Today Hillary Clinton gave a speech on "Halting the Housing Crisis." During her speech, she really tried to drive a point that our economy is in a crisis because of the housing crisis that is plaguing many people across this country. It is unfortunate that so many Americans are losing their homes, however Hillary tries to place the blame on anything but where it should be placed.
"That means acknowledging that our economic crisis is, at its core, a housing crisis, a crises caused in part by unscrupulous mortgage lenders and brokers and unregulated transactions in mortgage-backed securities, in part by speculators who were buying multiple homes to sell for a quick buck and other buyers who didn't act responsibly."
To begin by placing the blame on those who were lending the money versus who was signing their name on the mortgage paperwork, is pure stupidity. She does credit some of the blame to the buyers, but spends the majority of it pointing to investors and the lenders.
"Communities of color have been especially hard hit."
What is being said with this? Is she implying that "communities of color" were being targeted by mortgage companies? Is she playing the race card?
"If you have paid off your home, if you have a fixed rate mortgage with a manageable interest rate, you have siffered the steepest decline on record."
How is it bad for someone who has paid off their home, or has a manageable fixed rate mortgage the one who is suffering? They are the ones who didn't put themselves in a precarious situation. They were smart and avoided the whole problem.
"They actually owe more for their mortgages that their homes are worth. So what was once their biggest financial asset is now a financial liability."
They owe more than what their homes are worth because they borrowed more than they were worth. Just more ingorance on who to blame by Hillary.
"I put forward an aggressive plan for a 90-day moratorium on all subprime foreclosures and a voluntary five-year freeze on interest rates for all subprime mortgages. The response from this administation? A plan that let banks off the hook and left homeowners to fend for themselves."
Just like her to invite big government in to fix the stupidity of so many people losing their homes. Who is the one who signed the paperwork? The bank or the homeowner? The homeowner got themselves into it, let them figure out a way to remedy it.
Now, on to the point where she throws up!
"Today, I am announcing my four part plan to Protect American Homeowners: A plan to help our families keep their homes and help communities har hit by the housing crisis.
My plan starts with an aggressive new effor to help millions of at-risk families restructure their mortgages and stay in their homes.
The time for action is now - not a month from now, or a year from now - but now. And the reality is that many of our families need more than just basic refinancing.
The Frank-Dodd legislation would move beyond this incremental approach by setting up an auction system for mortgage companies that hold hundreds of thousands of these mortgages. Through this system, these companies could sell mortgages in bulk to banks and other buyers. The buyers would be willing to purchase these mortgages - and restructure them to make them affordable for families - because they know the government will guarantee them once they are refinanced.
But given the severity of today's housing crisis, simply facilitating this auction process might not be enough to get our economy moving again. That's why I believe the Federal Housing Administration should also stand ready to be a temorary buyer - to purchase, restructure, and resell underwater mortgages.
In order to determine whether the approach outlined by Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd is sufficient - or whether we need the government to step in as a purchaser - I am calling on President Bush to appoint an emergency working group on forclosures. That is the second part of my plan.
That's why I'm proposing an Emergency Working Group on Forclosures.
If it's decided additional steps are needed, then we should investigate wheter - and how - the Federal Housing Administration or other government entities, of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, could buy, restructure and resell underwater mortgages.
The third part of my plan is a new housing stimulus package to provide $30 billion directly to states and localities hard hit by this crisis.
That's why I'm calling for the creation of a one-time emergency $30 billion fund that would go directly to cities and states to address the housing crisis.
This money could be used to purchase forclosed or distressed properties, which cities and states could then resell to low-income families or convert into affordable rental housing.
The Fourth and final part of my plan involves passing new legislation to clarify legal liability for mortgage companies that act to help more borrowers stay in their homes.
Now, some may claim that the plan I've outlined today is a 'bailout.' They'll argue that it's not government's role to help. Well, that is the same kind of tired rhetoric we've been hearing for years now. And I think the American people know better. We've had enough of that old ideology. We're ready for solutions here and now."
