I am, of course, infinitely grateful for my family. My husband and I have traveled difficult roads together and have come through to achieve our goals. Our love has withstood external buffets to reach a level of steadiness and quietude that neither one of us takes for granted. We have worked extremely hard to achieve what we consider our "American Dream." We each have good jobs, we share a nice home we can afford, and own a good vehicle that we can afford.
My Mom and my husband are good friends, and our perpetual puppy Victoria Elizabeth rounds out our little family perfectly. Between the four of us, and with the constant help of God, we take care of each other, deal with each other, and always love each other.
I am extremely grateful for and proud of my nieces, one who did an excellent job in bringing her life back under control by taking responsibility for herself, and the other proudly serving our country in the Armed Forces and establishing a marvelous career and a bright future. For them, I thank God and pray for their continued safety.
I am grateful for the relationship rebuilt between my husband and his children from previous marriages. Family is much, much too important to waste because of a silly reason like divorced parents; he and his children are now family again.
I am grateful for my brother. Though our relationship is far from the best, far from the ideal hoped for by our Mom, he is still my brother and I thank God we are family. Once we manage to get over all the stupid remnants of childhood sibling issues, I pray it will not be too late for us to build a good relationship. When all is said and done, we will probably only have each other to lean on at the end.
I am grateful for all our wonderful friends who, though many live miles and miles away, I know would come running in an instant should we need their help, as we would for them. We are grateful to have been a part of the happy times we shared when we were geographically closer. We count on those warm memories to sustain our continued friendship.
As I listen daily to the various news reports, the latest decrees, pronouncements, and declarations coming out of the Congress, and the decisions made by the current leaders of our country, I fear for our future as individuals, as a family, and as a country. This fear, however, in no way diminishes the gratitude I feel in being fortunate enough to live in the United States.
I was not born in this country. My family emigrated when I was very young. I grew up as a foreigner but came to love this country as if I could look back at generations before me. I came to understand and fully appreciate the reasons behind the establishment of this country and the reasons for which it was established the way it was. I came to see that there really is no other better country on this planet. Even today, in the dread-inducing days through which we struggle to survive, I know I would rather struggle here than anywhere else on earth.
I am grateful for all those citizens of our country who are working hard to save our country in so many ways: from participating in "Tea Parties" to getting the nerve to run for elected office, to standing up to demand accountability from those currently in office. Those of us who cannot do those things are also active by writing and calling our elected representatives to remind them of the fundamentals on which our great country was built: the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution.
Those original building blocks are fundamental corner stones of this Country. They are not to be “reinterpreted” or “fundamentally changed” to suit one specific ideology, whether that ideology happens to be “in charge” or not. I am grateful for those courageous citizens who have made it their mission to do all they can to save our country through active protests and declared displeasure with the government. Citizens can be so vocal in their protests and not fear for their lives as a result in few other countries. This country is, so far, one of the few remaining.
My family is not rich; ironically enough, we were much “richer,” from the worldly perspective, in our native land. Through my marriage to an American, I have come to appreciate this country in ways many foreigners generally do not. I am confident that we have achieved the real “American Dream” as exemplified by the Founders: we are self-sufficient and confident in our abilities. This is based in the knowledge and pride that we can take care of ourselves through our own hard work, without the government’s “assistance” and control – just as our Founders had when they created this extraordinary Country.
America’s past success is based on love of and trust in God, Family, and Country. We who believe those are the core values of this country must work together with one goal in mind: to return those core values to the forefront. We must all be confident that we can save her from the terrifying future toward which the government of “change” has set our path.
It is up to each American who believes in our history to fight against the moochers, fight against the dictatorship of those who wish to bring the government’s control into every tiny crevice of our lives. That level of control invariably leads to tyranny of the very type this country was created to escape. It is up to those of us who strongly believe in the fundamental strength and original purpose of our Country to ensure that it is not changed and ultimately destroyed.
