The Conservative Universe

Obama the Centrist?

2009-09-09T16:05:00.004-04:00

With current political leniency towards a more centralized government, we hear the left speak conservative while they spread their cloaked agenda in the legislature and through small and big towns alike. President Obama likes to portray himself as a centralist, and so does the mainstream media but it must capture the attention of even the seldom news follower when Hugo Chavez a known and proud socialist wants to help Obama. Chavez considers him intelligent, and that he has good intentions, but why? Could it be that he sees him as a fellow revolutionary or at least in contrast anyone from the right, and that his intentions are to grow the government and make it a more socialized, and make business more regulated and answerable to a government entity? With less freedom to live the way, and do business you see fit, it is becoming clear what path we are going towards now.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5864ME20090907

Blue Dogs

2009-07-19T18:41:00.002-04:00

Blue Dog Democrats have an opportunity right now to block the new health care bill from going to the House. According to Rep. Mike Ross, a leading negotiator for the “conservative” Democrats has said that the legislation does not contain needed reforms to control expenditures in the health care system. A version of the bill is being discussed in the Energy and Commerce Committee, where there is 36 Democrats, 23 Republicans, and out of those, eight Blue Dog Democrats are willing to block the bill. If you do not wish the government to run your health care, and force you to invest in something you already pay for yourself, or through your employer, then the time to act is now. The debt our country will sustain will deepen our future generations into financial obscurity if this bill succeeds.

Call 202-225-3121 and tell the Energy and Commerce to vote NO!

Reps. John Barrow (D-Ga.)
Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.)
Baron Hill (D-Ind.)
Jim Matheson (D-Utah)
Charlie Melancon (D-La.)
Mike Ross (D-Ark)
Zack Space (D-Ohio)

California is Broke

2009-07-05T22:11:00.003-04:00

Schwarzenegger on Wednesday has recently declared California a fiscal emergency. It has a 24 Billion dollar deficit and no plan from the 48 Democrats and 32 Republicans in the Assembly, or from the 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans in the Senate. The only plan the legislature has is to support government programs it can’t afford, keep borrowing, give out IOU’s to their taxpayers, and short change bond holders that invest in the state. The former golden state will reap what they sow, and the blame goes towards the liberal majority destroying what “golden” generations before them with their blood, sweat, and tears worked so hard to accomplish. The Gold Rush was a gift from god that created this one great state (with the potential to be great again) the infrastructure of a leading economic power. As a native born Californian, I didn’t lose hope in California, California lost hope in us, and minimized the individualism of the citizenry. Activists have brought California down, and activist can bring the state back to a leading position again.

http://reason.tv/roughcut/show/671.html

Stimulated

2009-06-17T21:09:00.002-04:00

Many would like think that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal got America out of the depression, and that the current administration's similar government interventionism would have the same perceived success. But the actualization is that the New Deal prolonged the problem it was supposed to relieve, and stifled the recovery of private enterprise with taxes, public projects, and spending that where short term quick fixes. The left has tried to compare both situations, and assume the same big public spending will fix the problem of the current recession. But the only guaranteed path towards recovery is with capitalism, American ingenuity, and free markets.

Stimulus Numbers

This past Sunday on Meet the Press, David Gregory confronted Vice President Joe Biden on how they came up with the economic number of 150,000 jobs made or saved after 100 days the bill was signed. Biden said that the administration uses a decades old econometric model to correlate the economic circumstances of the nation with the creation of jobs, and that the model is used by the Council of Economic Advisers. He also goes on to say how 600,000 more jobs will be created in the next 100 days because “this thing is beginning to roll out.” He then claims he doesn't even know anyone who is arguing about the economic model when Mr. Gregory showed him a part of an interview on Tuesday of his own economic adviser Jared Bernstein, who said that the president's citation of (saving or creating) of 150,000 jobs is “an estimate” based partly on what the economy would look like in the absence of the stimulus package. But Bernstein said he could not break down how many of those jobs were created versus saved. Later the VP went on to say, “everyone guessed wrong" on the impact of the stimulus, economy was worse off than anyone thought.”

Money Comes From...

