By Douglas V. Gibbs
There is a difference between the news, and providing editorial opinion. More often than not the commentary on Political Pistachio is the latter. Of course, to state the obvious, you will see more criticisms of those whose policies I oppose. Therefore, you will experience on this site more commentary hammering Democrats, than posts critical of Republicans.
In the mind of the Leftist that must mean that I believe the Republican Party walks on water, I must agree with everything every member of the GOP says and does, and any scandal in the Republican Party automatically makes me a hypocrite. According to their warped thinking, I am a Bush-bot for agreeing with some of his policies (and therefore must agree with all of his policies), and according to one commenter on my Wordpress site "You’re like the only person still backing bush. Its amazing how unintelligent you are! The majority of the population has agreed that BUSH got us into this mess in the first place and you’re sticking to your guns. I’m surprised you are even literate enough to type." The commenter came to that conclusion on a post called "Why Obama is bad for America," apparently because in his line of reasoning, if you are opposed to Obama, you must love everything about President George W. Bush.
I defend Bush where he needs to be defended, and I criticize him where he needs to be criticized. Unlike the Left, however, I will not be some mindless robot of hate with Bush Derangement Syndrome, believing that all of the ills of America is Bush's fault. The leftist voters, like the sheep they are, have fallen prey to an age old method of scapegoating. The Democrat Party has led their lemmings to believe that if anything goes wrong, it's Bush's fault, and if anything goes right it's to be credited to Barack Obama.
News Flash: Bush is no longer President!
The economy, war, and everything else that belongs to the presidency is Obama's, now. With all of the finger pointing, apparently the Democrats, and their mindless followers, have forgotten that the blame-game can only last for so long before people begin to see through the facade.
There is even one leftist commenter on this site that has decided to go back through the three and a half years worth of posts on Political Pistachio to see how often I was willing to criticize Bush. I guess he wants to prove I am an ideological puppet, or something like that.
I have had my criticisms of Bush because with me it is about policy - and specifically about the U.S. Constitution.
Amnesty does not sit well with me, nor does the GOP's unwillingness to seal the borders. In addition to the obvious national security reasons for protecting our borders, especially during a time of war, a strong border protects our sovereignty, and the interests of American citizens. We should be picky about who we let in to this country, screening immigrants for disease, and willingness to participate in the great American experiment. The word "illegal" is in the term "illegal alien" for a reason. If the immigrant is not willing to follow the law of immigration, what makes anyone think they are willing to abide by any other American law once in the country? When Bush and gang was pushing amnesty, I did not support it, and was critical of it. Party did not matter. The issue matters, in the case of immigration.
Stimulus programs are foolish, destructive, costly, and will further deepen our economic instability. Bush's involvement in the first stimulus, though he did it reluctantly, was foolish, and was supported by no conservatives. Obama's stimulus programs were gladly entered into by the Democrats with grins and giggles because they were loaded with every dream legislation pork barrel project the Democrats have never been able for force upon the United States before. None of the earmarks, nor the stimulus, had anything to do with stimulating the economy, and in the end will damage our financial system. The stimulus was wrong when Bush signed on to it, and it is wrong now.
"No Child Left Behind" is a disastrous program that was doomed to fail from its conception. One of the pillars of conservatism is "small government," meaning limited federal government intrusion into the affairs of the states, and the people. Injecting the federal government into the attempt to fix our ailing public school system causes more harm than anything. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to mandate public schools, nor have any control over the curriculum - however, the Marxist Manifesto is explicit in its recommendation of centralized governmental control over the education of our children. Private schools and home schools produce students who perform statistically better on tests, and in their journey into college and the workforce - and they do it on shoe-string budgets. To fix the schools the federal government needs to be removed from the equation, and the states need to follow the lead of the private schools.
Like his father, George W. Bush supports a move towards global governance. These progressive globalists envision a world with no national borders, a single monetary currency, and an organization not unlike the United Nations mandating laws, and moderating "misunderstandings" between the various regions around the globe.
Regardless of party, or claims of ideology, any politician supporting compromising our national borders, injecting big government, and destroying American sovereignty while denying state's rights in the hopes of leading the United States toward a system of global governance will receive criticism from the likes of Political Pistachio.
Progressivism, another name for socialism, is the problem, and progressivism resides in all corners of American, and worldwide, politics. Just about every president for the last 100 years have been progressives to one degree, or another, save for Ronald Reagan. Progressivism exists in more radical quantities in the Democrat Party, but has reached its tentacles into the GOP as well. The Republican leadership resembles the party of the donkey as it existed a few decades ago, and the Democrats resemble the radical communists of the Soviet Union just prior to the blood flow of revolution.
Ultimately, it all cycles back to the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution was written in plain English for the people to easily understand, with the purpose of limiting the size of the federal government. All that our founding fathers put into that document was designed to keep the American government from becoming precisely what it has become.
In the Republican Party's recent address, delivered by Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE), the Senator asked the question, in an attempt to criticize the Democrat's many proposals for health care reform through federal involvement: "Does the proposed health care plan make your life better?"
The question posed by Senator Johanns is evidence of how the Republicans just don't get it. It doesn't matter what the health care proposals can and can't do from a practical point of view. The question should not be about if the federal government proposal to take control of America's health industry is a good idea, but rather if even proposing such legislation in the first place is constitutional. Under what constitutional authority can the federal government have anything to do with health insurance, or health care?
Nancy Pelosi was posed this very question recently by CNS News, and her response was quite telling. Faced with the question of the constitutional legality of what the Democrats are proposing with a public option Nancy Pelosi responded by asking, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
That is not a typo. She asked twice. She then turned away from CNS News to search for questions from other reporters. I am assuming she was looking for something a little less "confrontational," and more in tune with her socialist taste.
Pelosi responded that way because like her colleagues, including President Barack Obama, she could care less about what the U.S. Constitution has to say. The Constitution, to these people, is an obstacle that only needs to be ignored.
Their concerns do not include what the U.S. Constitution says because their fascist agenda (definition of fascism at the end of this article) is more important to them than the U.S. Constitution, the original intent of the founders of this nation, and what the American People desire. Then, if cornered, they invariably proclaim that the Commerce Clause (the most misused clause in the Constitution by the feds) gives them all the authority they need. Sometimes unconstitutional judicial "precedence" will enter into their explanation too. The fact that in reality there is no constitutional authority for them to do what they are doing, or that more than half of this nation opposes federal health care reform, does not concern the Left. These people plan to force their proposals through, anyway, whether you like it or not, because they think they know what is better for you than you do.
For those of you sitting on the couch complaining that life isn't fair, and "woe is us" because of Obama, it is time to get on your feet and take action. A bloodless coup of the U.S. Government has taken place, and it is our responsibility to stop it. The tea parties and uprisings at town hall meetings are good, but not enough. We must all be involved, and we must be willing to fight to return our country to its constitutional roots. If we don't, America will cease to exist as it has for over two hundred years.
United We Stand, Combined We Kick Butt!
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
* The American College Encyclopedic Dictionary defines fascism as: A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.).
10/24/09 - Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) Delivers Weekly GOP Address On Health Care (video) - Beltway Blips
When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?' - CNS News
Health Care Reform: "The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% are opposed to the plan." - Rasmussen Reports
No comments:
Post a Comment