The time for correction is not now like Hillary states. The time was before they signed their paperwork. They should have taken the time to read what they were signing. If they were dumb enough to get themselves into trouble, their solution would have been as simple as refinancing. Having a call for government to step in and fix it is outrageous. Our government is big enough. Now we are trying to elect someone who wants to make it even bigger? She stated that she would come up with more government big spending programs, that she isn't even sure if they would work. What is her fix for that? More of the same programs. This whole program sounds like a "verbal throw up" of sorts. She could have kept her mouth shut and maybe looked to be a better choice than her opponents, but instead she chose to speak up and look just plain sick. On the brighter side, it does offer a look into what she would be using hard earned tax money for. Bigger government. Is that the answer? NO! Decrease the amount of say that the government has, and put more emphasis on the individual.
Be an individual VOICE against her rhetoric.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Hillary Clinton Throws Up During Economy Speech
Barack Obama's Great Abate
When a country that already stands divided, you don't look for someone to lead this country even further apart. Barack Obama stands to do just that is elected. With all do respect, it is wonderful that the racial divide has tried to be severed with this election. The intention of unifying the country on those terms is grand in itself. The racial divide is one that has been prevalent in this nation since its beginnings. The problem with Obama on this issue, is that he has surrounded himself with radicals. Had he not been a part of what they stand for, he very well could have been the one credited with nullifying the separation of race in America.
It is very unfortunate that so many people would have been a part of election that chose the racist candidate. Imagine, that in the next few years, children read about this event in their history books. Instead of having them read about how this great nation was united as one. All things considered, it is called the UNITED States of America, not the Racially Divided States of America.
With close consideration also, that Obama has risen above so many challenges that one could be faced with. He has now taken this forward moving country, and driven them back to the times before the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That was his message. One of unity. There have been a few people put Obama on the same level with Abraham Lincoln, as it relates to how well he can deliver a speech. That may be true in that case, but Lincoln forged ahead and began a process of unification. A country divided in war, and a country divided in race. That is were they differ. Obama has done nothing but lengthen the strides we have made in the war on race, and has also divided the country with the war we are fighting in Iraq.
There is no question that Obama can well deliver a speech. Many people have. Although, many people do not fill their message with useless junk. Obama did just that when he gave the speech on his church, and also when he talked about the five year anniversary of the war. To go back just a little in comparison with Abraham Lincoln; Lincoln delivered some of the greatest speeches in history. Take a look at his Gettysburg Address. It comprised more in meaning and message in the ten or eleven sentences that comprised it than any of the long winded speeches Barack has given put together.
Abraham Lincoln got things done. He made things happen before running for President, and everything he did was with the idea and hope that it would progress this great nation. What has Obama done? What has Barack done to unite this country? What "CHANGE" has he made? Most of America wants to know what he has done, and not what he would do. Most of America does want change. Does America want what Barack Obama would give it? Some would say yes, until his change was real and then would be the first to rebuke him. It happens all the time in the media.
There comes a time when man reaches the peak of a mountain and realizes there is nowhere to go but down. Barack reached his summit a long time ago and is now on a continual downfall. It seems to say that America is now starting to figure out who and what Barack Obama is and stands for. America does not need to be known worldwide for having a "Black Value System," but rather "the United States of America Value System."
Thomas Jefferson said to "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." Now that the mass of the people are becoming more informed and educated about Obama, it is time to ensure that the liberty of this great country is preserved and not ripped apart.
Stand for a brighter future and be a VOICE for what this nation needs.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Abraham Lincoln describes Barack Obama
In light of the recent events troubling the Obama campaign, it would only fit that a former President would want to make a few comments. Abraham Lincoln is regarded as one of, if not the greatest of all time, Presidents that has ever lead this country. A man who came from absolutely nothing and having little education, to holding the countries highest position and being self-taught in law, astronomy, grammar, chemistry, and arithmetic offers his opinion on the likes of Barack Obama.
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
With the recent public discovery that Obama has aligned himself with radical black supremacists like Rev. Wright and Al Sharpton, it is doing nothing but driving this country backwards to a time filled with hate and animosity. It seems as no surprise that Lincoln would say that Barack is no wiser for harboring these ideas than those of the 50's and 60's.
"No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar."
It is pretty obvious that Barack doesn't have a great memory. Having been a member of his church for 20 years, is is almost impossible to not remember a single controversial remark. On top of that, he has been caught in his web of lies prior to and during his address to the nation concerning Rev. Wright and things he has said.
"The time comes upon every public man when it is best for him to keep his lips closed."
Abraham Lincoln said it best when he made that statement.