We must tell the government in no uncertain terms that we are strong individually and can only be stronger as a Country by sustaining, not destroying, the foundations of this country as established in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights.
For that foundation, I give thanks to God and gratitude to the Founders.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The "Nanny State" Expands
Our esteemed representatives are currently working very hard, we are told, to achieve a solution for the so-called "crisis" in health care (or is it insurance?). With myriad bills in the Senate and the House, we have come to accept the realization that the majority of our so-called representatives have not read, nor intend to read, the documents. We are, however, exhorted to accept their word that these bills are best for the country as a whole as well as for each individual American citizen simply because they have told us so.
As difficult as it is for many of us to admit, our current government was elected based on their being our caretakers, our "Nannies." The winning campaign spent much time explaining to us what we needed (whether we realized it or not) and how the government they offered would be there to provide us with everything we need . . . as long as the government alone decides what it is we need. We are, as the majority of We the People tacitly admitted by our votes, apparently incapable of deciding for ourselves what is best for us as individuals or as a country.
Those of us who disagreed with that premise were not loud enough nor forceful enough to counter the intensity of the "Nanny State" campaign. We were apathetic and allowed ourselves to be beaten into submission by the variety of weapons employed by those offering the "Nanny State" style of government.
Those weapons included insults (all disagreement was, during the campaign, and is, now more than ever, "racist"), threats of physical violence (the supposedly 'new' Black Panthers supposedly providing 'security' at voting places), and intense use of character assassination as a means to an end (the stridently hateful attacks on Joe Wurzelbacher and Sarah Palin and her family to silence and discredit).
The majority of We the People stood by with hardly a dissenting word or protest. (Whether from fear, apathy, or disgust, I will never understand.) This silence, apathy, or fear -- whatever it was -- brought us the "Nanny State" in which we find ourselves.
Thankfully, we have slowly started to react.
Loud, active protests throughout the country by a very broad cross-section of citizens have expressed the will of the people clearly and distinctly. We have unmistakably stated we do not want the government to be our caretakers. Regardless, our selected representatives have taken it upon themselves to decide for all of us what we will say when we speak (“Hate-crimes” legislation), who will be permitted to say what they think (new FCC regulations aimed at Conservative talk radio) and, most recently and frighteningly, how and to what extent we will be permitted to have our health taken care of.
Despite the ongoing, ever-expanding “Tea Party Protests,” our esteemed congressional representatives insist the protests are representative of only a small, inconsequential group of people, and should not be taken seriously. To the disgust of many honest Americans, Ms. Pelosi has even attempted to align the protesters with murderers such as those who killed Harvey Milk. (Hopefully, her hypocrisy and crododile tears did not inffluence many.)
It has become very clear that We the People committed many errors in recent years, exemplified by our current representation, from the President right through to most of the Congress, as reflected in Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi.
This result has been directly caused by our years-long apathy towards anything “political.”
It is time this apathy stop. It is time for We the People to accept our responsibility as citizens of this country and elect the right candidates to represent what the majority of us believe and want. It is time for We the People to accept our responsibility as citizens of this country and ensure that those whom we have selected to represent us do the work the majority of We the People want them to do.
Starting with the mid-term elections of 2010, We the People must secede from the Nanny State and become once again the strong, self-sufficient, independent citizenry on which this country was created.
As difficult as it is for many of us to admit, our current government was elected based on their being our caretakers, our "Nannies." The winning campaign spent much time explaining to us what we needed (whether we realized it or not) and how the government they offered would be there to provide us with everything we need . . . as long as the government alone decides what it is we need. We are, as the majority of We the People tacitly admitted by our votes, apparently incapable of deciding for ourselves what is best for us as individuals or as a country.
Those of us who disagreed with that premise were not loud enough nor forceful enough to counter the intensity of the "Nanny State" campaign. We were apathetic and allowed ourselves to be beaten into submission by the variety of weapons employed by those offering the "Nanny State" style of government.
