6-24-09 Like a bear awaking in the spring, I am back to growl about a serious problem I see brewing.
Obama, for example, is proving to be one of the most dangerous and incompetent presidents we've ever had at a time when we need the brilliance of a Ronald Reagan or a George Washington. And before I get castigated as being a narrow-minded, biased, racist Republican (oh, I forgot "ultra, extreme, right-wing"), let me say that this is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Most Republicans in Congress with any power at all are sounding rather wimpy and contrived to me. This concerns the safety and freedom of our country, as well as the world.
What bothers me is that Obama is asked question after question about the Iranian bloodshed and our stand on the issue and HE CAN'T ANSWER A SINGLE DAMN QUESTION!!! Does he really know where he stands? Does he know what would be best for America? Evidently not. And in case you think I'm making this up with my ultra, extreme, Republican blinders on, observe an article AP vomited out to the public yesterday.
"Obama Condemns Violence Against Iran Protesters" is the courageous title(and an outright lie) they give the article. White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven, writes, "Dramatically hardening the U.S. reaction to Iran's disputed elections and bloody aftermath, President Barack Obama condemned the violence against protesters Tuesday and lent his strongest support yet to their accusations the hardline victory was a fraud."
Wow! Sounds good, doesn't it? Loven goes on to write: "Obama, who has been accused by some Republicans of being too timid in his response to events in Iran, declared himself 'appalled and outraged' by the deaths and intimidation in Tehran's streets — and scoffed at suggestions he was toughening his rhetoric in response to the criticism.
"He suggested Iran's leaders will face consequences if they continue 'the threats, the beatings and imprisonments' against protesters. But he repeatedly declined to say what actions the U.S. might take, retaining — for now — the option of pursuing diplomatic engagement with Iran's leaders over its suspected nuclear weapons program."
People have died in Tehran because of the protests! That is much more serious than just threats, beatings, and being thrown in prison! Basically, Ach--whatever his name is, stole the election, is quelling dissent with violence, is openly pursuing a nuclear weapons program to attack the free world, and OBAMA DOESN'T SAY WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO???!!!!
If I were President, I would say, "Iran, stop the violence against your people now or we will bomb your capital. Stop pursuing nuclear weapons or we will follow Israel into Tehran and kill every part of your dictatorial regime and destroy your nuclear arsenal. Oh, and have a nice day."
Loven went on to quote Obama: "'We don't know yet how this thing is going to play out,' the president said. 'It is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it.'"
They have not shown any sign of reaching for a "peaceful path." What will we do if Iran does not take that path?
Loven goes on to blather inconsequentials until she gets to this revealing paragraph: "But Obama has been taken to task by some Republicans, accused of being too passive. Even with Iran's blackout of foreign press and attempted communications shutdowns, chaotic images of riot police beating and shooting protesters have seized the world's attention. At least 17 people have been killed."
What if protests in the United States of America resulted in government police killing seventeen people? Would anyone stand by and say, "Let's wait to see what happens first." That's the stance gutless France has always taken, but it's not what strong American presidents do.
And what do the heroic, brave, Republican minority say? If we are to believe Jennifer Loven, she quotes Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., as saying: "The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it. He's been timid and passive more than I would like."
More than you would like? Let's just call Obama a gutless, spineless, fence-sitting, spectator who's afraid to challenge someone he emulates and would like to get to know better. I guess that's more than Graham or other Republicans can muster right now. They're as gutless and mealy-mouthed as Obama right now.
We have an opportunity here as Americans to support oppressed people in a dictatorial regime who crave freedom and are not afraid to pursue it, even if it means their death. Our nation's founders did the same thing and suffered for it, but they created in the process a free nation. Don't we want to extend that same freedom to other people around the world willing to die to obtain it? I can't stand idly by and watch these brave protesters be slaughtered for standing up for freedom.
And what did the gutless King Obama have to offer as a plan? Ultra, left-wing, liberal Jennifer Loven writes, "With an array of U.S. sanctions already in place against Iran, there are few options at Obama's disposal other than withdrawing his offer to talk. Regardless, Obama said it's too early for him to be more specific. 'We are going to monitor and see how this plays itself out before we make any judgments about how we proceed,' he said."