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
This is wonderful council given by the great Lincoln that Obama should have known. Who's to say that if he knew this years and years ago, he wouldn't be in the predicament he is in now. Barack tried to fool all the people, and it didn't work!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
This country will fail if we falter and elect an individual like Barack Obama. We cannot sit idle and let people like this try to destroy what so many people have worked so hard for.
Stand up and be a VOICE like Abraham Lincoln did.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Obama = Empty Words & War Tactics
Yesterday, Barack Obama gave a speech about America and it being at war with Iraq. He titled his speech "The World Beyond Iraq." And while he may be right on that, he is far from reality with his way of conducting the future of the war. Obama may seem to give great speeches, but he seems to use a great deal of time throwing around empty words. One of these empty statements was when he said that "Even under the best case scenarios, this war will cost American taxpayers well over a trillion dollars." While we can sit and talk about how much the war could cost and what it has cost, we need to focus on how much we spend on other things. Other things like all the government programs being funded that are proven to not work. Things like packing bills and other congressional items with pork. And also how this country spends more on the amount of interest it pays on the national debt, which is far more than what we will spend on this war.
Talking on war, Obama offers his support on the surge that he says he was against saying:
"In the year since President Bush announced the surge - the level of violence in Iraq has been reduced. Our troops Have done a brilliant job under difficult circumstances. Yet while we have a General who has used improved tactics to reduce violence, we still have the wrong strategy. As General Petraeus has himself acknowledged, the Iraqis are not achieving the political progress needed to end their civil war."
Our troops are doing a wonderful job. Yes, they are stressed and spread thin across the world. But, what political tactic will Obama put into play if he were to become President? Let's take a look at some of the things he outlined.
"So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war.
In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them in 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy. What I propose is not - and never has been - a precipitous drawdown. It is instead a detailed and prudent plan that will end a war nearly seven years after it started.
Let me be clear: ending this war is not going to be easy. There will be dangers involved. We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interest in a stable Iraq are met, and to make sure that our troops are secure."
As hopeful as ending the war sounds, it is lacking common sense. However, we know from previous speeches that Barack has given, he bounces around offering really nothing. There are many problems with his strategy that was outlined here.
First, he offered all the information on what he would do to the enemy. Telling them what you would do will only put their efforts on hold until they knew we were gone. War is supposed to be a secret! The enemy isn't supposed to know what you will do!
Second, he contradicts himself like he always does. He says he want to pull all the troops out of Iraq, thus ending the war. But then comes the contradiction when he says he would leave some to protect our embassy and it's diplomats.
Third, he would also leave some troops to act as a strike force against al Qaeda if it forms a base. What doesn't fit Barack? That's why we are still there. Al Qaeda is continuing to try to form strongholds that our troops are still winning against.
Fourth, he says that he would listen to the commanders. He hasn't listened to them before, so what makes this any different? If he listened to them, he would let them make a secretive plan to end the war to bring the troops home.
Final, Obama would realize that he didn't have experience in the military to be able to make a formal strategy to end a war. It isn't that simple.
This speech is just another one of Obama's tactics. Fill the heads of American voters with a load of crap as he has done in the past. Yes, they are "just words" and "just speeches." America needs to pause on the hype and see through his words and speeches. That is not what defines what it takes to be President.
Be a VOICE for the right, and not just about words and speeches.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Obama Drama
Today, Barack Obama issued a speech that he titled "A More Perfect Union." Upon first glance, this appears to be a great speech. One that has many hours of preparation in the hopes to clear up the issues that may be corrupting his chance at getting elected. However, with an application of the Black Value System that Obama and the church that he has attended for twenty years gives us a new perspective. It also gives us a deeper look into who Obama is.
"This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American history."
The problem with this statement is, now that we know what he believes, his faith is neither decent or generous unless you are a Black person who upholds the Black Value System. We also know through our study of this "value system" that they like to dwell on the past. This hatred toward other races was reiterated when Barack made the following statement:
"In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies . . ."
He then goes on to make this comment:
"On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike."