Those weapons included insults (all disagreement was, during the campaign, and is, now more than ever, "racist"), threats of physical violence (the supposedly 'new' Black Panthers supposedly providing 'security' at voting places), and intense use of character assassination as a means to an end (the stridently hateful attacks on Joe Wurzelbacher and Sarah Palin and her family to silence and discredit).
The majority of We the People stood by with hardly a dissenting word or protest. (Whether from fear, apathy, or disgust, I will never understand.) This silence, apathy, or fear -- whatever it was -- brought us the "Nanny State" in which we find ourselves.
Thankfully, we have slowly started to react.
Loud, active protests throughout the country by a very broad cross-section of citizens have expressed the will of the people clearly and distinctly. We have unmistakably stated we do not want the government to be our caretakers. Regardless, our selected representatives have taken it upon themselves to decide for all of us what we will say when we speak (“Hate-crimes” legislation), who will be permitted to say what they think (new FCC regulations aimed at Conservative talk radio) and, most recently and frighteningly, how and to what extent we will be permitted to have our health taken care of.
Despite the ongoing, ever-expanding “Tea Party Protests,” our esteemed congressional representatives insist the protests are representative of only a small, inconsequential group of people, and should not be taken seriously. To the disgust of many honest Americans, Ms. Pelosi has even attempted to align the protesters with murderers such as those who killed Harvey Milk. (Hopefully, her hypocrisy and crododile tears did not inffluence many.)
It has become very clear that We the People committed many errors in recent years, exemplified by our current representation, from the President right through to most of the Congress, as reflected in Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi.
This result has been directly caused by our years-long apathy towards anything “political.”
It is time this apathy stop. It is time for We the People to accept our responsibility as citizens of this country and elect the right candidates to represent what the majority of us believe and want. It is time for We the People to accept our responsibility as citizens of this country and ensure that those whom we have selected to represent us do the work the majority of We the People want them to do.
Starting with the mid-term elections of 2010, We the People must secede from the Nanny State and become once again the strong, self-sufficient, independent citizenry on which this country was created.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Dismantling America, Part II
Mr. Sowell continues his analysis and shares an anecdote that has been dramatized many times over these past few months.
As inconceivable as it may have appeared a few years ago, We the People are now active participants in the "change" mantra of simply silencing all opposition through any means possible. Exemplified many times during the summer of 2009's "Tea Party" gatherings and "Town Halls," many who dared speak out against the current administration were often simply shouted down by their very companions -- citizens of this country. One must wonder at their ability to demand "freedom of speech," "acceptance," and "tolerance" from others while refusing to grant it to others.
That, of course, has always been the fascinating Liberal Conundrum.
To me, the experience Mr. Sowell recounts in academia is not surprising. The greater majority of academicians represent some of the most intolerant, close-minded individuals ever to take advantage of the precious freedom of speech. They, however, are always among the first to impose restrictions of speech on others, and actively try to silence any who dare oppose them.
They, of course, are the only ones who are "right thinking."
~ MCzwz
==========================================
Thomas Sowell - Syndicated Columnist - 10/30/2009 10:00:00 AM
Many years ago, at a certain academic institution, there was an experimental program that the faculty had to vote on as to whether or not it should be made permanent.
I rose at the faculty meeting to say that I knew practically nothing about whether the program was good or bad, and that the information that had been supplied to us was too vague for us to have any basis for voting, one way or the other. My suggestion was that we get more concrete information before having a vote.
The director of that program rose immediately and responded indignantly and sarcastically to what I had just said -- and the faculty gave him a standing ovation.
After the faculty meeting was over, I told a colleague that I was stunned and baffled by the faculty's fierce response to my simply saying that we needed more information before voting.
"Tom, you don't understand," he said. "Those people need to believe in that man. They have invested so much hope and trust in him that they cannot let you stir up any doubts."
Years later, and hundreds of miles away, I learned that my worst misgivings about that program did not begin to approach the reality, which included organized criminal activity.
The memory of that long-ago episode has come back more than once while observing both the actions of the Obama administration and the fierce reactions of its supporters to any questioning or criticism.