The theory of government spending a nation out of a recession by creating new demand, and growing the economy is inherently flawed because every dollar the government spends must be taxed, or borrowed. This method also makes us susceptible to foreign interference, and dependency, one of them being China owning 24.07% of our Treasuries as of Jan 09. So no matter how much spending is done no real wealth is acquired efficiently with this method. Tax cuts on the other hand give the money back to private citizens to spend the money more wisely. Keynesian economics has been a failure in the past and will only alleviate symptoms in the short term, leaving us with less wealth.

Insurmountable amount of money is being spent on the guise of “it could be worse if we did nothing”. But the way Washington is pursuing this, maybe doing nothing is not as chaotic compared to using Keynesian theories. So as of now, can you say you are feeling stimulated?

A lot of Activity

2009-06-10T22:20:00.005-04:00

There is a lot of activity in the universe and believe us when we say we understand how frustrating it has become to watch the Democratic party wield their coveted majority status.

The headlines are rife with tag lines that try to deceive the average reader with misguided facts and clever editors who continue to sell the investment of hope that many placed into President Obama's account.

I would encourage those of you who are reading this now to take some time and visit the b2journal, a poignant and extremely well written blog that cuts to the very core of this administrations impact on the future of America. Please spend some time there and realize that The Conservative Universe is chock full of citizens who share in the same love for America the we all have.

We here at The Conservative Universe are continuing to grow. Please look for more exiting things to come and remember... We are the Big Bang of Universal Conservatism.

TCU

Iranian Threat

2009-06-07T23:51:00.011-04:00

I feel it’s important to address one major factor in the Middle East that’s capable of transforming into a game changer for the region, and that is the nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The UN has said that Iran is distending their nuclear infrastructure to a much larger capacity, that it would prove a great challenge for the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to examine suspected nuclear activity. With Republican guards verbal threats towards Israel, and American military targets in the area, we must be vigilant. Iran supports terrorist organizations with financial, training, and equipment, there is no basis to believe or trust they aren’t developing nuclear weapons.

Capacity

The amount of LEU (low-enriched uranium) stockpile has increased from 500kg to 1,339 in the past six months. At this moment there are nearly 5,000 centrifuges operating towards uranium enrichment. David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security has said Iran now accumulated enough LEU to convert into high-enriched uranium (HEU) sufficient for one atom bomb. Eventually there are a planned total of 55,000 centrifuges that will increase capacity to larger amounts. There is also a separate project on working on more sophisticated centrifuges capable of enriching uranium 2-3 as fast as the P1 models. Missiles capable of delivering a nuclear bomb are readily available for any reason Iran deems necessary, Dennis Blair Director of National Intelligence has said, “Development of medium-range ballistic missiles, inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons, has continued unabated.

Threat

Once you cross the HEU threshold, there is nothing more difficult to accomplish towards the development of nuclear weapons. Back in September of 2007 Iran threatened to fire long-range missiles towards American military targets in the middle-east. The Shahab-3 rocket is capable of penetrating a wide area of the middle-east, including a beacon of hope, Dubai which could be an Iranian target. The reaction of a nuclear Iran would start a middle-eastern arms race in the whole region, giving terrorist more opportunities to infiltrate government projects for destructive purposes.

Giving Iran the capability to be a nuclear power is a price we can’t afford. We have vested interest in the area, and all would be in jeopardy should we not stop this common international threat. Iran has nothing to lose from proclaiming they nuclear might, the time to act is before they have the capability to have this resource.

President Obama's speech redacted.

2009-06-05T19:54:00.007-04:00

In the interest of time and as an opportunity to function as we know the mainstream media does, We at The Conservative Universe thought that it would be nice to illustrate how media spin and propaganda work.

We took the liberty of redacting the Presidents speech into one that was a little more short and to the point. No words were added to this speech, only removed. The speech in it's entirety can be found by doing a simple google search. This is not an attempt to minimise the speech or any of it's content. It does however illustrate that just as we were able to easily remove what we wanted from the speech and tailor it to align better within our interests, know that the world and all parties affected by the President's speech will do the same. The main stream media has already begun the process of spin control and rampant minimization that has become the staple of what now appears to be more like a state run media organization than anything else.

The content of this speech will be the topic of intense dialogue and debate for quite some time. Please enjoy this exercise and let us know what you think of this streamlined version. And as always feel free to discuss what the President's speech meant to you.