Sen. Obama notes that the remarks made are offensive and that they further divide the country, but also seems to make note that Rev. Wright himself embraces the Black Value System. Another thing odd about this statement is who he includes in it. He uses the term "we've." We who? Definitely not all of the American public was there to hear it. Only the 8500 members of their church, including Obama and his family. There are more people in this great nation than 8500. In those people, there had to be a time where these controversial remarks were made that felt it was needed to talk about it. While being part of an organization for twenty years, the probability of being present during these comments is too high. Barack made note of this saying that he never heard any of these statements, but was outed in his lies when it was made known that he was. He outed himself when he wrote "Dreams from My Father," quoting racial remarks from one of Wright's sermons. His denial was contradicted today when he asks:
"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church?"
And how did he answer his own question? He said, and I quote:
"Yes."
What does this say about him? He has been caught in lies, that he outed himself on in more than one occasion. But, we can say that he does have values. All be it, a Black Value System that was further reiterated in some of the next comments.
". . .our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor."
". . .until this Black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations. . ."
"Trinity embodies the Black community in its entirety."
"Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor."
"The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the Black experience in America."
"That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities."
However, Barack does recognize there is a real problem. But what he fails to realize is it his own church's Black Value System that is hurting the idea of moving on to the future.
"Even for those Blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.
But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."
With him knowing there is a problem is obvious. With him not knowing the problem is what his church is teaching and instilling into the future of America is frightening! To be running for the office of President of the United States of America and not knowing this, is not the change that this nation wants or needs. We don't need to drive our country back to the past. We need a candidate that sees the wants and needs of America, and makes the change. What does this country not need? Bigger government. Higher Taxes. More programs. More hatred. More racism. A divided country. What does this country need? Smaller government and less spending. Less racism and hate. Lower taxes and more money in the pocket of those hard working Americans. More importanly, a united country. America wants change and needs change. Barack's message is one of change. It will bring change. Is Barack Obama the change America wants and needs?
Be a VOICE for the right change.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Obama and Change
Barack Obama has focused his campaign message as one that will bring change. However, the change that he would bring could take this country back so many years with a racial role reversal.
While Obama has thwarted the internet rumors of himself being a Muslim, there is in no way that he can denounce what his spiritual learnings throughout life will have on his political stance. His spiritual education over the last 20 years has been nothing but dramatic. At a time when Barack was starting to become a community activist, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. began the conversion of a religious skeptic to a regular church going man. Obama has credited Wright as being his spiritual adviser who conducted his marriage to Michelle, and baptizing his two daughters. He even brought him into his home so that their house could be blessed.
This story seems miraculous, considering where Barack got his start. It is not this story that brings to light the controversy, but it is what Trinity United Church of Christ stands for and preaches. Wright claims that America and the Christian faith are "White." He also refers to America as "the racist United States of America," and "the United States of White America." He blames America and the Caucasians for the problems of the world and also the suffering of African-Americans. These statements haven't been made within the last two to five years, but over the time at which he has stood at the pew. What else can be made of these statements? It gives us an even closer look into what is being taught and instilled into the individuals that attend services regularly.
The values that are taught in this church are that of what Wright has labeled as a "Black Value System." This "System" has a:
- Commitment of God (where they will be given strength to be soldiers for Black freedom)
- Commitment to the Black Community (The highest level of achievement for any Black person must be a contribution of substance to the strength and continuity of the Black of the Black Community - quoted off the TUCC website)
- Commitment to the Black Family (where the developing person is to withstand warping by their racist competitive society)
- Dedication to the Pursuit of Education (where they outline how Blacks should be educated to offer an increase to the Black Community)
- Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
- Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect (to be an instrument of Black Progress, and a model for Black Youth)
- Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness" (where they consider themselves captives)
Interesting how the church's Black Value System makes NO reference to scripture and Christ. Also how when Blacks are referred to on their website, they are always capitalized in reference to their being higher than Caucasians. After all, the name of their church has Christ's name in it. Also, in the same document, they "Pledge Allegiance to all Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace The Black Value System. With this type of value system it is no wonder they offered their highest award to on of the most well known Black Supremacist, Louis Farrakhan. This highly provocative supremacist also makes a point to put his support behind Obama at an address during the Nation of Islam's annual Saviour's Day Convention saying, "You might say. 'Gee, I don't think Barack is Black enough.' He wasn't supposed to be." Is this a hint that Obama is a pawn in a larger scheme for these people? He then goes on to refer to him as Brother Barack Obama, and makes this comment: "I ask that we pray for our Brother, Barack Obama. I am not asking for votes. I am asking a Nation - not just the Nation of Islam, but all people of good will - to pray for this young man." He is not asking for ALL prayers, but of those who are of good will. And we know who that is based on the Black Value System that Wright and Farrakhan speak so vehemently of.