Almost never do these reactions include factual or logical arguments against the administration's critics. Instead, there is indignation, accusations of bad faith and even charges of racism.
Here too, it seems as if so many people have invested so much hope and trust in Barack Obama that it is intolerable that anyone should come along and stir up any doubts that could threaten their house of cards.
Among the most pathetic letters and e-mails I receive are those from people who ask why I don't write more "positively" about Obama or "give him the benefit of the doubt."
No one -- not even the president of the United States -- has an entitlement to a "positive" response to his actions. The entitlement mentality has eroded the once common belief that you earned things, including respect, instead of being given them.
As for the benefit of the doubt, no one -- especially not the president of the United States -- is entitled to that, when his actions can jeopardize the rights of 300 million Americans domestically and the security of the nation in an international jungle, where nuclear weapons may soon be in the hands of people with suicidal fanaticism. Will it take a mushroom cloud over an American city to make that clear? Was 9/11 not enough?
When a president of the United States has begun the process of dismantling America from within, and exposing us to dangerous enemies outside, the time is long past for being concerned about his public image. He has his own press agents for that.
Internationally, Barack Obama has made every mistake that was made by the Western democracies in the 1930s, mistakes that put Hitler in a position to start World War II -- and come dangerously close to winning it.
At the heart of those mistakes was trying to mollify your enemies by throwing your friends to the wolves. The Obama administration has already done that by reneging on this country's commitment to put a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe and by its lackadaisical foot-dragging on doing anything serious to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That means, for all practical purposes, throwing Israel to the wolves as well.
Countries around the world that have to look out for their own national survival, above all, are not going to ignore how much Obama has downgraded the reliability of America's commitments.
Iraq, for example, knows that Iran is going to be next door forever while Americans may be gone in a few years. South Korea likewise knows that North Korea is permanently next door but who knows when the Obama administration will get a bright idea to pull out? Countries in South America know that Hugo Chavez is allying Venezuela with Iran. Dare they ally themselves with an unreliable U.S.A.? Or should they join our enemies to work against us?
This issue is too serious for squeamish silence.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
All Original Content Copyright 2006-2008 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved.
OneNewsNow", "OneNewsNow.com", and the "OneNewsNow World" logo, are Trademarks of the American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved
As inconceivable as it may have appeared a few years ago, We the People are now active participants in the "change" mantra of simply silencing all opposition through any means possible. Exemplified many times during the summer of 2009's "Tea Party" gatherings and "Town Halls," many who dared speak out against the current administration were often simply shouted down by their very companions -- citizens of this country. One must wonder at their ability to demand "freedom of speech," "acceptance," and "tolerance" from others while refusing to grant it to others.
That, of course, has always been the fascinating Liberal Conundrum.
To me, the experience Mr. Sowell recounts in academia is not surprising. The greater majority of academicians represent some of the most intolerant, close-minded individuals ever to take advantage of the precious freedom of speech. They, however, are always among the first to impose restrictions of speech on others, and actively try to silence any who dare oppose them.
They, of course, are the only ones who are "right thinking."
~ MCzwz
==========================================
Many years ago, at a certain academic institution, there was an experimental program that the faculty had to vote on as to whether or not it should be made permanent.
I rose at the faculty meeting to say that I knew practically nothing about whether the program was good or bad, and that the information that had been supplied to us was too vague for us to have any basis for voting, one way or the other. My suggestion was that we get more concrete information before having a vote.
The director of that program rose immediately and responded indignantly and sarcastically to what I had just said -- and the faculty gave him a standing ovation.
After the faculty meeting was over, I told a colleague that I was stunned and baffled by the faculty's fierce response to my simply saying that we needed more information before voting.
"Tom, you don't understand," he said. "Those people need to believe in that man. They have invested so much hope and trust in him that they cannot let you stir up any doubts."
Years later, and hundreds of miles away, I learned that my worst misgivings about that program did not begin to approach the reality, which included organized criminal activity.