In other words, we will do nothing. Many people will die pursuing freedom and democracy in Iran, but the dictator wanna-be Obama says he will "monitor and see how this plays itself out." We should instead be arming for battle and saying, "Yes, we are thrilled you want freedom! We will come help you rid your country of a bloodthirsty dictator!"
We are Americans, not red states or blue states. No one has seceded from the Union! These states are still the United States! As Americans, let's reinforce the freedoms we still enjoy by encouraging oppressed people yearning for that freedom. Let freedom ring!
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Socialism at work
4-28 Below is part of an article I gleaned from The Plain Dealer, specifically an article written by Harold Meyerson. Perhaps you've heard the results of Rassmussen's new poll, but in case you haven't, here it is in Meyerson's words.
37%: Percentage of Americans under the age of 30 who prefer capitalism.
33%: Percentage of Americans under the age of 30 who prefer socialism.
30%: Percentage of Americans under the age of 30 who are undecided.
53%: Percentage of all Americans who prefer capitalism.
20%: Percentage of all Americans who prefer socialism.
27%: Percentage of all Americans who are undecided.
Harold Meyerson concludes that young Americans have rejected Wall Street and capitalism for what he calls "social capitalism." He doesn't even think socialism exists anymore! He says, "The end of Soviet communism has meant that the United States no longer has a major adversary that professes to be socialist."
I interpret the results above differently. I think it indicates a huge failure of our educational system to teach children what capitalism, democracy, and socialism really are! In fact, Meyerson seems confused as to what capitalism is. He also twists the chaos on Wall Street to mean that capitalism has failed. The government got involved in Wall Street and that's what caused the mess we're in! Obama's socialism caused our current dilemma, not capitalism!
I apologize for all the exclamation points, but I can't yell the truth loud enough. The fact that 30% of people under 30 don't know whether they prefer capitalism or socialism tells me that they don't know what these systems really do.
In a poll I heard about today, 23% of people like what President Obama is doing with the auto industry. His approval rating, however, is at 69%. People see socialism at work and don't like it, but they can't seem to connect the dots to the one(s) responsible!
As another example, this poll states that 53% of Americans prefer capitalism and only 20% prefer socialism, yet Obama won the election. If Obama had been defined as a socialist and McCain as a capitalist (although that's a stretch in McCain's case), McCain should have easily won the election.
Nationalizing the banks, nationalizing the auto industry, and nationalizing the health care industry are all signs of socialism. The America we know, land of the free and the brave, is quickly becoming the land of the enslaved and the fearful.
I'm just secretly hoping that the Swine Flu wipes out most of Congress with the resulting possibility of getting some sanity back into our government. If we wait until the next election, we may not have the chance to vote for sanity.
37%: Percentage of Americans under the age of 30 who prefer capitalism.
33%: Percentage of Americans under the age of 30 who prefer socialism.
30%: Percentage of Americans under the age of 30 who are undecided.
53%: Percentage of all Americans who prefer capitalism.
20%: Percentage of all Americans who prefer socialism.
27%: Percentage of all Americans who are undecided.
Harold Meyerson concludes that young Americans have rejected Wall Street and capitalism for what he calls "social capitalism." He doesn't even think socialism exists anymore! He says, "The end of Soviet communism has meant that the United States no longer has a major adversary that professes to be socialist."
I interpret the results above differently. I think it indicates a huge failure of our educational system to teach children what capitalism, democracy, and socialism really are! In fact, Meyerson seems confused as to what capitalism is. He also twists the chaos on Wall Street to mean that capitalism has failed. The government got involved in Wall Street and that's what caused the mess we're in! Obama's socialism caused our current dilemma, not capitalism!
I apologize for all the exclamation points, but I can't yell the truth loud enough. The fact that 30% of people under 30 don't know whether they prefer capitalism or socialism tells me that they don't know what these systems really do.
In a poll I heard about today, 23% of people like what President Obama is doing with the auto industry. His approval rating, however, is at 69%. People see socialism at work and don't like it, but they can't seem to connect the dots to the one(s) responsible!