TCU

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I'm proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people. (Applause.)
Violent extremists have exploited tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.
I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, America and Islam are not in competition.
Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
As a student of history, I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story.
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.
America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."
Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion.
So let there be no doubt I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.
And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it.
Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
We will, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
Now, make no mistake: We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable.
So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.
America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.
And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away.
The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known.
It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
Thank you. (Applause.)

Conservative Hugo?

2009-06-05T00:06:00.003-04:00

During the Summit of the Americas in April, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez managed to create publicity, and awkward moments at the expense of President Obama. The perception of these encounters showed Obama oblivious, or glad to foot the bill. Just recently Chavez facetiously mentioned how conservative he appears in contrast with Obama’s recent government investments of 60% in General Motors. It’s been obvious that every time Chavez involves Obama or his likeness in anyway, it’s like El Professor is lecturing the pupil in social, economic, and Latin American affairs.

Obama more left wing

President Obama's Visit

2009-06-03T10:59:00.009-04:00

On the heels of the President's visit to Cairo this week Osama bin Laden has resurfaced and the number 2 leader of Al-Qaida Ayman al-Zawahri have made statements regarding President Obama's arrival. After you read that article you need to watch the video below:

It is absolutely amazing that the question was asked how relevant is Osama bin laden anyway? Please take your time and let this sink in. Watch the clip again if you must, re scan the link from number 2. Not withstanding the volatile balance of ideological differences that exist in middle east and forgetting that the supposed "negative view of America" in the eyes of the Muslim world was not a Bush era phenomenon I suggest that it is a irresponsible view point to minimize the radical intents of a fraction of the Muslim community.

Have we really forgotten the impact that Al-Qaida has has on our country? Will president Obama really be able to negotiate peace with Muslims and not isolate Israel? In closing I suggest that what Osama bin Laden represents is extremely relevant even if you minimize the man his viewpoint is shared by a faction and it only took a small group to accomplish this:

TCU

$90 a Barrel

2009-06-03T01:57:00.012-04:00

OPEC has been hinting $90 a barrel of oil for early next year, with the price of $75 later this year. With the current administration reluctant to drill in our oil reserves, and ignoring the full potential of coal, we are at the mercy of foreigners, and expensive alternatives to power ourselves. We have plenty of accessible resources that we possess that can give America economic and defensive advantages. High oil prices were a contributing factor why Chrysler and GM met their demise into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It has made the recession worst, and threatens to cut even further our consumer freedom. Instead of encouraging private enterprise to explore for coal and oil, the present administration wants establish “cap and trade” that will further dismantle our ability to power our priorities.

Pump Prices

The average vehicle in America uses loosely 600 gallons of petroleum every year. This would make any additional dollar $600 more at the pump a year. (1) Expensive petroleum will curtail demand for it, and the purchase of vehicles. Even though it will be less purchasing of goods, the vehicles that will be purchased in this climate will consume a more liberal amount of foreign derived energy sources, and we will depend on subsidized alternatives.

Public Transportation

Lack in demand of vehicles and petroleum on an individual basis will result in the desire for public transportation from special interest groups. (2) Many of them are pleading for the federal government to invest highly in Trains, and buses. The way the Federal Government would invest in public transportation would be to raise taxes on petroleum itself. But if petroleum demand is down because of out of reach prices for the average consumer, then the only way to acquire much needed funds would be from other public products, services, and income.

Meeting Americas need for energy will always be an ever changing and evolving phenomenon. The price for oil is influenced highly from the world market, and we aren’t doing enough to impact the change in our favor. The opportunity for our private enterprise to power our energy needs is out there if only the government would do its best to encourage development. We need to understand that the freedom to buy, and travel the way we have is not ever going to be the same if we go this route.

1. http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm
2. http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/nov/25/rep-mica-urges-area-queue-public-transit-funding/

Welcome

2009-06-02T13:53:00.002-04:00

I would like for everyone to welcome funployee, our first guest blogger to the TCU. As is typical with everything that is done well, we are growing in leaps and bounds. I am pleased to know that we have impacted one of our readers and they are hearing the call to write and be a part of this our Conservative Universe.

We look forward to funployee's insight and contributions.

