, time to reason the personal impact of his proposal and there is no doubt, if this is the American I know and love, that his agenda will meet a fateful end.
Of Course Europeans Love Obama
Posted by LM Stansbury on Monday, September 29, 2008 12:00:00 AM
My husband is among those many unaffiliated voters whose allegiance we McCain and Obama supporters have been vigilantly seeking after these many months. Yet even my husband was aghast when he first entertained several minutes of CNN’s news delivery in Germany this past week. During our trip overseas, we were subjected to our usual overdose of CNN, the only English-speaking news network we are ever able to locate on television outside the United States. As we attempted to remain up to speed with the news of the day while away from home we were equally appalled by the egregious number of endorsements for Senator Obama throughout the network’s news delivery. Indeed, I found it difficult to refer to their segments as “news,” at all.
During one conversation with a well-educated young German man, I was asked who I planned to vote for in the U.S. Presidential Election. My reply was simply, “John McCain.” His eyes lifted and his swung back with surprise. He had clearly anticipated my answer to be otherwise. I countered the question, asking who he would vote for were he an American Citizen. He invariably replied, “Barack Obama.” I asked what it was about Senator Obama he liked. He explained that it seemed reasonable to support Barack Obama as the news seemed to consider him a better fit. The following addition to his reasoning was, for me, so traumatic that I could almost hear the screeching of car wheels in my head. He added that after watching the American Video Music Awards it appeared as though most Americans preferred the Senator from Illinois. After I regained my composure I first addressed the matter of Brittany Spears having anything whatsoever to do with sound political decision making. I explained, with all of the passion that I could muster, how precious little our American counterparts in Hollywood represented the average American. In order to save you, the reader, from an overemphasis on the stupidity of famous people, something I am sure you already know, I will spare you the details of this portion of the conversation. I followed my response to the VMA’s with some discussion about the media’s role in the election. As we discussed the matter, I explained to him how very little the Europeans have been receiving in the way of balanced press coverage of the two candidates. He appeared to appreciate the point though I am not entirely certain he believed it.
To be clear, I am not concerned about whether or not my German friend would vote for John McCain in a presidential election. He is, after all, no more American than I am German but it did explain much with regard to the favor Senator Obama has been receiving abroad. Indeed, a soviet style dictator still rules over the small country of Belarus. Alexandr Lukashenka has moved his country backward in time, in his tireless crusade for the Communism of old. The people are oppressed and information regarding the outside is attacked more aggressively with each passing day. Yet many Belarusians consider Lukashenka a good leader by virtue of the manner in which the Belarusian, far from free, media extol him on a daily basis. Certainly, Western Europeans have far greater access to external information as compared to their Belarusian counterparts but it must be understand by Americans here at home, that the European media is not free and the delivery of news is not balanced. It is wrought with opinion and littered with bias. With foreign enemies who seek to influence our elections and foreign friends whose information is tainted, we must guard ourselves against concern for the world’s opinion about our presidential selection. We are bound with the responsibility to make decisions in America’s best interest and her best interest alone. And when it is all said and done, given their track record, I am not entirely certain we should be taking our advice from Europe anyway.
My husband is among those many unaffiliated voters whose allegiance we McCain and Obama supporters have been vigilantly seeking after these many months. Yet even my husband was aghast when he first entertained several minutes of CNN’s news delivery in Germany this past week. During our trip overseas, we were subjected to our usual overdose of CNN, the only English-speaking news network we are ever able to locate on television outside the United States. As we attempted to remain up to speed with the news of the day while away from home we were equally appalled by the egregious number of endorsements for Senator Obama throughout the network’s news delivery. Indeed, I found it difficult to refer to their segments as “news,” at all.
During one conversation with a well-educated young German man, I was asked who I planned to vote for in the U.S. Presidential Election. My reply was simply, “John McCain.” His eyes lifted and his swung back with surprise. He had clearly anticipated my answer to be otherwise. I countered the question, asking who he would vote for were he an American Citizen. He invariably replied, “Barack Obama.” I asked what it was about Senator Obama he liked. He explained that it seemed reasonable to support Barack Obama as the news seemed to consider him a better fit. The following addition to his reasoning was, for me, so traumatic that I could almost hear the screeching of car wheels in my head. He added that after watching the American Video Music Awards it appeared as though most Americans preferred the Senator from Illinois. After I regained my composure I first addressed the matter of Brittany Spears having anything whatsoever to do with sound political decision making. I explained, with all of the passion that I could muster, how precious little our American counterparts in Hollywood represented the average American. In order to save you, the reader, from an overemphasis on the stupidity of famous people, something I am sure you already know, I will spare you the details of this portion of the conversation. I followed my response to the VMA’s with some discussion about the media’s role in the election. As we discussed the matter, I explained to him how very little the Europeans have been receiving in the way of balanced press coverage of the two candidates. He appeared to appreciate the point though I am not entirely certain he believed it.
To be clear, I am not concerned about whether or not my German friend would vote for John McCain in a presidential election. He is, after all, no more American than I am German but it did explain much with regard to the favor Senator Obama has been receiving abroad. Indeed, a soviet style dictator still rules over the small country of Belarus. Alexandr Lukashenka has moved his country backward in time, in his tireless crusade for the Communism of old. The people are oppressed and information regarding the outside is attacked more aggressively with each passing day. Yet many Belarusians consider Lukashenka a good leader by virtue of the manner in which the Belarusian, far from free, media extol him on a daily basis. Certainly, Western Europeans have far greater access to external information as compared to their Belarusian counterparts but it must be understand by Americans here at home, that the European media is not free and the delivery of news is not balanced. It is wrought with opinion and littered with bias. With foreign enemies who seek to influence our elections and foreign friends whose information is tainted, we must guard ourselves against concern for the world’s opinion about our presidential selection. We are bound with the responsibility to make decisions in America’s best interest and her best interest alone. And when it is all said and done, given their track record, I am not entirely certain we should be taking our advice from Europe anyway.
