Someone sent me these quotes from those who wrote the Constitution. The argument about taking from one and giving to another is not a new topic. Does it have any place in our representative democracy? I will simply give you the quotes that were sent to me and let them speak for themselves. Feel free to comment:
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson
“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison
That's what they said. What do you say?
Until Later,
Don
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Offended that Obama has been called a socialist?
"From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs."
Who said this? This is a direct quote from the founder of communism, Karl Marx.
What does it mean? Well it says, "from each according to his ability". This means we take money according to what a person has the ability to earn. Someone who makes nothing gives nothing and someone who makes a lot gives a lot. Now, after the government takes the money, what do they do with it? We have always had a progressive tax code and rich people will pay a bit more than those who have none, but what is done with the money once it has been taken?
Well, this quote from Marx continues, "to each according to his needs". So, we take money from those who have money not to pay down the national debt; not to strengthen our military efforts; not to put in place opportunities to create new jobs. No, we take the money from those who make money (work for a living and create jobs) so that we can then give that money to people who do not have the ability (job) to make that money on their own. We take from one who works hard to build a business or a career and give that to someone that does not work hard to build a business or a career.
Now, who does this sound like? It sounds like Obama's "spreading the wealth around" statement. Obama wants to redistribute wealth from those who work hard to those who hardly work. This is pure communism. This whether the democrats want to admit it is following one of the major tennants of communism. Did we (Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush) overcome communism in the world only to bring it home to the United States? I sincerely hope not. That's what Barack Obame, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have in mind if we give them the White House and both houses of congress. There will be no more voice for Capitalism. What will be the incentive to work hard if all of your hard work goes to pay someone else for not working at all? You may say, "this could never happen in the United States". It's already happening under this democratic congress which has controlled the purse strings of our nation for the past two years.
Many blame the President for out present financial condition, but let me remind you that the Constitution charges the congress and the House of Representatives with the duty of controlling the national budget. The President suggests a budget, but it's the congress who passes a budget and let me assure you that it was not the budget the President sent down that got passed these past 2 years. What happened when the Republicans controlled congress during the first 6 years of George Bush's Presidency? Record growth in the stock market. Record job creation. What happened in he past 2 years? All of that growth went away and we find ourselves in the worst economic state since the great depression. Let's not stick our heads in the sand. Who has been in control these past two years? It's a democratic House and a democratic Senate. This is what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed have brought you.
What will happen if we add on top of this economy regulations which will drive more small businesses out of business? Where will the middle class and the poor find jobs if their employers go out of business. What will happen if we allow socialism to run unchallenged in the United States Congress and in the White House? Can we afford even 4 years of a Marxist government?
Please God, have mercy on us. Forgive us of our transgressions. God bless America again.
Until later,
Don
Who said this? This is a direct quote from the founder of communism, Karl Marx.
What does it mean? Well it says, "from each according to his ability". This means we take money according to what a person has the ability to earn. Someone who makes nothing gives nothing and someone who makes a lot gives a lot. Now, after the government takes the money, what do they do with it? We have always had a progressive tax code and rich people will pay a bit more than those who have none, but what is done with the money once it has been taken?
Well, this quote from Marx continues, "to each according to his needs". So, we take money from those who have money not to pay down the national debt; not to strengthen our military efforts; not to put in place opportunities to create new jobs. No, we take the money from those who make money (work for a living and create jobs) so that we can then give that money to people who do not have the ability (job) to make that money on their own. We take from one who works hard to build a business or a career and give that to someone that does not work hard to build a business or a career.
Now, who does this sound like? It sounds like Obama's "spreading the wealth around" statement. Obama wants to redistribute wealth from those who work hard to those who hardly work. This is pure communism. This whether the democrats want to admit it is following one of the major tennants of communism. Did we (Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush) overcome communism in the world only to bring it home to the United States? I sincerely hope not. That's what Barack Obame, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have in mind if we give them the White House and both houses of congress. There will be no more voice for Capitalism. What will be the incentive to work hard if all of your hard work goes to pay someone else for not working at all? You may say, "this could never happen in the United States". It's already happening under this democratic congress which has controlled the purse strings of our nation for the past two years.