Recently, Mr. Obama "categorically denounce(s) any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies." He also believes "that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit." Then says, "the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn." The obligation, according to the Black Value System that is taught in the church he has been a part of for 20 years, being the Blacks. The poor being the Blacks that were and are oppressed by the racist society of the United States of White America. And the justice being a contribution to the highest level of achievement.
Barack says that he has never been present when these "sermons" were being preached, but we know different thanks to Jim Davis of NewsMax. Mr. Davis was there along with Obama and his Secret Service detail was there to witness the opposite of his statement. Davis reports:
"Wright laced into America's establishment, blaming the 'white arrogance' of America's Caucasian majority for the woes of the world, especially the oppression suffered by blacks. To underscore the point he refers to the country as the 'Unites States of White America.' Many in the congregation, including Obama, nodded in apparent agreement as these statements were made."
Obama said that he has never been present during any controversial comments, but we know otherwise. He has been a part of this church for 20 years. His children have been raised in this church. Some of the worlds largest known Black Supremacists are speaking for his advancement. He has encompassed, along with his family, the Black Value System. Some say he's not Black enough. Others say he's not supposed to be. Do we want this country to be based off of the Black Value System? Do we want the change that Obama wants to bring?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The M&M Factor
In a time when most election coverage is focused on the race between Clinton and Obama, many republicans and conservatives join together to plan on how McCain will be the next President of the United States. With the race on the democratic side so tight between the candidates, it allows the McCain team to sit down and make a decision on who will share the ticket with him. It also allows McCain to not look as bad as he would if he had to dig up the truth about them.
One name I am sure is being tossed around the McCain team is Mitt Romney. Mitt is the most viable VP nominee on many different terms. One term being that Mr. Romney wound up with more delegates than Mr. Huckabee, and he stayed in until McCain was awarded the nomination. Romney's name is well known among the people, and he also has a well known economic record. A downfall for the McCain campaign.
McCain's biggest positive is his stance on the fight against radicals. His record on this issue can not be debated, as he was the largest advocate on the surge in Iraq. Romney has been supportive of McCain on this, and it was more evident in a recent interview with Sean Hannity when he said "that Senator McCain focused his message on a completely new course from what was happening in Iraq, saying that Secretary Rumsfeld's course was wrong, that we needed a new strategy there, that included a surge in troops. . . and the surge has been successful."
Interestingly enough, Romney also said, "I think it is important for him to be the president, because I think he would do the critical things that have to be done, and they are reform our retirement system, reign in government spending, rid our dependence of foreign oil, improve our education system so that our kids really can compete globally." Another thing that supports a McCain-Romney ticket, and that is their stance on controlling government spending. McCain has fought many years to end earmarks and equally important to end lobbying and to make it illegal. Romney has been, and would be a huge advocate to help make it a reality. Being able to minimize the government and rid the halls of those working solely for the benefit of big businesses as a team would send a message to the world.
In the idea of sending a message to the world, that choice just might come in the form of a phone call at 3:00 a.m. Romney said it best when he said this:
"Yes, you look at that ad, the red phone ad, that was the best ad that the McCain campaign could have ever hoped for, because listening to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama talking about experience in a national security crisis is like listening to two Chihuahuas arguing about which is the biggest dog. When it comes to national security, John McCain is the big dog, and that are each the Chihuahua.
And I think when we talk more and more about their battle with one another, focused on the fact that neither one has real experience with the issues of our time, that will only augur for his benefit."
Comical, yes. Brutally honest, yes. Neither one of them is qualified to handle the security of this nation. Obama has not one qualification to be the next president. Speaking about change is not a qualification, but a record of making changes for the betterment of the people is. Hillary has an idea that because her husband was president, that qualifies her. How wrong she is. She has been out trying to steal delegates from her opponent, only to be gaining the support of a person who has been paying for the use of prostitutes. What type of record is it when you not only have that kind of support, but also have the support from your husband who was in a sex scandal himself. That is definitely not the experience we need in a leader of this great nation.
The type of leader that we need is one found in John McCain, with the assistance of Mitt Romney. The M&M factor is what this America needs. VOICE the right change for an M&M ticket.