"Enough!"
Posted by LM Stansbury on Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:19:08 PM
I highly doubt I am the only person who has heard the “lipstick on a pig” phrase before Senator Obama so masterfully used it a couple of days back. I say this so as to acknowledge some complaints I have received from my friends on the Left who argue that Republicans are sensationalizing a very common phrase, recently employed by their candidate.
Although I know some of you might disagree, we cannot know whether Obama was referencing Governor Palin specifically, or whether he was simply forgetting himself and the innumerable cameras that are watching his every move. Regardless, his comment was wrought with a lack of common sense at the very least. My friends have demanded that the Right forego the sensationalism of the lipstick fiasco and let the matter die, a statement which suggests that they believe their candidate did nothing wrong and that the real fault lies with our party’s inability to rise above the fray.
They are not alone in their complaints about Pig-Gate. I have heard this argument from others on the Left, to include many of our media talking heads. So the question must be asked, if Obama did nothing wrong, then does that mean that the Democrats would not have him take the comment back if that option were available? My guess, and I am usually right, is that they would have him take back the comment if he could. Why? Because his judgment has come with consequences that his party can hardly afford to suffer this close to Election Day. Senator Obama must understand that when his opponent (even though Sarah Palin is really Joe Biden's opponent) makes an inarguably popular statement about lipstick and he follows it up by employing a very negative catch phrase with that same word, he should expect to hear about it… a lot.
Sure, the Democrats would like for the "sensationalism" to stop. Can you blame them? The shoe is on the wrong foot, that foot is in their candidate’s mouth and his mouth is talking America right out of a vote for him in November. This is politics my friends and no presidential candidate, to include Senator Obama, is entitled to immunity. After making a reckless statement, Senator Obama sternly responded to the American people with one word, “Enough!” Not only was the word itself insulting but the manner in which he delivered it, as a strict and pompous school master might snap at a probing student, Obama’s response wreaked of arrogance. George Washington, our nation’s first president, led our military to victory against Great Britain. He helped to free us from tyrannical rule and inspired us along our way to freedom and independence. And yet… even he did not consider himself fit for King of the United States. I suppose it is for this reason that I struggle to understand what it is Senator Obama believes he has accomplished which might justify his self-righteous response when faced with questions posed to him by the American People. He is, after all, interviewing for a job as our employee.
Stop the sensationalism? At precisely the same time he is demanding a higher standard of conduct on the campaign trail, Senator Obama’s running mate has begun to target Governor Palin's youngest child, Trig, in order to make his case for stem cell research. And the Democrats think Barack Obama is above the fray? My friends, he is swimming in it.
I highly doubt I am the only person who has heard the “lipstick on a pig” phrase before Senator Obama so masterfully used it a couple of days back. I say this so as to acknowledge some complaints I have received from my friends on the Left who argue that Republicans are sensationalizing a very common phrase, recently employed by their candidate.
Although I know some of you might disagree, we cannot know whether Obama was referencing Governor Palin specifically, or whether he was simply forgetting himself and the innumerable cameras that are watching his every move. Regardless, his comment was wrought with a lack of common sense at the very least. My friends have demanded that the Right forego the sensationalism of the lipstick fiasco and let the matter die, a statement which suggests that they believe their candidate did nothing wrong and that the real fault lies with our party’s inability to rise above the fray.
They are not alone in their complaints about Pig-Gate. I have heard this argument from others on the Left, to include many of our media talking heads. So the question must be asked, if Obama did nothing wrong, then does that mean that the Democrats would not have him take the comment back if that option were available? My guess, and I am usually right, is that they would have him take back the comment if he could. Why? Because his judgment has come with consequences that his party can hardly afford to suffer this close to Election Day. Senator Obama must understand that when his opponent (even though Sarah Palin is really Joe Biden's opponent) makes an inarguably popular statement about lipstick and he follows it up by employing a very negative catch phrase with that same word, he should expect to hear about it… a lot.
Sure, the Democrats would like for the "sensationalism" to stop. Can you blame them? The shoe is on the wrong foot, that foot is in their candidate’s mouth and his mouth is talking America right out of a vote for him in November. This is politics my friends and no presidential candidate, to include Senator Obama, is entitled to immunity. After making a reckless statement, Senator Obama sternly responded to the American people with one word, “Enough!” Not only was the word itself insulting but the manner in which he delivered it, as a strict and pompous school master might snap at a probing student, Obama’s response wreaked of arrogance. George Washington, our nation’s first president, led our military to victory against Great Britain. He helped to free us from tyrannical rule and inspired us along our way to freedom and independence. And yet… even he did not consider himself fit for King of the United States. I suppose it is for this reason that I struggle to understand what it is Senator Obama believes he has accomplished which might justify his self-righteous response when faced with questions posed to him by the American People. He is, after all, interviewing for a job as our employee.
Stop the sensationalism? At precisely the same time he is demanding a higher standard of conduct on the campaign trail, Senator Obama’s running mate has begun to target Governor Palin's youngest child, Trig, in order to make his case for stem cell research. And the Democrats think Barack Obama is above the fray? My friends, he is swimming in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