Many blame the President for out present financial condition, but let me remind you that the Constitution charges the congress and the House of Representatives with the duty of controlling the national budget. The President suggests a budget, but it's the congress who passes a budget and let me assure you that it was not the budget the President sent down that got passed these past 2 years. What happened when the Republicans controlled congress during the first 6 years of George Bush's Presidency? Record growth in the stock market. Record job creation. What happened in he past 2 years? All of that growth went away and we find ourselves in the worst economic state since the great depression. Let's not stick our heads in the sand. Who has been in control these past two years? It's a democratic House and a democratic Senate. This is what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed have brought you.
What will happen if we add on top of this economy regulations which will drive more small businesses out of business? Where will the middle class and the poor find jobs if their employers go out of business. What will happen if we allow socialism to run unchallenged in the United States Congress and in the White House? Can we afford even 4 years of a Marxist government?
Please God, have mercy on us. Forgive us of our transgressions. God bless America again.
Until later,
Don
Friday, October 24, 2008
Do We Value Truthfulness?
I’ve heard a lot of people say, “I’ve heard Barack Obama say…” and we have all heard him say a lot of things. How do I judge what a man says? I would simply like to trust what people say to me, but I think we have all been lied to and what do we do when someone lies to us? Do we simply decide to believe the liar or do we learn something from the lie that was told to us?
I believe that people want to believe our leaders. We want to give them the benefit of the doubt unless they have been proven to lie. The danger with a man like Barack Obama who has never actually accomplished anything and who runs on a bunch of promises is that we don’t have much of a record to look at. So, the question is, if we are going to possibly make this man the most powerful man on the face of the earth, is he honest? Can we trust Barack Obama to do what he says he will do?
Let’s look at just a couple of small things. Number one, Senator Obama said that he would take public funding for his campaign if John McCain would pledge to do so. John McCain, who has been a champion of campaign finance reform, pledged to take public funding. This means that funds available for the McCain campaign would be limited to $80,000,000 for the campaign and the idea is that both candidates would have the same money to run on so people would not get a barrage from one and not from the other. It evens the playing field if both candidates stick to it. John McCain agreed to it and so did Barack Obama. However, once he had McCain agree, Obama decided not to be a man of his word. McCain, even though he knew it would put him at a disadvantage, stuck to his word and Barack Obama DID NOT. He lied in order to suck McCain into a deal which he knew would put McCain at a severe disadvantage. In the last debate when confronted about this, Obama did not bat an eye. He did not apologize for the lie, he simply justified himself and moved on.
Why is this important? Well if all we have is words, it’s important to know if the words are true.
He said that William Ayers was only a man who happened to live in his neighborhood. Is that true? No, it’s not true. William Ayers is a man that is documented to be a person that Obama has had a 20 year relationship with. He helped form a foundation with Mr. Ayers and in fact, Barack Obama launched his political life from the living room of William Ayers who happens to be an unrepentant terrorist. For the purposes of this blog, I don’t care about the character of Mr. Ayers. I do care about the character of Mr. Obama. Why did he feel the need to lie?
Why is this important? Well if all we have is words, it’s important to know if the words are true.
When asked about his pastor of 20 years who was spouting anti-American sentiments from the pulpit. Mr. Obama said that this man who was his pastor for 20 or more years, married he and his wife, baptized his children. A man who he sat under his teaching for at least 2 Sundays a month for 20 years, Mr. Obama says he was not much of an influence on his life. He was just a pastor that had relationships in the neighborhoods Mr. Obama was working in as a community organizer. But in fact Mr. Obama titled his book after the title of the book that his pastor wrote.
Why is this important? Well if all we have is words, it’s important to know if the words are true.
Now there are many more examples of things Mr. Obama seems to have lied about, but these suffice. All we hear are words. Mr. Obama says that he will lower taxes. Can we believe that when it would seem that he says one thing when it’s convenient and then does the opposite as in taking public funds for the campaign. His pledge didn’t seem to matter when the rubber met the road and he wondered why we cared that he didn’t live up to his promise as if we should not expect him to keep his word. When examining the record, Mr. Obama has never EVER voted for a tax reduction. Why should we expect him to do so now? In fact when he says 95% of all working Americans will receive a tax break. Economists say this is virtually impossible. But Mr. Obama wouldn’t lie. Would he? Maybe he would.