As another example, this poll states that 53% of Americans prefer capitalism and only 20% prefer socialism, yet Obama won the election. If Obama had been defined as a socialist and McCain as a capitalist (although that's a stretch in McCain's case), McCain should have easily won the election.
Nationalizing the banks, nationalizing the auto industry, and nationalizing the health care industry are all signs of socialism. The America we know, land of the free and the brave, is quickly becoming the land of the enslaved and the fearful.
I'm just secretly hoping that the Swine Flu wipes out most of Congress with the resulting possibility of getting some sanity back into our government. If we wait until the next election, we may not have the chance to vote for sanity.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Tea Parties for everyone!
4-17-09 Wednesday was Tax Day, and this is the first time in my memory that Americans openly protested tax rates and government spending on April 15. Despite what the liberal mainstream media says, these Tea Parties were not orchestrated by the RNC, nor were they gatherings of only Republicans. I saw reports of these parties and saw signs that indicated independents were there, too. For example, a huge sign behind Glenn Beck on Fox News said, "Ron Paul for President in 2012."
I also saw that anger was one of the motivating factors behind the Tea Parties, but the people I saw at various rallies were not hostile. Rather, they cheered, they smiled, they laughed, and they celebrated the common cause that brought them together: freedom.
Under President Obama, many Americans are fully aware of his socialistic intentions and they don't want that for America. It's not about Democrat or Republican or Independent anymore--it's about preserving our way of life and our freedoms!
In The Cleveland Plain Dealer, two numbskull reporters wrote, "Though the rally was hyped as a nonpartisan event, some speakers and those in the audience talked about gun rights, bringing God back into public education and being pro-life." Excuse me, but when did either political party hold sole custody of any of these issues?
Are there no pro-life Democrats?
Are there no Democrats in the U.S. who believe in God and want some sanity and fairness brought back into the public schools regarding religion?
Are there no Democrats who own guns and think that some politicians go overboard when it comes to gun legislation?
And the same could be asked about Independents. This is why I started my blog. I am so frustrated at how the media twists our beliefs and how liberals in government try to separate people into groups that war against each other that I could scream!
Aaaaaauuuuugggghhhh!
I don't feel much better, but I am encouraged by seeing the tremendous turnout around the country for the Tea Parties. And this is not the end of them! More are promised throughout the summer. I am encouraged because I see decent Americans standing up and saying, "This is enough! You've gone too far!" Only when we make our voices heard do politicians hesitate in their agendas.
Remember what happened after the Boston Tea Party--the Revolutionary War began. We are at war in this country against elitist ideals that indicate some can dictate how all need to act. We are at war against a government (Democrats and Republicans) that feels it can use our money any way it wants to and not be held accountable. Most importantly, we are at war against government officials (again from both camps) who do not feel they have to abide by the Constitution or the ideals that have caused this country to prosper for more than 200 years.
Therefore, I am encouraged by the Tea Parties and hope that politicians start recognizing the desires of the people and actually listen to the people who elected them. If they don't, there is a groundswell of anger across the country that could mean some BIG changes in government in the future.
(In case you weren't aware, T.E.A. stands for Taxed Enough Already.)
I also saw that anger was one of the motivating factors behind the Tea Parties, but the people I saw at various rallies were not hostile. Rather, they cheered, they smiled, they laughed, and they celebrated the common cause that brought them together: freedom.
Under President Obama, many Americans are fully aware of his socialistic intentions and they don't want that for America. It's not about Democrat or Republican or Independent anymore--it's about preserving our way of life and our freedoms!
In The Cleveland Plain Dealer, two numbskull reporters wrote, "Though the rally was hyped as a nonpartisan event, some speakers and those in the audience talked about gun rights, bringing God back into public education and being pro-life." Excuse me, but when did either political party hold sole custody of any of these issues?
Are there no pro-life Democrats?
Are there no Democrats in the U.S. who believe in God and want some sanity and fairness brought back into the public schools regarding religion?
Are there no Democrats who own guns and think that some politicians go overboard when it comes to gun legislation?
And the same could be asked about Independents. This is why I started my blog. I am so frustrated at how the media twists our beliefs and how liberals in government try to separate people into groups that war against each other that I could scream!
