What the people want

Hearing Nancy Pelosi say “The American people want…” irks me.  More often than not, what follows that introduction is not what I want.  How do we know they even care, let alone know, what we, the American people want?

After the town hall meetings across the country, and the polling data that is available, you’d think these congressmen and senators would be changing their tune – maybe from “The American people want…” to “I think America needs…”  Of course we probably won’t hear the latter, since that could be hurtful to reelection bids.  But I really wish they would stop saying the former, unless it’s true.   The lastest numbers show 56% oppose the president’s healthcare plan while 41% support it.  If that were an election return, it’d be considered a landslide.  Yet, these same politicians continue to say “The American people want this.” 

No we don’t!


Campagin Speak

During his campaign, Barack Obama talked tough about winning the war in Afghanistan.  He said on July 15, 2008, 

“I will make the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.”

Should we have taken him seriously?  When he was in the senate, he headed a committee that was supposed to help look into matters in Afghanistan.  He never once met with that committee.  Guess he was too busy running for president.

Now that he is president, we are told he has met with his lead general in Afghanistan one time.  That general has urgently requested more troops, lest we be in danger of losing the war.  And Obama has waited a week and still not given the ok. 

If this is a “top priority,” I’d hate to see what isn’t.  You don’t think it’s possible that Obama was merely playing to the political sentiments last summer that the Iraq war was bad and the war in Afghanistan was just…in order to help get elected…do you?

Stand Up

President Obama this past week:

“I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights; for the student who seeks to learn, the voter who demands to be heard, the innoncent who longs to be free, the oppressed who yearns to be equal.”

Just like we stood with the citizens of Iran who demanded their voice and vote be heard and were met with violence from their authoritarian government?

Just like we stand with the million plus innocent men and women killed in the womb each year?

Some pledge.


Not too long ago, I remember some of my friends picking up on and repeating a particular line of the media. It was a line that said the Bush administration, and particularly vice president Cheney, was trying to grab too much power for the executive branch of government. I know that my friends are consistent. I know they are intelligent and want to find the truth. So I am sure they are equally concerned about the Obama administration’s growing number of “czars.” There are nearly 40 of them, most of them unappointed by the Senate, and thus there is little or no congressional oversight of what they do.   They have about as much power as Obama’s own cabinet, who are approved and overseen by congress. This would definitely fit the description of a “power grab.“ It is very novel and it should be very alarming.

The president has also attempted to take over the running of the national census, demanding that the census bureau report back to the white house before making its data public.  This is data that will drastically affect public policy and political power among other things, and the importance of its accuracy cannot be overstated.  I’ve never heard of an administration doing this.

This, too, I’m sure is troubling to my friends.

Or could it be that my friends are unaware of these happenings? If so, I would encourage them to check out these and other things not covered by the media for themselves. When they find the truth, I would then ask them to ask questions like, “Why am I not reading these things in the newspaper? Or seeing them on television?” At that point, I am confident they will begin to see not only a strong bias in the news media, but also their power to shape public opinion.

Because I know my friends are consistent.

Change (in tone) you can believe in?

Today we learned that Iran’s nuclear program is farther advanced than we thought and they said.  Thug dictators would lie?  Nooooo.  But here’s what is surprising to me about the whole thing.  President Obama is boldly speaking out against the Iranian government, which they are verbally rejecting.

From the Associated Press:

President Barack Obama declared Friday that Iran is speeding down a path to confrontation and demanded that Tehran quickly “come clean” on all nuclear efforts and open a newly revealed secret site for close international inspection. He said he would not rule out military action if the Iranians refuse.

“Iran is on notice that when we meet with them on Oct. 1 they are going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice” between international isolation and giving up any aspirations to becoming a nuclear power, he said. If they refuse to give ground, they will stay on “a path that is going to lead to confrontation.”

Whoa, what happened to the tone here?  I thought we were supposed to sit down and talk with our enemies and have a rational discussion about them wanting us dead.  This kind of rhetoric will only make them more angry at us.  From later in the story:

Unbowed, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country had done nothing wrong and Obama would regret his accusations.

You see that?  The Iranian “President” is really ticked off at us now!  And it’s because of Obama accusing them of things and telling them how they should act, just like Bush did before him.  Oh no!

Ok, sarcasm over.  Seriously, what happened here?  I thought there was a standard set, a new tone of “niceness” from the White House.  Granted, he did demonstrate a willingness to apologize for America defending itself and being so prosperous at the UN this week.  And yes, the Iranians are building nuclear weapons that they say without apology they want to use on Israel.  But I thought Obama said the United States was no better than any other nation, and if we have nuclear weapons, why can’t they?  So what if they will use them to annihilate an entire country or two?  I know, I know, I said I was done with sarcasm.  It’s just tough with this Administration running things.  So many of their positions are built on sand, and if they build long enough, this nation will suffer from the inevitable crash.

Competing Ideas

It’s no surprise that the Obama administration has been trying to pass this healthcare takeover the same way they got elected: by convincing people that it is conservative.

“Competition” is what they yell, knowing that Americans understand free market economics, and that competition drives down prices.  Competition is the last thing they want.  They want the government to run the whole show.  It may be because they think they can do a better job of caring for us than we can or it may be because they simply love controlling other people’s lives.  In either case, they cannot afford to have the public know their true intentions or they’d never get it passed.

This was on display for anyone who is discerning, on CNN two weeks ago.  Wolf Blitzer interviewed Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod about the healthcare plan.

AXELROD: “…what is very important is that we have the kind of competition and choice that will help consumers.”

BLITZER: “”Why not break down these state barriers and let all these insurance companies compete nationally without having to simply focus in on a state by state basis?”

Blitzer has nailed it.  This kind of competition would do wonders to lower costs and Axelrod knows this.  He also knows he can’t admit to it, so he commences a nervous tap dance that should make anyone uncomfortable.

AXELROD:  “Because we are trying to do this in a way that advances the interests of consumers without creating such disruption that it makes it difficult to —

BLITZER:  Why would that be disruptive if Blue Cross and Blue Shield or United Health Care or all these big insurance companies, they don’t have to worry about just working in a state, they could just have the opportunity to compete in all 50 states.
AXELROD:  But insurance is regulated at this time —

BLITZER:  But you could change that —

AXELROD:  State by state.

BLITZER:  The president could propose a law changing that.

AXELROD:  That is not endemic to the kind of reforms that we are proposing or that —

BLITZER:  Why not, why not?

AXELROD:  We’re proposing a package that we believe will bring that stability and security to people, will help people get insurance, and will lower the cost impact and pass the Congress.  And that has to be the test.  We’re not into symbolic expedition here.”

Did you catch the switch from “competition and choice” to “stability and security”?  Axelrod then has the guts to say that such a floodgate-opener of competition like Blitzer suggested was “symbolic expedition”?

These people are not stupid, but they are hoping you are.