He says he is not a socialist and yet when you read his own book he prides himself on picking friends who are “communists”. He says you have to be careful to pick your friends right and he was always fascinated with the socialist and communist view. He says he has no relationships with terrorists and yet he is supported by the former spokesman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and many shady characters which seem to have backed his campaign from terrorist nations. But he wouldn’t lie would he? He lied about Mr. Ayers and his relationship with his former pastor, so would he?
The question at hand is this: if all we have are promises, can we trust the man who promised. One careful look at McCain says he is consistently a man of his word. Once careful look at Mr. Obama says he has made many questionable statements (lies). I can’t trust him. Can you?
Until Later,
Don
I believe that people want to believe our leaders. We want to give them the benefit of the doubt unless they have been proven to lie. The danger with a man like Barack Obama who has never actually accomplished anything and who runs on a bunch of promises is that we don’t have much of a record to look at. So, the question is, if we are going to possibly make this man the most powerful man on the face of the earth, is he honest? Can we trust Barack Obama to do what he says he will do?
Let’s look at just a couple of small things. Number one, Senator Obama said that he would take public funding for his campaign if John McCain would pledge to do so. John McCain, who has been a champion of campaign finance reform, pledged to take public funding. This means that funds available for the McCain campaign would be limited to $80,000,000 for the campaign and the idea is that both candidates would have the same money to run on so people would not get a barrage from one and not from the other. It evens the playing field if both candidates stick to it. John McCain agreed to it and so did Barack Obama. However, once he had McCain agree, Obama decided not to be a man of his word. McCain, even though he knew it would put him at a disadvantage, stuck to his word and Barack Obama DID NOT. He lied in order to suck McCain into a deal which he knew would put McCain at a severe disadvantage. In the last debate when confronted about this, Obama did not bat an eye. He did not apologize for the lie, he simply justified himself and moved on.
Why is this important? Well if all we have is words, it’s important to know if the words are true.
He said that William Ayers was only a man who happened to live in his neighborhood. Is that true? No, it’s not true. William Ayers is a man that is documented to be a person that Obama has had a 20 year relationship with. He helped form a foundation with Mr. Ayers and in fact, Barack Obama launched his political life from the living room of William Ayers who happens to be an unrepentant terrorist. For the purposes of this blog, I don’t care about the character of Mr. Ayers. I do care about the character of Mr. Obama. Why did he feel the need to lie?
Why is this important? Well if all we have is words, it’s important to know if the words are true.
When asked about his pastor of 20 years who was spouting anti-American sentiments from the pulpit. Mr. Obama said that this man who was his pastor for 20 or more years, married he and his wife, baptized his children. A man who he sat under his teaching for at least 2 Sundays a month for 20 years, Mr. Obama says he was not much of an influence on his life. He was just a pastor that had relationships in the neighborhoods Mr. Obama was working in as a community organizer. But in fact Mr. Obama titled his book after the title of the book that his pastor wrote.
Why is this important? Well if all we have is words, it’s important to know if the words are true.
Now there are many more examples of things Mr. Obama seems to have lied about, but these suffice. All we hear are words. Mr. Obama says that he will lower taxes. Can we believe that when it would seem that he says one thing when it’s convenient and then does the opposite as in taking public funds for the campaign. His pledge didn’t seem to matter when the rubber met the road and he wondered why we cared that he didn’t live up to his promise as if we should not expect him to keep his word. When examining the record, Mr. Obama has never EVER voted for a tax reduction. Why should we expect him to do so now? In fact when he says 95% of all working Americans will receive a tax break. Economists say this is virtually impossible. But Mr. Obama wouldn’t lie. Would he? Maybe he would.
He says he is not a socialist and yet when you read his own book he prides himself on picking friends who are “communists”. He says you have to be careful to pick your friends right and he was always fascinated with the socialist and communist view. He says he has no relationships with terrorists and yet he is supported by the former spokesman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and many shady characters which seem to have backed his campaign from terrorist nations. But he wouldn’t lie would he? He lied about Mr. Ayers and his relationship with his former pastor, so would he?