TCU

Brinkmanship

2009-05-30T22:25:00.005-04:00

President Obama has said of Judge Sotomayor's comments, "I'm sure she would have restated it". All is well then. No Problem. As was pointed out in the previous Plessy V. Ferguson, there are no real do overs in the Constitution. An improper interpretation has long lasting ramifications.

This concept that President Obama is aware of her wish to have restated her commentary is far fetched. Would he and the Democrats be willing to accept that George W. Bush would have restated the "Mission Accomplished" quote that will never be forgotten amongst their peer group?

It would seem as if the President is also not aware of the Majority status that the democrat party is currently enjoying as he the went and said of Sotomayor's detractors:

"What I hope is that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinkmanship that has bogged down this process, and Congress, in the past."

He also chastised, "some in Washington who are attempting to draw old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor's record."

OK then, We must not forget that the Democratic Party holds the majority and stands unopposed. So when he says, "But I am confident that these efforts will fail," he must be talking to some democrats who he sees as standing in the way of her confirmation?

We shall wait and see.

TCU

Plessy V. Ferguson

2009-05-29T17:14:00.004-04:00

I was again reminded today of how hateful the republican party was being by questioning the ability of Judge Sotomayor to be an effective arbitrator of constitutional law. It was again wrongly asserted that race was the deciding factor in the Republicans dislike of President Obama's nominee. Race has become an impermeable layer between rational thought provocative conversation and issue orientated debate.

The moment one does not allow for an individual to exercise their ability to freely speak by prejudicing and undermining their every breath with accusatory tones of racial malice being the sole deciding factor of their motives, lends to the accuser not allowing for an intellectually honest conversation.

If one wants to limit the ability to learn from a persons intellectually diversity and keep a mind closed to the possibility that the content of ones character is truly more important than the ethnicity of the person, so be it. Sad, but it is reality.

In this intellectually closed conversation I asserted that the integrity of the Constitution was by far more important than Sotomayor's Latina heritage and her assertion as follows:

“our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.” and “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Plessy V. Ferguson established the separate but equal doctrine and was considered to be one of the supreme court's less fine and more infamous moments. In this decision that basically established that the separation of races was not inherently unequal there was only one dissenting opinion.

Justice John Marshall Harlan had firmly supported slavery and opposed the emancipation proclamation. His background has more depth but establishes his history and life experience. It was not till he joined the Republican party in 1868 that he turned his back on slavery and was quoted as naming slavery, "the most perfect despotism that ever existed on this earth."

However in his dissent Justice Harlan asserted his belief in the superiority of the white race by saying, "The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty."

While this statement is derisive and is contextually blatant racism he follows with this, "But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved".

Justice Harlan "experiences" were of no matter in that the Constitution was to prevail. If shaped by his experience alone and with out a strong understanding of the framers belief in equality their may not have been any dissent in the ruling of Plessy V. Ferguson.

Will Sotomayer have the same ability to separate her personal belief's as Harlan did? This truly is the heart of this debate. And it is an issue that needs to be out there blind to the races of the debaters.

God Bless

I am the Majority?

2009-05-29T13:24:00.005-04:00

It occurred to me today that the left wing liberal block of the Democrat party has yet to fully grasp the concept of being the controlling majority of a government.

Since Judge Sotomayor has received the nomination to become one of the nine the only earnest debate has been over what the Republican party is to do. The idea is that if the Republican party throws any sign of opposition toward the nomination of Sotomayor they will have sealed her confirmation and their doom as well.

It has not yet dawned on the lib left that it does not matter in the slightest what the Republican party thinks, does or says. If she is to be confirmed the Majority will have it. They continue to act and fight the Republican party knowing full well that unless there is major dissent within the Democrats against Sotomayor, she will walk right in.

It is obvious that the well placed responsibility of having to make important decisions for the country is proving to be overwhelming for them. It is easily solvable for the left though. In 2010 we are more that ready to relive you of this pressure and start making the decisions that matter with the grace and ease we always have.

And the nominee is.....

2009-05-27T01:20:00.004-04:00

The Supreme Court and it's justices hold the most painstakingly important job in the United States. Our Constitution is written so that we as Americans have a solid foundation of laws and freedoms that stand the test of time. The role of the Supreme Court and it's justices is to hear those cases that come before them in an impartial and methodical method that ensures the constitution is upheld. The answers they provide shape America, her rule of law and citizens.