Aaaaaauuuuugggghhhh!
I don't feel much better, but I am encouraged by seeing the tremendous turnout around the country for the Tea Parties. And this is not the end of them! More are promised throughout the summer. I am encouraged because I see decent Americans standing up and saying, "This is enough! You've gone too far!" Only when we make our voices heard do politicians hesitate in their agendas.
Remember what happened after the Boston Tea Party--the Revolutionary War began. We are at war in this country against elitist ideals that indicate some can dictate how all need to act. We are at war against a government (Democrats and Republicans) that feels it can use our money any way it wants to and not be held accountable. Most importantly, we are at war against government officials (again from both camps) who do not feel they have to abide by the Constitution or the ideals that have caused this country to prosper for more than 200 years.
Therefore, I am encouraged by the Tea Parties and hope that politicians start recognizing the desires of the people and actually listen to the people who elected them. If they don't, there is a groundswell of anger across the country that could mean some BIG changes in government in the future.
(In case you weren't aware, T.E.A. stands for Taxed Enough Already.)
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Censorship at the Times
4-2 Welcome! I appreciate the warm comments from friends and family in response to my blog.
I will write more later about Mike Huckabee because I finished his book recently, Do the Right Thing. It's an excellent book written not just to conservative Republicans but to people who are concerned about the culture of our nation and what to do about it. Like I said, I will address that more at a later time. In the meantime, I would appreciate comments from anyone who has read the book. (And if you haven't, try to find it. It's worth reading.)
Changing subjects, I saw from Monday's Philadelphia paper (The Bulletin) that Obama has been finally linked with ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). Stephanie Strom, reporter for The New York Times, had been writing articles based on information given her by someone inside ACORN. However, when it was told to Ms. Strom that Obama's campaign had sent its maxed out donor list to ACORN's Washington office, her The Times stopped reporting on ACORN's efforts. Why?
Ms. Strom said, "it would have been a game changer."
So the New York Times is influencing what we read and learn? Isn't that censorship? I thought liberals hated censorship! Well, the truth is that the Times and the rest of the liberal media wanted Obama elected (even over liberal Hillary Clinton) and did everything possible to get him elected. This is further proof that if you read the liberal media (or listen to them), you will not get the whole truth--most likely not even half of the truth.
I will write more later about Mike Huckabee because I finished his book recently, Do the Right Thing. It's an excellent book written not just to conservative Republicans but to people who are concerned about the culture of our nation and what to do about it. Like I said, I will address that more at a later time. In the meantime, I would appreciate comments from anyone who has read the book. (And if you haven't, try to find it. It's worth reading.)
Changing subjects, I saw from Monday's Philadelphia paper (The Bulletin) that Obama has been finally linked with ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). Stephanie Strom, reporter for The New York Times, had been writing articles based on information given her by someone inside ACORN. However, when it was told to Ms. Strom that Obama's campaign had sent its maxed out donor list to ACORN's Washington office, her The Times stopped reporting on ACORN's efforts. Why?
Ms. Strom said, "it would have been a game changer."
So the New York Times is influencing what we read and learn? Isn't that censorship? I thought liberals hated censorship! Well, the truth is that the Times and the rest of the liberal media wanted Obama elected (even over liberal Hillary Clinton) and did everything possible to get him elected. This is further proof that if you read the liberal media (or listen to them), you will not get the whole truth--most likely not even half of the truth.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Obama Doesn't See National Security as Serious Issue
3-19 I figured I've taken a long enough break from my blog that I should write something new.
I read a report from Newsmax yesterday that caught my eye about King Obama shutting down the program that allows airline pilots to carry firearms. Have there been instances of pilots threatening passengers or shooting holes in their own planes? Of course not!
The real problem is that Obama does not see our national security as a serious issue. The $2 million that previously financed a program to train and certify pilots to carry firearms has been transferred to hiring additional field investigators to help discipline out-of-line pilots. A Washington Times article reported this Tuesday, also calling Obama's actions "completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots."
Put this alongside other moves Obama has made since taking office. His choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder, referred to interrogation techniques as "torture."