The question at hand is this: if all we have are promises, can we trust the man who promised. One careful look at McCain says he is consistently a man of his word. Once careful look at Mr. Obama says he has made many questionable statements (lies). I can’t trust him. Can you?
Until Later,
Don
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Change to Socialism
Last week we heard how Washington had solved all of our financial problems by passing a government takeover of much of the free market. It's been great this week since the solution has been found hasn't it? I mean isn't it great that the market is back up and everyone's savings are safe? Everyone who wants to borrow is able to borrow again. Businesses are flourishing and all is well with the world. Right?
Of course, not right. When all of this was suggested, I blogged that this was the wrong answer. I was shocked that a supposedly conservative President was going along with it. I'm sorry; Socialism is never the answer to ANYTHING in a free market economy. Those who do most of the money making and strengthening of the economy are free market capitalists. When the government steps in and begins to invade their territory, they pull their money out because they know better than anyone that the US government has no idea how to deal with ANYONE'S money. If left to the federal government to make a profit on anything, we would all be miserably and utterly penniless. The private sector knows how to make money and they know that the federal government does not.
Each time the government has "intervened", the markets have sharply dropped. Why? Well, the evil capitalists (democratic opinion) are greedy and don't want the government to "regulate" their industry (the democrat says). The reality is (sorry those who believe in class warfare and want to paint the rich as evil greedy people) that those who know how to make money are those who have the most to lose in the stock market. They are also the ones who make the middle class 401k, or in my case 403b, go up in value on a regular basis. They have been demonized by those on the left and now even some so called conservatives have been buying into it. These are the people without whom we would fall into another great depression. "Hey, let's punish the rich, the business owner, the man" the politician says. But just look at who is being punished. It's the retirement age woman who lives down the street from me who barely has enough in her retirement account to live on for her twilight years who has lost more than $12,000 in an already thin IRA. Is the rich man hurt, no, but he's not leaving his money in the market because he doesn't want the feds telling him how to manage it.
Oh, was there wrong doing in lending practices and so forth that needed to be addressed? Absolutely and those folks needed to be punished, but how our free market turned into a socialist nightmare, I will never understand. Let's just tax everyone who makes over a certain amount of money. Let's go in and take over all of their industries. Let's take over mortgages and give the federal government complete control over the majority of our economy. (sarcasm intended)
When we raise taxes on those who create jobs, they are not hurt, the middle class and the poor are hurt because jobs are cut and wages are cut and benefits are cut to make up for the additional taxes. When the government takes over investments in the stock market, those who drive the market take their money out and invest somewhere else, like precious medals and bonds and the ones left holding the bag are the middle class and the poor who see their retirement and college funds dry up. Look where the market is right now if you want to know what that looks like. When the government takes over the real estate markets, we are no longer free and our banks have to bow to the federal bureaucracy and loan values and property values all lose value. It’s not the rich who suffer from this. They have plenty of money (thus the title “rich”) It is the small guy who suddenly has a house that he is trying to sell that is no longer even worth what he paid for it. It’s the little guy who now can’t get a mortgage or a loan to buy a car. It’s you and it’s me that gets hurt. We are staring directly into another great depression if this socialist takeover is not stopped.
Now, I will say, neither Presidential candidate seems to have a good grasp on how to get us out of this, however, one candidate will greatly exacerbate the situation with his increased taxes on "the rich" (those who created your job) and increased business taxes. John McCain will not make the situation worse. He won’t fix it either, someone else will have to step in and start making some sense of all of this. McCain will, however make a large aspect of this crisis better by relieving those who create jobs with lower business and capital gains taxes. This will free up some monies to help create jobs and increase industry and GDP. Obama will simply make this situation much worse by raising taxes on those who created your job, those who invest in the market and make your retirement account worth more. He will force small businesses to pay for health care when they can’t afford it and fining those who can’t. Small businesses (those with 500 employees or less) are the major source of jobs in our country. His policies will drive many who provide jobs for you and me out of business. What will we do then? Oh yeah. Let’s stick it to the man. Really? Hmmm… It seems that when we “stick it to the man”, we are the ones who end up hurt. Do we really want that? People have been yelling for change. I for one do not welcome THIS change. This is nothing new. It’s what we defeated when we brought down communism in Eastern Europe. Are we now going to be the next great socialist experiment? I say, “Please no”.