The memory of that long-ago episode has come back more than once while observing both the actions of the Obama administration and the fierce reactions of its supporters to any questioning or criticism.
Almost never do these reactions include factual or logical arguments against the administration's critics. Instead, there is indignation, accusations of bad faith and even charges of racism.
Here too, it seems as if so many people have invested so much hope and trust in Barack Obama that it is intolerable that anyone should come along and stir up any doubts that could threaten their house of cards.
Among the most pathetic letters and e-mails I receive are those from people who ask why I don't write more "positively" about Obama or "give him the benefit of the doubt."
No one -- not even the president of the United States -- has an entitlement to a "positive" response to his actions. The entitlement mentality has eroded the once common belief that you earned things, including respect, instead of being given them.
As for the benefit of the doubt, no one -- especially not the president of the United States -- is entitled to that, when his actions can jeopardize the rights of 300 million Americans domestically and the security of the nation in an international jungle, where nuclear weapons may soon be in the hands of people with suicidal fanaticism. Will it take a mushroom cloud over an American city to make that clear? Was 9/11 not enough?
When a president of the United States has begun the process of dismantling America from within, and exposing us to dangerous enemies outside, the time is long past for being concerned about his public image. He has his own press agents for that.
Internationally, Barack Obama has made every mistake that was made by the Western democracies in the 1930s, mistakes that put Hitler in a position to start World War II -- and come dangerously close to winning it.
At the heart of those mistakes was trying to mollify your enemies by throwing your friends to the wolves. The Obama administration has already done that by reneging on this country's commitment to put a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe and by its lackadaisical foot-dragging on doing anything serious to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That means, for all practical purposes, throwing Israel to the wolves as well.
Countries around the world that have to look out for their own national survival, above all, are not going to ignore how much Obama has downgraded the reliability of America's commitments.
Iraq, for example, knows that Iran is going to be next door forever while Americans may be gone in a few years. South Korea likewise knows that North Korea is permanently next door but who knows when the Obama administration will get a bright idea to pull out? Countries in South America know that Hugo Chavez is allying Venezuela with Iran. Dare they ally themselves with an unreliable U.S.A.? Or should they join our enemies to work against us?
This issue is too serious for squeamish silence.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
All Original Content Copyright 2006-2008 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved.
OneNewsNow", "OneNewsNow.com", and the "OneNewsNow World" logo, are Trademarks of the American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved
Dismantling America I
This is one gentleman with the power of his convictions. Not only does he clearly and consistently state what he thinks and believes, he has done so for years, regardless of the political tone of the times. In these particular times, I find him extraordinarily courageous.
I am absolutely neither detracting from, nor ignoring, the numerous other voices of dissent who literally take their lives into their own hands these days, every time they express an opposing opinion. Our country should be very grateful that we still have them to help protect our Country's past, present, and -- hopefully -- our future.
But, for Mr. Sowell, dissent with the current administration may be particularly dangerous as he will no doubt be deemed a "terrorist," according to Ms. Pelosi, but probably also a "traitor to his race" by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
The double race club.
Today's times coat every disagreement, every dissent and opposing point of view with the tars and feathers of "racist!" no matter how logically presented an argument. Mr. Sowell once again presents an argument that cannot be denied . . . except of course by all who simply wish to deny the realities of their mantra of "change!"
Whether those of us who feel the fear this "change!" has awakened in us continue to be strong in our protestations remains to be seen. Whether we are able to hold tight to our republican convictions (as in the Republic of the United States of America founded in 1776) in the face of torrential insults, threats, browbeating, and racial clubs also also remains to be seen.
I hope and pray I live to see it. Should the citizens of this country not continue to protest, hold fast to our Republic, fight hard against those attempting not only to "change" but to destroy her, we are simply doomed as a country.
~ MCzwz
=======================================
Thomas Sowell - Syndicated Columnist - 10/27/2009 10:50:00 AM
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official -- not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate, but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President -- could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?
Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers -- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?
Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?
Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?
Does any of this sound like America?
How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.
How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.
We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.
How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.
Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles, and the people of this country.
Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God d--- America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.
Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.
Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?
Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government -- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.
Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.
Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year -- each bill more than a thousand pages long -- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question -- and the biggest question for this generation.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
All Original Content Copyright 2006-2008 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved.
News Network - All Rights Reserved
I am absolutely neither detracting from, nor ignoring, the numerous other voices of dissent who literally take their lives into their own hands these days, every time they express an opposing opinion. Our country should be very grateful that we still have them to help protect our Country's past, present, and -- hopefully -- our future.
But, for Mr. Sowell, dissent with the current administration may be particularly dangerous as he will no doubt be deemed a "terrorist," according to Ms. Pelosi, but probably also a "traitor to his race" by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
The double race club.
Today's times coat every disagreement, every dissent and opposing point of view with the tars and feathers of "racist!" no matter how logically presented an argument. Mr. Sowell once again presents an argument that cannot be denied . . . except of course by all who simply wish to deny the realities of their mantra of "change!"
Whether those of us who feel the fear this "change!" has awakened in us continue to be strong in our protestations remains to be seen. Whether we are able to hold tight to our republican convictions (as in the Republic of the United States of America founded in 1776) in the face of torrential insults, threats, browbeating, and racial clubs also also remains to be seen.
I hope and pray I live to see it. Should the citizens of this country not continue to protest, hold fast to our Republic, fight hard against those attempting not only to "change" but to destroy her, we are simply doomed as a country.
~ MCzwz
=======================================
Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official -- not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate, but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President -- could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?
Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers -- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?
Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?
Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?
Does any of this sound like America?
How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.
How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.
We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.
How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.
Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles, and the people of this country.
Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God d--- America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.
Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.
Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?
Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government -- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.
Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.
Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year -- each bill more than a thousand pages long -- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question -- and the biggest question for this generation.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
All Original Content Copyright 2006-2008 American Family News Network - All Rights Reserved.
News Network - All Rights Reserved
Monday, November 2, 2009
Moral Imperative?
I do not believe it is the government's "moral obligation" to provide healthcare for all anymore than it is the government's "moral obligation" to decide for me what and how much I eat, drink, smoke, where I live, what I drive, what type of radio or television programs I listen to etc., etc., etc.
This "health care" ploy is merely one more extraordinarily blatant attempt to coerce the entire country under the wing of the "save the world" mentality of the progressives/liberals/democrats. In their long, patient march throughout the years, the have finally reached the pinacle of their "success."
The progressive/liberal/democrat cadre are on the verge of literally taking over not only "health care" but the complete care and feeding of this entire country. The individual, formerly the backbone of this country, is about to be assimilated into the collective of the whole -- again under the guise of "Papa Government" taking better care of us than we are capable of doing ourselves.
In addition to being an extremely frightening possibility, it is an infinitely sad aspect to contemplate . . . that the strong, independent United States of America should come to this point.
I pray intensely our countrymen will come to their senses next year and make the correct choices to try to start to reverse the course of self-destruction on which "We the People" voted to set ourselves on 11/04/08.
This "health care" ploy is merely one more extraordinarily blatant attempt to coerce the entire country under the wing of the "save the world" mentality of the progressives/liberals/democrats. In their long, patient march throughout the years, the have finally reached the pinacle of their "success."
The progressive/liberal/democrat cadre are on the verge of literally taking over not only "health care" but the complete care and feeding of this entire country. The individual, formerly the backbone of this country, is about to be assimilated into the collective of the whole -- again under the guise of "Papa Government" taking better care of us than we are capable of doing ourselves.
In addition to being an extremely frightening possibility, it is an infinitely sad aspect to contemplate . . . that the strong, independent United States of America should come to this point.
I pray intensely our countrymen will come to their senses next year and make the correct choices to try to start to reverse the course of self-destruction on which "We the People" voted to set ourselves on 11/04/08.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)