Obama banned waterboarding and announced plans to shut down Guantanamo Bay. He has indicated that the defense budget will be reduced.
His choice for Homeland Security does not use the word "terrorist" in her statements and instead announces plans to help the poor in America.
Obama has sent a letter to Russian leaders with an offer to back off on the ballistic missile defense system protecting Europe from Iran and North Korea.
He has insulted one of our main allies, Britain, on several occasions. He returned to Britain a statue of William Churchill that was sent to Pres. Bush after 9/11. It had previously sat in prominence in the Oval Office. King Obama cancelled a get-together meal with the Prime Minister on his first visit to Obama in the White House. Obama further insulted him with a gift of 25 classic American movies after lavish, thoughtful gifts from the Prime Minister.
He sent money to the Palestinians, which will obviously fall into the hands of Hamas, a terrorist group ruling the region.
Need I go on? I had planned on detailing my concerns about his economic policies, love of big government, and views on abortion, but this encapsulates them all. A lack of concern for foreign policy and national security will eventually destroy our economy, the government, and lives. Dick Cheyney was right to express concern about Obama, and this has nothing to do with Obama being a Democrat. His policies are dangerous and will not work. That much should be clear to anyone who ignores the liberal mainstream media and looks at the facts.
I read a report from Newsmax yesterday that caught my eye about King Obama shutting down the program that allows airline pilots to carry firearms. Have there been instances of pilots threatening passengers or shooting holes in their own planes? Of course not!
The real problem is that Obama does not see our national security as a serious issue. The $2 million that previously financed a program to train and certify pilots to carry firearms has been transferred to hiring additional field investigators to help discipline out-of-line pilots. A Washington Times article reported this Tuesday, also calling Obama's actions "completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots."
Put this alongside other moves Obama has made since taking office. His choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder, referred to interrogation techniques as "torture."
Obama banned waterboarding and announced plans to shut down Guantanamo Bay. He has indicated that the defense budget will be reduced.
His choice for Homeland Security does not use the word "terrorist" in her statements and instead announces plans to help the poor in America.
Obama has sent a letter to Russian leaders with an offer to back off on the ballistic missile defense system protecting Europe from Iran and North Korea.
He has insulted one of our main allies, Britain, on several occasions. He returned to Britain a statue of William Churchill that was sent to Pres. Bush after 9/11. It had previously sat in prominence in the Oval Office. King Obama cancelled a get-together meal with the Prime Minister on his first visit to Obama in the White House. Obama further insulted him with a gift of 25 classic American movies after lavish, thoughtful gifts from the Prime Minister.
He sent money to the Palestinians, which will obviously fall into the hands of Hamas, a terrorist group ruling the region.
Need I go on? I had planned on detailing my concerns about his economic policies, love of big government, and views on abortion, but this encapsulates them all. A lack of concern for foreign policy and national security will eventually destroy our economy, the government, and lives. Dick Cheyney was right to express concern about Obama, and this has nothing to do with Obama being a Democrat. His policies are dangerous and will not work. That much should be clear to anyone who ignores the liberal mainstream media and looks at the facts.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Obama's Socialist Bill
2-11 I am so frustrated with this "stimulus" bill, where do I start?
To begin with, there is very little stimulating of our economy now in the bill! Explain to me how giving money to groups like Planned Parenthood or education for birth control helps stimulate the economy. I suppose, in a liberal's twisted brain, birth control means fewer Americans which means fewer Americans that need financial assistance from the government, but even that is years down the road.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group, Obama's bill will actually HURT the economy! Glenn Beck made some interesting observations yesterday. He said that after the Stock Market crash in 1929, Congress did the exact same thing that they are doing now--spending money to try to recover. Well, we know how that turned out! It resulted in that beautiful decade we now call the Depression.
People had to work themselves out of the economic collapse then, and we have to do it now. Government can't do it for us. All the spending they are doing is only increasing the size of government, the control they have over our lives, and the prosperity of the Democrat government for years to come. Unless we make our voices heard, King Obama will bring socialism and economic collapse to our country in a way that we may never recover from.