What do we need to do? We need to write our Congressmen and Senators and let them know that we are not happy with this socialist take over. This is the democratic majority and unfortunately our President going seriously off course and taking us down a slippery slope which will indeed end up in our complete loss of freedom. Mark my words; we may be in the last days of freedom in this nation. This has to stop. Make as much noise about it as you possibly can.
Watch the following to see which party is at fault with the mortgage crisis. Did they need a takeover or oversight?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgctSIL8Lhs&eurl=http://www.ace.mu.nu/
Until Later,
Don
Of course, not right. When all of this was suggested, I blogged that this was the wrong answer. I was shocked that a supposedly conservative President was going along with it. I'm sorry; Socialism is never the answer to ANYTHING in a free market economy. Those who do most of the money making and strengthening of the economy are free market capitalists. When the government steps in and begins to invade their territory, they pull their money out because they know better than anyone that the US government has no idea how to deal with ANYONE'S money. If left to the federal government to make a profit on anything, we would all be miserably and utterly penniless. The private sector knows how to make money and they know that the federal government does not.
Each time the government has "intervened", the markets have sharply dropped. Why? Well, the evil capitalists (democratic opinion) are greedy and don't want the government to "regulate" their industry (the democrat says). The reality is (sorry those who believe in class warfare and want to paint the rich as evil greedy people) that those who know how to make money are those who have the most to lose in the stock market. They are also the ones who make the middle class 401k, or in my case 403b, go up in value on a regular basis. They have been demonized by those on the left and now even some so called conservatives have been buying into it. These are the people without whom we would fall into another great depression. "Hey, let's punish the rich, the business owner, the man" the politician says. But just look at who is being punished. It's the retirement age woman who lives down the street from me who barely has enough in her retirement account to live on for her twilight years who has lost more than $12,000 in an already thin IRA. Is the rich man hurt, no, but he's not leaving his money in the market because he doesn't want the feds telling him how to manage it.
Oh, was there wrong doing in lending practices and so forth that needed to be addressed? Absolutely and those folks needed to be punished, but how our free market turned into a socialist nightmare, I will never understand. Let's just tax everyone who makes over a certain amount of money. Let's go in and take over all of their industries. Let's take over mortgages and give the federal government complete control over the majority of our economy. (sarcasm intended)
When we raise taxes on those who create jobs, they are not hurt, the middle class and the poor are hurt because jobs are cut and wages are cut and benefits are cut to make up for the additional taxes. When the government takes over investments in the stock market, those who drive the market take their money out and invest somewhere else, like precious medals and bonds and the ones left holding the bag are the middle class and the poor who see their retirement and college funds dry up. Look where the market is right now if you want to know what that looks like. When the government takes over the real estate markets, we are no longer free and our banks have to bow to the federal bureaucracy and loan values and property values all lose value. It’s not the rich who suffer from this. They have plenty of money (thus the title “rich”) It is the small guy who suddenly has a house that he is trying to sell that is no longer even worth what he paid for it. It’s the little guy who now can’t get a mortgage or a loan to buy a car. It’s you and it’s me that gets hurt. We are staring directly into another great depression if this socialist takeover is not stopped.
Now, I will say, neither Presidential candidate seems to have a good grasp on how to get us out of this, however, one candidate will greatly exacerbate the situation with his increased taxes on "the rich" (those who created your job) and increased business taxes. John McCain will not make the situation worse. He won’t fix it either, someone else will have to step in and start making some sense of all of this. McCain will, however make a large aspect of this crisis better by relieving those who create jobs with lower business and capital gains taxes. This will free up some monies to help create jobs and increase industry and GDP. Obama will simply make this situation much worse by raising taxes on those who created your job, those who invest in the market and make your retirement account worth more. He will force small businesses to pay for health care when they can’t afford it and fining those who can’t. Small businesses (those with 500 employees or less) are the major source of jobs in our country. His policies will drive many who provide jobs for you and me out of business. What will we do then? Oh yeah. Let’s stick it to the man. Really? Hmmm… It seems that when we “stick it to the man”, we are the ones who end up hurt. Do we really want that? People have been yelling for change. I for one do not welcome THIS change. This is nothing new. It’s what we defeated when we brought down communism in Eastern Europe. Are we now going to be the next great socialist experiment? I say, “Please no”.