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Reagan Reality
Throughout the past few months, there has been an increase in the talk of who is more Reagan-like than the other. A look into the man they are being compared to, and you may say that none of the candidates represent who he was and the ideals that he held. Somehow, Reagan understood a common sense approach to how the government should have been run.
As a conservatist, one's patriotism must be held to a high priority. Many people look to their leader as a means for understanding in a time of war. When candidates looking for election spread an idea that as a nation we are failing, an unnerving sense of lack of patriotism is abundant. How is a military force to draw strength from one of these candidates if one is elected?
One other thing that we can draw strength from as a society, is the direction in which our economy will be led. An important factor that must be noted, is how big the government should be and how much they should control. Reagan is quoted saying that "the basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom." What can be taken from this? First off, conservatism is based on individualism vs. the power that a group can have over them. What does that sound like? Big government. As a conservatist, one must take into account the betterment of the person as opposed to the growth and power of the government.
That power of the government should be limited to the maintaining of a strong national defence and the enforcing of the laws that it created, not the fixing of the problems brought on by the people, unless those problems undermine the effects of defence and the laws. Society should be held to a higher standard when it comes to the issues they create. The people need to right their wrongs, and keep big government out of them. The government should not be looked to in times when individuals didn't take the time to thoroughly read a contract they were entering into. When the government steps in and tries to resolve problems like this, it always points to an increase in inflation and an increase in the unemployment rate. Does that remind you of anything pressing this country today.
So, what can we take away from what Reagan idealized or what many claim to be Reganomics? We need to reduce the growth of the government and it's spending. We need to control the supply of money to slow and reduce the rate of inflation. We need to reduce the amount of regulation they have. And most of all, reduce tax rates on the individuals income and put more money into their hands. The individual knows what is best for their money comparatively to that of what the government deems best.
Let's get this country where so many of the great men of the past wanted it to be. Lincoln summed it up in his address when he said it was "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Raise your VOICE against what big government wants and put the power back in the hands of the people. Raise your VOICE for a REAL change. Not for the change you will be left with after big government gets into your pockets.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
America: History Repeated?
History has shown us, and will continue to show us that it will repeat itself. Some may say that sealing our borders is not that important, however, I stand to say how important it really is.
Time and time again, our neighbors to the south have shown us how vulnerable our borders are. This is not limited to illegal immigration, but also open to drugs and even at times weapons. But I ask, is that all this country is exempt to? Being that this country is what many strive to be a part of, many other states, nations, and countries want nothing more that to exploit it. So, what is to become of America because of that? Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, in an address to the U.N. in September 21 of 2006 said this:
'The United States empire is on its way down and it will be finished in the near future, inshallah.'
Inshallah is an Arabic phrase for "God willing," and is one that is frequently used by Islamic terrorists. Hugo Chavez is also a close ally of Syria, Iran, and Cuba. Is this a sign of the "near future" that he was speaking of, and how he is aligning himself with the many others that America stands so strongly against in the global war on terrorism? Another frightening fact is that the United States still continues to pay Venezuela for oil. Why are our elected officials funding those we oppose?
The brutal honesty of all this leads us to question what exactly is being brought into this country of ours illegally. Since it seems true to say that the illegal immigrants are secretly aligned with those we are fighting overseas, who is to say that they cannot exchange the drugs for nuclear weapons. We face this war on many fronts, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I don't think we ever contemplated the idea that we would be attacked from within. And to say that, without limit to only the war, but also from the very government that was elected to keep us safe. One perspective points that way. The example being the Roman empire and their destruction. A quick study of what led to their fall, can point to the path America may be headed towards.
The Roman empire had:
- no budget system
- a tax collection system that drove the lower and middle classes further into destitution
- high costs due to military defense from all the wars they fought in
- an economy based on cheap labor
- produced few exportable goods
- little to no return on their investments
- a debasement of their money and the continuation of making more led to inflation
Is there a parallel to what we face as a nation in over-governing? If we continue down the same road we are on now, we will see the fall of this great America. Somehow, I don't think that's what our founding fathers had in mind when the penned the great documents. Also, I don't think that's what Abraham Lincoln meant on November 19 in 1863 when he said that we are a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Taking note, we are THE PEOPLE. We need to be the people to protect this awesome country and what it stands for.
Be a VOICE, and THE PEOPLE to change America, and not let history repeat itself.
