Is This Really What 52% of America Voted For?

From the outside looking in, it is hard to see why people operating on common sense would support a $15 Billion bailout of the Auto Industry. Also, it is hard that the same people would vote for a gentleman who believes that a handfull of workers have the right to hold a bank hostage, because the bank did not loan their bankrupt business money to pay their payroll. Again, it is even more difficult to believe that the American people would vote a for a man who says one thing one day, and then the next denies he said it or says that those speaking for him "misspoke". Yet, if one looks at American history, one will find example after example of the American people being duped all in the name of "hope" and "change".

In the 1960's the people believed a megalomaniacal man who promised "hope" and "change" in Vietnam policy, and in the end was discovered to be a "win at all cost" politician and had to resign his presidency. This opened the door for another prophet of "change", and he led the country into near financial ruin, and the weakest foreign policy ever. But a glimmer of hope came in the 1980's, and it looked like the American people finally got it figured out, and for 12 years they had peace and prosperity. Unfortunate, another "snake oil" salesman from the South showed weaving words of "hope" and "change". His lies regarding the economy resonated because it played to the basest of all human emotions "envy", and his charge that "hope was on the way" led millions of Americans to vote for him. Now, we are faced another Ivy league trained lawyer, with smooth rhetoric and ability to use the catch phrase that wins elections, "change", and before he is even sworn into office he is on the precipice of a confidence risking scandal. Yet, this is nothing new.

The last smooth talking Ivy league trained lawyer to grace the office could not even get out of the election without scandal, and his presidency was one scandal after another, which eventually led to his impeachment. President-elect Obama is already involved in a cover up involving his governor. The Illinois governor has been recorded saying that Obama told him who he wanted to fill his spot, and yet today Obama is quoted as saying that he and the governor have not discussed the matter. Even Obama's campaign manager, has been quoted as saying that Obama and the governor discussed the matter. Yet, today an unknown Obama staffer has been quoted as saying that, "Axelrod misspoke". This is the M.O. of Mr. Obama. He is close with people and has them as "advisers" or "mentors", and discusses many issues with them. Obama even brags about their relationship, until these people do something that is politically inconvenient or damaging. Then these "were not [the people] he knew", or they "misspoke" or were "mistaken". Is this kind of side stepping the kind of presidency we will have from a President Obama? Is this kind of presidency what 52% of Americans voted for?

No one can know for sure what kind of presidency we will have the next four years. Many on the right have been warning the American people about the allegiances of Obama, but no one listened. The media chose to ignore the Ayers, Wright, Salinski, Retzco relationships, and now it appears the Blago relationship, or "lack there of" may mire this presidency. This begs the question, what other relationships will call into question our president's character during the next four years? Time will only tell.

Side Bar:
I don't know if anyone has been paying attention, but have you noticed that since the $700 Billion dollar bailout more and more companies and entities have put their hands out? The Auto industry was first, but now States and Mayors are asking for their piece of the pie.

The U.S. has a policy with negotiating with terrorists. We don't do it! Perhaps we should develop a policy to deal with "freeloaders" looking for a handout. JUST SAY NO!!!

Failure builds character, and if we allow large businesses to fail it has more positive benefits than negative. Business leaders learn from the mistakes of others and don't repeat them, workers learn that if they demand too much from their company they can destroy it from the inside, and investors learn to diversify. How are any of these lessons bad? Sure people might be out of a job, but maybe that is the quick kick in the butt they need to go back to school and learn a more modern trade, and maybe younger generations will see the importance of a good education. Again, how is this bad?

Capitol Visitor's Center: A Testament to Elitism and Liberalism

In yesterday and today's Drudge Report, there were two stories that caught my eye. One dealt with the controversial speech Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) gave at the opening of the Capitol Visitor's Center, where he besmirched the millions of vistors who flock to D.C. every year, and the other story dealt with Senator Jim DeMint's (R-SC) letter of complaint about the utter lack of references to the Christian heritage of this country. Both, reveal something very poignant about the Multi-billion dollar Capitol Visitor's Center (CVC). The CVC is a testament of the attitude those who occupy federal office have towards this country and its people.

When I worked in D.C. I was witness to the construction of the monstrocity that is the CVC. It was already two years behind schedule, and well over budget. Two different Architects of the Capitol oversaw the construction of the project, and the Congressional leadership was very excited about it's soon to be opening (which was delayed for the sixth time when I was there). During my tenure is when it received its name "Emancipation Hall". From pictures I have seen, it is very beautiful and has a lot of modern media fair. However, with the recent statements by the Senate Majority Leader, and the concerns raised by the gentleman from South Carolina, I am wondering if its beauty will be fleeting.

Over the recent months, surprisingly, the disdain that the Members of Congress have for the people of the United States has been openly displayed and well documented. During the debate over the economic bailout policies this Congress is pursuing, Senators and Representatives alike have looked down from their ivory towers at the riff raff, and declared openly that the American people are "too ignorant of the complicated nuances of this 'rescue package'", (Senator Diane Feinstein, D-CA). Once their disdain (read fear) was relayed, they voted against the American people for a bailout that had no hope of working. Yet, now we have another example of the overt disdain the Members of Congress seem now so free to display in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments at the opening of the CVC.