What do we need to do? We need to write our Congressmen and Senators and let them know that we are not happy with this socialist take over. This is the democratic majority and unfortunately our President going seriously off course and taking us down a slippery slope which will indeed end up in our complete loss of freedom. Mark my words; we may be in the last days of freedom in this nation. This has to stop. Make as much noise about it as you possibly can.
Watch the following to see which party is at fault with the mortgage crisis. Did they need a takeover or oversight?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgctSIL8Lhs&eurl=http://www.ace.mu.nu/
Until Later,
Don
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Why are lies left unchallenged?
It is amazing the favorable treatment Barack Obama receives or shall I say, the “stick your head in the sand” treatment? This is what I mean. When the economic crisis happened, John McCain suspended his campaign (his part of it anyway) and went to Washington. Now Obama and his pun dents say that he went to get the Republicans to vote for the existing bill and that he failed. Well, factually, is that what he said he went to do? No. He said that there was no support on the GOP side for the existing 3 page bill that Hank Paulson sent to the congress. He went to Washington to get a compromise and to get the GOP voice to be heard. Everyone who reports on the meeting he had in the White House with congressional leaders and the President, say the same thing. All of the dems including Barack Obama supported the Paulson bill as it was and the house GOP introduced a different plan completely which made Harry Reed, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank mad and they all stormed out angry. Senator McCain supported the house bill. The house bill is closer to what was passed although not in totality.
Now, Barack Obama gets on television after the whole thing was hammered out, just after (notice after action is taken) the Senate vote on the new bill. What does he say? He goes point by point through the GOP bill which made he and all of his buddies mad and says that he demanded that these things be implemented. When people in the media know the truth, why don’t they call him on these blatant lies? I’ll leave you to surmise that. Suffice to say, Barack Obama did nothing and now wants to claim credit for what others accomplished.
My opinion? It’s still a bad bill as is evident by the decline in the stock market. The market thrives on free enterprise. All of the people in the market gain confidence in our markets through free enterprise. Any government intervention is always seen as weakness in the markets. Fannie and Freddy failed and the government bailed them out. The markets declined sharply. AIG failed and the government intervenes. The markets declined sharply. Sub prim mortgage failures and the government bails them out and the markets declined sharply. We are in for a long road ahead and do we really want someone who sits and takes credit for other people’s work; who will raise taxes on businesses and hurt small businesses in particular? Or do we want a President who will be a friend to small business. Oh, both candidates supported this bad bill, but which one was honest? Which one demonizes those who create jobs and which one helps them create more jobs? I think the press needs to do a better job of simply telling the truth. Please feel free to share this blog and any others I’ve written which apply to as many Obama supporters you can. If the press won’t do their job, let’s not sit silently by and allow lies to go unchallenged.
Until Later,
Don
Now, Barack Obama gets on television after the whole thing was hammered out, just after (notice after action is taken) the Senate vote on the new bill. What does he say? He goes point by point through the GOP bill which made he and all of his buddies mad and says that he demanded that these things be implemented. When people in the media know the truth, why don’t they call him on these blatant lies? I’ll leave you to surmise that. Suffice to say, Barack Obama did nothing and now wants to claim credit for what others accomplished.
My opinion? It’s still a bad bill as is evident by the decline in the stock market. The market thrives on free enterprise. All of the people in the market gain confidence in our markets through free enterprise. Any government intervention is always seen as weakness in the markets. Fannie and Freddy failed and the government bailed them out. The markets declined sharply. AIG failed and the government intervenes. The markets declined sharply. Sub prim mortgage failures and the government bails them out and the markets declined sharply. We are in for a long road ahead and do we really want someone who sits and takes credit for other people’s work; who will raise taxes on businesses and hurt small businesses in particular? Or do we want a President who will be a friend to small business. Oh, both candidates supported this bad bill, but which one was honest? Which one demonizes those who create jobs and which one helps them create more jobs? I think the press needs to do a better job of simply telling the truth. Please feel free to share this blog and any others I’ve written which apply to as many Obama supporters you can. If the press won’t do their job, let’s not sit silently by and allow lies to go unchallenged.
Until Later,
Don
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
