Thursday, September 24, 2009

Reclaiming of Hope, but you can still keep your Change!

If you are a politician, constituent, or lobbyist, working against the Constitution, you should be afraid, very afraid. Your time is almost up.

In 2008 we saw a very charismatic, young, Democratic leader win over the general public with his promises of “Hope and Change”. He said he was a centrist. He said he would reach across the aisle. He understood that we were all sick of the Bush administration, but most of all sick of Washington in general. We all wanted change, in the White House and on the hill. America was at the point that we believed any change would be good change. We all had hope for America (yes I said “had”).

What we didn’t stop to do, and what we as American’s have never really stopped to do, is figure out what the problem was in the first place.

What I can’t understand is why we didn’t take the time as free citizens of the greatest country in the history of the World, to study and understand what Barrack Obama meant by change. It is our right as American’s to vote for our “leaders”, but it is our responsibility as American’s to understand the “leaders” that we are voting for.

Some of us did see through the “Hope and Change” promises, and understood what was to come if we as Americans blindly voted in a “charismatic leader”. Those of us that have been fighting for liberty since before the 2008 campaign are now screaming “Keep the Change!”

As hard as it was for conservative Americans to hear that Barrack Obama was going to be the next President of the United States, it just might have been the best thing for America that Senator John McCain was defeated. Not because Barrack Obama was the better choice, but because Barrack Obama, by the end of his four year term will have shown America his and his party’s true colors.

Almost all Democrats and certainly many Republicans are beginning to sweat over the grassroots demand for liberty. Why are both parties afraid of the Tea Parties of 2009? Because a demand for liberty and call to cease government spending is not coming from a charismatic leader, it is not coming from the leadership of a 2012 campaigner, nor from any particular group or individual. This demand for liberty has come directly from the people organized by no one but themselves!

The general public has started to realize what the promises of “Hope and Change” truly meant and it has inspired this grassroots movement to reclaim America by reclaiming our Constitutional rights that have been stripped away day in and day out for generations.

As more and more people join this second American Revolution, many of us might be able to remove the “had” that we put up in front of Hope.

Monday, September 14, 2009

DNC Play Book Pg. 1 of 2: “Cry Racist!”

DNC Play Book Pg. 1 of 2: “Cry Racist!”

I learned a hard lesson the other day. I have heard this lesson in the past, but never gave it a second thought; at least not until it was my turn to learn by experience.

This lesson relates to the argument tactics used by anyone debating something they do not fully understand. I relate these tactics to most of the “Kool-Aid drinking liberals” arguing their leftist positions, but truth be told, we are all guilty of this.

In developing my own views, I have spent many hours reading and discussing issues, making sure I try to understand them before entering into any debate about the same.

Far too often, people that do not understand the facts of an issue choose to enter into someone else’s debate. This is true of both sides of any political argument, left or right. When this happens, you start to notice and recognize certain argument tactics that take away validity from the original debate.

These tactics that I have been referring to are the “personal attacks” used in almost any argument, political or not. Sometimes they serve a purpose, whether right or wrong. They are almost always used to discredit the opposite party, and are many times overlooked for what they really are: OFF THE TOPIC!

Take Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst during President Obama’s speech at the joint session of Congress. Congressman Wilson’s heckling style remark “You lie!” brought national attention to an issue that was being misrepresented by the President. Whether you consider this an inappropriate move by the Congressman is your opinion, but I for one am glad that he did it. In two “well timed” words it brought positive change to a scary piece of proposed legislation. The sad part about his remarks is how the left side of Congress (and with that the main stream media) replied.

“The fact that Joe Wilson is from South strikes a lot of people as awfully close to the idea that maybe there was some sort of racist or bigoted element there.” - MSNBC’s David Shuster

This is just one example of many, from one political debate of many, in which a personal attack, completely off of the topic and in no way justifiable, is used to discredit the individual arguing the other side of the debate.

You might argue that Congressman Wilson “personally attacked” the President, and that he is no better than David Shuster and the rest of the main stream media, but I disagree. It comes down to justification, and I dare you to try and justify the main stream media calling him a racist, and I challenge you to research this public health care debate enough to understand that the President, whether knowingly or not, was lying about the coverage of illegal aliens.

I am convinced that Congressman Joe Wilson is used to these tactics by now; he is a Congressman after all. I only wish that I would have reacted with the same class when I too was called a racist for simply arguing against government ran healthcare. It was my first experience of being personally attacked for not drinking the President’s Kool-aid. I am glad that it happened, and it has truly opened my eyes to what is going on, and to what is ahead.