Against the expressed wishes of his staff, Sen. Reid jokingly announced that he would no longer have to "smell the visitor's B.O." when they come to visit the Capitol. What the ofactorally challanged Senator was alluding to was, that in the past tourists would choose to go through their Senator's or Representative's office to receive a tour of the Capitol. Many times these people - during the hot summer months in D.C.- would have to walk almost a mile to get to their Senator's or Representative's office. This schlepp would often lead to people not smelling that fresh. Now, with the opening of the CVC, Senate and Representative offices no longer have to offer constiuent tours, and apparently Sen. Reid is thankful for this, because he won't have to "smell" his constituents. I am sorry that the inconveniences of his constiuents offends him so much. Perhaps Mr. Reid should find a new line of work, if he is so sensitive to such things.

As someone who gave the tours of the Capitol to the hot and sweating constituents. I take offense with these statements. The highlight of my week was often giving tours to the constiuents that I help represent. I loved getting to know the people of our district, and listening to their concerns and triumphs. I believed this helped me do my job better for the Congressman I worked for, and I know that it gave a more personal touch to our constituents vacation. I know that many of these people enjoyed the tours, because many would call the office or write letters to thank us. During the summer months the people could be ripe, but that was because they were walking everywhere they went (because renting and parking a car in D.C. is near impossible). Instead of commenting on their odor, we offered to let them rest and stored greater number of 5 gallon water jugs so we could offer them something cool to drink. I guess this is what it means to be a servant of the people, instead of thinking that the people are there to serve you. Perhaps Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid could take a lesson from the attitude of the people of Congressman Burgess of Texas' office.

Seperation of Church and State Gone Too Far

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) released a letter to the media announcing his disgust with the lack of references to the Christian heritage of the United States in the Capitol Vistor's Center (CVC). Many of the references allude to the superiority of the federal government, and that the federal government is the answer to all men's woes. Visitors will also enter reading a large engraving that states, ‘We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution.’ This is a clear determination by the Architect of the Capitol and Congressional Leadership to deny God's past and current blessings on this country, and the importance Christianity played in our founding. To deny or even to refuse to mention the Christian heritage of this country is not only a travisty, but is a deliberate attempt to revise the history of this great country.

I am not suprised that this Architect of the Capitol would not wish to include religious references in the design of the CVC. This is the same Architect who tried to disallow any reference to God on the certificates that are given with the flags that are flown over the Capitol. It was only after public outcry that he changed his mind. Again the same Architect has promised to remedy this situation as well, and again it took the outcry of Senators.

Economy Team: Deal or Dud

This last week, president-elect Barak Obama threw his hat into the ring by giving his first speech as president-elect on the economy. He announced who his economic team was going to be, and announced his economic plan. With the picks of former Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers as Obama's in-White House economic advisor, and NY Fed Chair, Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, president-elect Obama should have the economic team he desires.

Both men served very Liberal administrations and governments, and know how to govern an economy from the left. It will be very interesting to see just how these individuals will be able to pull us out of this economic crisis. However, these new picks may not have much say, because president-elect Obama has already announced what he wishes to do over the next two years.

Mr. Obama has declared that he will oversee the largest stimulus package in the history of America. Where he and the Congress will get the money to pay for this is still a mistery to me. He also said that he will use this time to oversee radical changes in healthcare, energy and education policy. If you know the Obama's plans in any of three, you will know this will mean less choice and more bureaucracy all in the name of "fairness". Mr. Obama seeks a, "long term retooling of the American economy."This is scarey language if you like free market capitalism. Mr Obama, also declares that he will save the American tax payer $700 Billion, by using the line-item veto to cut specific spending items from the budget. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, "Constitutional Scholar" that he is, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional for the executive branch back in the 1990s. Unless he plans on superseding their authority, the line-item veto is not an option. But then again he also promises not to raise taxes, but how is he going to pay for his new social programs with out doing that?

I know that in my earlier blog I spoke about praying for our president, that he will make wise decisions that are good for this country. I also now it is a little bit premature to be speculating on what Obama's policies will exactly be, but if you base your opinions on what Barak Obama has said in the past about what he desires for this country, then its hard to beleive he will not try to implement those desires. President-Obama has stated in his books and stump speeches that he is for radical changes in our policies as a country (this includes radically changing the Constitution). Many of these policy changes are extremely unpopular with the American people when presented to them honestly(i.e. socialized healthcare, 65% against-40% for (AmericanSolutions.com)). Here is where you might say, "wait a minute he got elected on those policies!" No, he got elected on a vague promise of change, where everyone projected what change they wanted on to him. If you read his books, listen to his speeches and "private" conversations you will see a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, and socailist policy is unpopular with the American people. This is why I am already calling into question his policy decisions.

President-elect Obama is doing his best to do the right thing. The only problem is that it is his opinion of what the right thing is. For generations this country has operated under the free market system. We were not afraid to allow companies to fail, because we kknew the market would recover and those companies would be bought by the highest bidder and salvaged. Yet, today we are so afraid of failure and hard times, that we will allow our simplest freedom, the freedom of choice, to be taken from us in the name of "financial security". I understand that if companies like AIG or GM fail it could mean the collapse of large portion of our economy and millions would lose their jobs. However, these effects would be hard, but they would be short lived and individual Americans, who normally would not have a chance at owning a piece of America, would be able to buy up these failed business and make them trhive again through ingenuity and drive both of which is what this country was founded on.

Hard times are not called hard because they are attractive, but they are necessary from time to time to make us appreciate what we have. This country has survived worse, and we can survive this, but it is going to take the resolve of our leaders, and the courage of the American people to do the things that are necessary to save our country's economy and preserve the freedoms we so enjoy.