I've heard that the economy is like a roller coaster, having low dips and then sailing high. The third quarter of this year is supposed to be when our economy should begin recovering. With Obama's Socialist Bill, I wonder if the government is messing with this roller coaster. And with anyone (like me) that likes roller coasters, going down and down is no fun if you can't go back up again.
There's another part to this. Three socialist Republicans decided to join King Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and the Democrats. They are Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine.
Like I said before, now is the time for people to speak up. The government is not the answer! Republicans are not even necessarily the answer. What we need is to let Congress and King Obama know how we feel.
The one bright spot I've heard was that congressional phone lines were all tied up a couple days ago from people calling to complain about the spending bill. that's what we need. Power to the people!
To begin with, there is very little stimulating of our economy now in the bill! Explain to me how giving money to groups like Planned Parenthood or education for birth control helps stimulate the economy. I suppose, in a liberal's twisted brain, birth control means fewer Americans which means fewer Americans that need financial assistance from the government, but even that is years down the road.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group, Obama's bill will actually HURT the economy! Glenn Beck made some interesting observations yesterday. He said that after the Stock Market crash in 1929, Congress did the exact same thing that they are doing now--spending money to try to recover. Well, we know how that turned out! It resulted in that beautiful decade we now call the Depression.
People had to work themselves out of the economic collapse then, and we have to do it now. Government can't do it for us. All the spending they are doing is only increasing the size of government, the control they have over our lives, and the prosperity of the Democrat government for years to come. Unless we make our voices heard, King Obama will bring socialism and economic collapse to our country in a way that we may never recover from.
I've heard that the economy is like a roller coaster, having low dips and then sailing high. The third quarter of this year is supposed to be when our economy should begin recovering. With Obama's Socialist Bill, I wonder if the government is messing with this roller coaster. And with anyone (like me) that likes roller coasters, going down and down is no fun if you can't go back up again.
There's another part to this. Three socialist Republicans decided to join King Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and the Democrats. They are Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine.
Like I said before, now is the time for people to speak up. The government is not the answer! Republicans are not even necessarily the answer. What we need is to let Congress and King Obama know how we feel.
The one bright spot I've heard was that congressional phone lines were all tied up a couple days ago from people calling to complain about the spending bill. that's what we need. Power to the people!
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Reflections on President Bush
1-20 As President Bush prepares to leave office, Yahoo has posted a news report about different news organizations around the world commenting on his leadership. Although 99% of them are overwhelmingly negative, here's what Erik Kirschbaum gleaned from Canada's Toronto Star.
"Goodbye to the worst president ever," it declared. "Bush was an unmitigated disaster, failing on the big issues from the invasion of Iraq to global warming, Hurricane Katrina and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."
While I will admit I'm disappointed in some of President Bush's decisions, especially ones concerning the recent bailout and control given the Secretary of the Treasury and the Fed, he did some important things to help the United States.
The invasion of Iraq was essential because Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon who proved over and over that he would not cooperate with the U.N. and wanted to attack the United States. He invaded Kuwait because he was unable to keep prosperity in his own country on its own. Hussein also killed millions of his own people. Much evidence was found of WMD's (barely reported in the "mainstream" media), as well as evidence that he was trying to get the nuclear bomb. Add to this the training camps for Al-Queda and you get overwhelming evidence for ousting Saddam Hussein.
Bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq was another plus for President Bush. As freedom hopefully continues to grow in Iraq, other countries around it will hunger for freedom as well. I read last year that Baghdad is experiencing a huge growth explosion from babies being born there. The people are starting to get used to some level of stability and freedom and are rebuilding their lives. And President Bush is criticized for this?
Global warming was the second failure the Canadian paper attributed to Bush. Many reliable observations of global warming and the procedures used to calculate it have proved that global warming is a myth. One volcano spewing millions of tons of debris into the atmosphere does more to affect the ozone layer than man could ever do. In fact, it has been quite a while since I've even heard scientists worry about the ozone layer. They're more worried about "climate change" now. "Climate change" happens every ten minutes here in Ohio! Are they worried about that? We've gone from snow to rain to sleet to sunshine all in one day. Surely scientists are worried about the confusion the world climate is in, just based on the climate data from Ohio!