Although important the generalized role of any justice on the court is to rule in the favor of the constitution. If this means the corporations win, fine. Conversely the little guy may also win as it pertains to a constitutionally based decision. So it is important to understand that although any justice currently siting will have had a lifetime of personal experiences prior to and during their time on the bench, these experiences are not to influence the decisions based on constitutional law.

I believe it is also important to note that as liberal as one or more justices may be, they should know that the document they are sworn to uphold was not written by men of a liberal constitution. The founding fathers were men of religion, principle and of a conservative stature. Their beliefs shape and strengthen America into a fully functional and free democracy.

Today President Obama announced he will nominate Justice Sotomayor to fill the vacancy left by Justice Souter. His choice was not one that should have surprised anyone who has followed his presidency so far.....However some key issues that have already risen from his pick disturb the conservative base. Some quotes from President Obama:

“When Sonia Sotomayor ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the highest court of the land, America will have taken another important step towards realizing the ideal that is etched above its entrance: Equal justice under the law.”

What is the implication here? That statement a blatant stab at the founding documents and a slap in the face of the Justices who sit on the Supreme Court currently. Judge Sotomayor will finally provide equal justice under the law by making statements like, “our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.” and “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” It is easy to see that equality is concern number one.

There is however that minor detractor in this debate being that all justices are to take this oath of office:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

The oath is important as is sets the tone for the responsibility incumbent of a supreme court justice. It does say impartially discharge not empathetically discharge. If you will don't get to hung up on her ability to be empathetic as it could be applied as an empathy toward the little guy even though the constitution rules in favor of the corporate entity. Unless that empathy distorts the ability to effectively interpret the constitution. In that case it is a problem...actually you should be hung up on it as that empathy will be problematic, it truly will.

This confusion of responsibility is illustrated in great detail from the mouth of the nominee herself in this video clip:

No commentary follows about that as is it clear where she stands. In closing, remember that Justice Clarance Thomas nomination was also an “extraordinary journey” as President Obama said of Sotomayor and his experiences were equally as compelling and yet his answers are constitutionally sound and devoid of any empathetic and liberal undertones. His strength as a Conservative Constitutional Jurist is well respected amongst his peers with the exception of President Obama, the liberal and I imagine that if confirmed, Sotomayor. Look for some interesting opinions coming from the highest court in the land and keep a copy of the constitution in you pocket, you may need it.

Just a question

2009-05-07T21:54:00.002-04:00

Of what concern is it to Americans who Obama chooses to replace Justice Souter? An opportunity for an open debate. Feel free to discuss.

Now Read

2009-05-01T23:43:00.001-04:00

If you read President Reagan's Speech from the 1964 RNC below it is perfectly clear that he has exposed a template of behaviors that we are currently experiencing at this very moment in time.

Ronald Reagan October 27, 1964

A Time For Choosing

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down—[up] man's old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming—that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how—who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they've had almost 30 years of it—shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now—so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by re instituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things—we're never "for" anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

Now—we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due—that the cupboard isn't bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men—that we're to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits—not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

Watch

2009-05-01T23:18:00.001-04:00

Just A dream

2009-04-30T19:03:00.003-04:00

It is all just a dream. Sit back and relax, we will wake up soon. I believe that, you see. Because in my world the idea of America should not allow for what starts to stir me from this dream state. In my world America stands for the core belief, that the individual is a force of greatness. Individual responsibility still holds merit and the government as a whole is not here to run life but to assist only if necessary. Here is where you try and tell me that we are in great need of assistance. That we are in this mess because of the government and now they must do something to fix it. It would seem to some that now more than ever this is true. If I am to believe this then my dream has made a sharp transition to nightmare. We are not a nation of the needy. We are not a nation of built on the spirit of complacency and a never try attitude. We are a great nation of individuals who agree to stand united and refuse to fall. If the argument that the government is now responsible for all that we are, then forgive what follows next. I still do not choose to blame government or run head first, crying out, help me, Oh great and powerful ones. Are you ready to put blame where it solely lies? Us, that's who. We have a government for the people and by the people. We the people then hold entirely the blame for the failings of our government and the path it currently takes. We are the sole architect's of it's failure and the sole benefactors of it's misuse.

