Thursday, October 15, 2009

A comparison

I didn't like Bush's policies with regard to Iraq, I think that is fairly well known, but at least he didn't hide his agenda. Most of the following was sent to me unattributed, but the points in BOLD are mine. Many have made the statement that they appreciate Obama being elected because at least he is "smart" -- For those of you, consider the following. R----


If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter
installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have
laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is
really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved? By the way, a Marine friend told me that the true cost for the trip with all the supporting personnel, aircraft, vehicles and lodging amounted to over $562K

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in less than one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George Bush would have excluded Democrats from debating the largest and most expansive legislative issues of his first year and then directed the Republican leadership to create the legislation behind closed doors without Democratic input, would you approve?

I may not agree with the "birthers" out there, but if there was a question about George Bush's or even John McCain's birthplace and either of them refused to produce sealed original documents, would you approve?
If instead, Bush or McCain dismissed the inquiries and spent enormous sums of money to keep their school and legislative records sealed from the public, would you approve?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 months -- so you'll have three years and two months to come up with an answer. I really hope you are happy with this decision.

Now we have Sonia Sotomayor as a newly installed SC Justist and a second Jurist sitting on the SCOTUS who is sick and aging rapidly. Looks like our President is going to get to seat at least one more SC Justice in his first year in office. Do you approve of his take over of the SCOTUS?

Now we get ObamaCare rapidly moving through the nSenate which will cost taxpayers a minimum of $829 BILLION DOLLARS. If I remember correctly, many of you claimed we didn't have to worry about ObamaCare because it probably wouldn't happen, that I was being irresonsible in my criticism. Really? Is it time to get off the bench yet? -- Just asking!

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer. I really hope you are happy with this decision.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Gun Control

My network was down all day yesterday and didn't come back up until this morning, so I am really backed up with work and the Blog. I will try to catch up over the next few days. Keep coming back. I promise to catch up.

Note today's (Saturday) thought. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Jefferson and will add that this has never been more pertinent in America than right now. Even though HR-45 is a dead issue, the Chicago handgun ban case before the SCOTUS could be the beginning of another slide down the slippery slope of enormous restriction against the legal ownership of firearms.

Referring to the Chicago case before him, Judge Frank Easterbrook said that "the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule." "Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon."

I don’t agree with Judge Easterbrook. Our country is not governed by a Federalist Democracy, we are governed by a Constitutional Republic. Judge Easterbrook’s is the type of attitude which will strip our rights. Not only the right to carry a firearm, but many other rights delineated in the Constitution.

The further we allow progressives to move us away from the core values guaranteed under the constitution, the weaker we become as a nation. Gun control is only one of the headline issues.

Many have stated and the basis for the Chicago ban is an increasing incidence of murder with handguns in the inner city. This is true, but it is not indicative of improper control, there are more than enough laws and regulations on the use of firearms. I will opine that this is much more indicative of the criminality of the inner city residents, who have since the time President Johnson’s “Great Society” program was initiated, been living in single female head of households and have lost their moral center. Not having a strong father figure, or any father figure for that matter, is the real problem. If there is no one to teach that violence is not the answer, if there is no one to teach the work ethic, then violence becomes a more accepted action.

Let’s take a look at Americas large cities which have the most stringent gun control laws -- DC, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia are in the top ten in America.. Now consider the Cities which have the highest rates of single female head of households -- DC, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, again -- in the top ten.. Finally, consider the cities with the highest rates of firearm violence --DC, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia -- low and behold, top ten again.

Are you beginning to get the picture? Do you see the correlation? Guns aren’t the problem, moral upbringing and character is the problem. Our professional politicians shouldn't react to violence so much as the root cause of the violence. Our national policy should be to turn forty years of slipping down the moral slope around and begin the climb back to rebuilding two party households with a strong father figure in the inner cities.