Hurricane Katrina, also mentioned as a disaster for President Bush, was more a failure of the Democrats running Louisiana at the time and New Orleans than it ever was for President Bush. They ignored the repeated warnings that the dams would fail , and they dragged their feet on rescuing people until five days later.
Although President Bush has not helped the current economic crisis much, as I indicated earlier, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are the primary ones responsible for the housing crisis and the collapse of many banks, not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (They also happen to be Democrats, but that's not Bush's fault, either.) President Bush gave us a soaring economy for several years thanks to tax cuts, despite the 9/11 attacks.
What really needs to be looked at is how Democrats around the country have screwed up and blamed Bush for it and a liberal press that refuses to look at reality. Of course, some Republicans, John McCain, for instance, have gone along with Democrats in their wacky theories and thirst for government spending, but President Bush can't be blamed for this, either.
The main failure of President Bush (in my eyes) is his lack of communication to the public. He should have reminded people of the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks more often and reported the successes in Iraq that the liberal press avoided and focused instead on car bombings and soldiers dying. We've lost the anger and desire to stop terrorists and blamed President Bush instead. I think the next four years will open our eyes as a country to all that President Bush really did to help and protect our country.
"Goodbye to the worst president ever," it declared. "Bush was an unmitigated disaster, failing on the big issues from the invasion of Iraq to global warming, Hurricane Katrina and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."
While I will admit I'm disappointed in some of President Bush's decisions, especially ones concerning the recent bailout and control given the Secretary of the Treasury and the Fed, he did some important things to help the United States.
The invasion of Iraq was essential because Saddam Hussein was a loose cannon who proved over and over that he would not cooperate with the U.N. and wanted to attack the United States. He invaded Kuwait because he was unable to keep prosperity in his own country on its own. Hussein also killed millions of his own people. Much evidence was found of WMD's (barely reported in the "mainstream" media), as well as evidence that he was trying to get the nuclear bomb. Add to this the training camps for Al-Queda and you get overwhelming evidence for ousting Saddam Hussein.
Bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq was another plus for President Bush. As freedom hopefully continues to grow in Iraq, other countries around it will hunger for freedom as well. I read last year that Baghdad is experiencing a huge growth explosion from babies being born there. The people are starting to get used to some level of stability and freedom and are rebuilding their lives. And President Bush is criticized for this?
Global warming was the second failure the Canadian paper attributed to Bush. Many reliable observations of global warming and the procedures used to calculate it have proved that global warming is a myth. One volcano spewing millions of tons of debris into the atmosphere does more to affect the ozone layer than man could ever do. In fact, it has been quite a while since I've even heard scientists worry about the ozone layer. They're more worried about "climate change" now. "Climate change" happens every ten minutes here in Ohio! Are they worried about that? We've gone from snow to rain to sleet to sunshine all in one day. Surely scientists are worried about the confusion the world climate is in, just based on the climate data from Ohio!
Hurricane Katrina, also mentioned as a disaster for President Bush, was more a failure of the Democrats running Louisiana at the time and New Orleans than it ever was for President Bush. They ignored the repeated warnings that the dams would fail , and they dragged their feet on rescuing people until five days later.
Although President Bush has not helped the current economic crisis much, as I indicated earlier, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are the primary ones responsible for the housing crisis and the collapse of many banks, not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (They also happen to be Democrats, but that's not Bush's fault, either.) President Bush gave us a soaring economy for several years thanks to tax cuts, despite the 9/11 attacks.
What really needs to be looked at is how Democrats around the country have screwed up and blamed Bush for it and a liberal press that refuses to look at reality. Of course, some Republicans, John McCain, for instance, have gone along with Democrats in their wacky theories and thirst for government spending, but President Bush can't be blamed for this, either.
The main failure of President Bush (in my eyes) is his lack of communication to the public. He should have reminded people of the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks more often and reported the successes in Iraq that the liberal press avoided and focused instead on car bombings and soldiers dying. We've lost the anger and desire to stop terrorists and blamed President Bush instead. I think the next four years will open our eyes as a country to all that President Bush really did to help and protect our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)