Remember what I just said about responsibility? Our founding fathers had a great belief in limited government. So much so that they decided to gather together and lay groundwork and commit to paper these ideals. Our independence was guaranteed and spelled out for us. Let me refresh the minds of the few who don't know.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

So you see clearly they derive their (JUST) powers from the consent of the governed. More importantly look to the line about not changing for light and transient causes. This seems important as our economy is transitory at the moment, however it seems by that definition it is not being allowed to change. The new administration however feels compelled to change to meet this transitional event despite what has been written above. We must suffer it seems as our tolerance for suffering must have increased dramatically over time. Conversely our willingness to accept our responsibility as the "governed" must have decreased.

The right of the people has been minimized to the will of self proclaimed visionaries who must know better than we the people. Maybe we have given up. If that is true then this mentality of defeatism will be nurtured. Rest assured however that we the people will be able to share again in something. The something I fear we will share in is the day our Lady America is no longer a dream but a nightmarish vision of her former self.

God Bless

Hope

2009-04-15T09:39:00.001-04:00

We are at a crossroads as Americans. We face the inevitable axiom of historical reciprocity as we speak. It must be true that history repeats itself. This confuses some as we are to believe that we are facing change. Ambiguous in it's nature, change tends to make people believe that we are in for good times. I believe that change is a two sided coin. We have on one side change that can be positive, uplifting, meant for the betterment of all. On the other side of the coin is change that can be destructive, harmful and worst yet....irreversible. I Would like to point out our new president will always be a part of history being the first African-American president elected. History is the longest running record of events we have to see where things went right and where things went wrong. It is the single most important asset we have as a nation to gauge our present and future actions. And although the face has changed the game remains the same.

While everyone has been obsessed with race, religion, color and birthrights, they have forgotten the most important aspect of all, the mind. For I could be black, white, Asian or Hispanic and it matters not the package the gift is wrapped in, it is whats inside. All history cares about are the actions and events. We tend to lose site of the fact that we don't go around touching a hot iron because we either touched it once long ago and it hurt or we took someones word that if we touch it we will get burned. Some people have the belief that they can right the wrongs of history by repeating the same actions that took place and trying vainly to control a new outcome.. It seems to me that we are to not touch the iron again not find a new way to touch it and expect a different result.

Well here we are trying to touch the ideological iron. The policies that we as a nation are being force to deal with now are not new. They have been tried in vein before and we hope (operative catch phrase) that this time it will be different. Hope The concept of hope is funny because it really doesn't achieve a thing. If I walk away from my keyboard right now and decide that I am going to go do something else and I say, "I really hope that this finishes typing itself by the time I come back". I am going to be sorely disappointed when I look at my screen and find that it is not done. Now on the offshoot that it is done, by god a miracle has just occurred and I should thank whomever may have completed it for me. You see how it works, I either have to sit here ,get it done ,continue to type , take responsibility for completing it myself and know that it is written the way that I want. I get the benefit of knowing that is complete and in my own words Or I sit around and hope that it gets done for me by someone else and have no control on the content or outcome and sit back and say, " well at least it is done even though it's not what I wanted but the ends justify the means."

We don't need to have hope so much as we need to have the ability to know that we are empowered to achieve almost anything we want. Mr. Obama didn't sit back and hope he would be president he worked really hard to set in motion the processes that we required to achieve his desired outcome. And his voting base didn't hope he would be president they actually went to the voting booth and voted. So the irony of this whole thing is not lost. But this where it ends with hope. The work has been done and hopeful still sit and hope for allot and feel comfortable in no being involved it the process or it's outcome. All that is left to do now it hope that everything is taken care of. While on the the other side people are hoping that the damage isn't to severe, hoping that the changes are not irreversible. All I can say is the same principle applies to us as well. Instead of hoping that it is not to late, or hoping that there is a way to fight this, do something. I have said before that we are the governed and Mr. Obama and his co-Hort's only have their just powers as bestowed upon by us. So don't sit back and hope something or someone slows this radical change down, vote, fight, and be involved in the process. Hoping will get you no where but action will.

I hope you understand my point.