When one declares oneself to be a conservative, one is not, unfortunately, thereupon visited by tongues of fire that leave one omniscient. The acceptance of a series of premises is just the beginning. After that, we need constantly to inform ourselves, to analyze and to think through our premises and their ramifications. We need to ponder, in the light of the evidence, the strengths and the weaknesses, the consistencies and the inconsistencies, the glory and the frailty of our position, week in and week out. Otherwise, we will not hold our own in a world where informed dedication, not just dedication, is necessary for survival and growth.

William F. Buckley Jr., Feb 8, 1956, NR

Saturday, January 31, 2009


Since the votes were tallied and the final election results were in naming Barack Obama winner of the 2008 election, there have been countless discussions and postings concerning conservative support for Obama because he would be the Nation's President. After all whether one votes for the person who sits in the Oval Office or not he is the President of all Americans.

Over the last few days this conversation has come to the fore front again with Obama telling GOP lawmakers that they cannot follow Rush Limbaugh and expect anything to get done. On the other side of this coin Rush has stated that because of his conservative beliefs and principles that if Obama pushes the socialist agenda that he stated during the campaign he does not want him to succeed because of the path it would take the Nation.

Now that Obama is President of the United States, then the question for conservatives is once again, " do we support Obama because he is the President ?" To this question, as a conservative, I would have to follow my conscience and principled beliefs and say emphatically, "NO !"

There are those, who because he is President, that would consider this attitude to be unpatriotic and nothing that I state here will convince them otherwise. But to my fellow conservatives I offer this explanation as to why we cannot support Obama or even state that we do because he is the President.

Though I do not support Obama, I still and always will respect the office of President of The United States. But for me to use that respect for the office and state that because a certain individual is holding that office, I should then support what he does would be hypocrisy on my part.

Nothing that Obama has stated as his policy, goal o the direction he wishes to take this Nation agrees with my political, moral and ideological beliefs or principles. For me to state that I support the President but not his policies is a similar argument that was used by the left concerning the status of our troops and their mission in Iraq.

Throughout that political discord liberals continually stated that they supported the troops but not their mission. Conservatives countered the cry from the left with, " how can you say you support the troops but not what they are doing ?" The same argument holds for Obama. How can we as conservatives state that we support the President but not what he is doing without falling into the same counter accusation from the left that we used during the troop support argument ?

If I am completely honest with myself and my convictions, then I have to admit that I do not want Obama's agenda to succeed and therefore cannot support him just because he is the President. If he insists on continuing the agenda that he has stated and that he has already begun how can I state that I support him and hold true to my beliefs and principles ?

Of course I would hope for the sake of the country that he understands the short and long term ramifications of what he is doing and what he plans to do and the negative impact it will have on the country. Not to mention that the socialist ideas that he presents take this Nation down a path that was never intended by our Founders.

I believe that the moves that he has made and is planning on making weaken this country and make us even more vulnerable to attack from our enemies. He is taking us back to a pre- 9/11 atmosphere and as such the security of this country could be threatened in a way that it has not been since that fateful day in 2001.

His socialist agenda promises to take this country down a path that may never be reversed. I ask you, how many government programs once started have ever been stopped ? The answer is zero and Obama plans expanding government more than any other President including Franklin Roosevelt.

If we do come under attack, as an American I will rally behind the President as we should and pray that he has the wisdom and sense enough to handle the situation in a manner that protects and preserves our Nation. But to state that I will support him just because he is President is not holding true to who I am and those values and beliefs that have formed my ideas, my morals and my principles.

Do I want him to fail ? Absolutely not ! But I cannot support what he plans which will bring failure and insecurity to this country both economically, morally and in the protection of the country and our people.

Did I agree 100% with President Bush ? No, in fact there were numerous times that I did not support what he was doing. His immigration stand, increasing entitlements, bailouts just to name a few were policies that I could not support. But generally I agreed with the direction Bush wanted to take the country and in the way he stood fast in protecting the Nation after 9/11. As a result I could support him while disagreeing with certain policy issues.

Obama presents and entirely different situation. I find nothing that he says or any part of his very liberal agenda that I can agree with. I do not believe that what he is and will do has any possibility of taking this Nation anywhere but Socialism and weakening our security. How then can I support him as President ?

Our Founders faced a similar dilemma when they gathered to ultimately bring about the birth of this country. They respected the British Monarchy, but not the King who held the throne and especially not his policy toward the Colonies. As a result they created a new form of government that was formed from their beliefs and principles which came from the inability to support King Charles and his agenda for the Colonies. Had they supported the King, they would never have signed the Declaration of Independence.

Am I suggesting that we rebel against the Obama Administration and begin a new Nation ? No, but I am suggesting that we take every opportunity to make it known through the blogosphere, discussion with friends and family and especially in constant contact with everyone and anyone in Washington, that we do not support the President's agenda and emphatically know that it will take us the wrong direction and threaten the security of each of us.

This is our responsibility as a citizen. Our Constitution begins with the words, "We the people." These words were not written by James Madison because they had a certain poetic ring to them. They were included at the very beginning of the document that created our government and the laws that formed our Nation as a testament of who we are and what our responsibilities as Americans are to each other and our country.

Those in government do not dictate to us what we are to do, even the President. It is our responsibility as Americans to tell them what we expect and then hold them accountable to those expectations. As a whole we Americans have forgotten this blessed liberty which was instilled in this country from the very beginning.

Is it radical to stand against our leaders when we disagree with them ? Some today consider it to be. But if we truly believe in our Constitution and understand how our Nation was founded and what the words found within this precious document provide in freedom, then we will also understand that we cannot support that which we believe is wrong and it is our duty to stand against it especially if it is the agenda of a President whose ideas and policy promises to change the very foundation of our country and the principles instilled by our Constitution.

Ken Taylor B


TAO said...

Actually Ken, I hope he proves you wrong. Just like I had hoped that George Bush would prove me wrong.

I was all for George Bush in 2000 as I was tired of all the Clinton personal stuff and I wanted a President who brought respect back to the office.

Then we got the prescription drug program and the no child left behind crap and that did it for me. Oh, and the guy never met a spending bill that he didn't like.

Then came 9/11 and I rallied around Bush just like the rest of the world. I was all for going into Afghanistan but then he hit Iraq where I wanted him to hit Pakistan and Iran.....then it was all the bungling up until the surge.

That did it for me. But back then and even to today Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and most conservatives want to continue singing him praises. Because he is a sincere conservative.


After 8 years of listening to the constant rant that one is unpatriotic if one does not support the President, the troops, and the mission...over and over from coworkers, friends, conservatives throughout the world, Rush Limbaugh, and everyone on Fox News....

Its good to see how poetic conservatives can be when the shoes on the other foot. Now, its their patriotic duty to stand and dissent but over the last eight years it was treason to stand and dissent.

As it stands right now George Bush has thrown away twice the money Obama is asking for in his stimulus bill...

So, whatever that makes Obama that means Bush is twice whatever Obama is.

Personally I am tired of this conservative / liberal conversation because neither side is acknowledging the real issues and offering real solutions.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Small correction: It was King George III, not Charles.

And you have the right to oppose President Obama all you wish. No one disputes that. No one ever has.

I don't understand what this post is about. Of course you and your compatriots have the right to disagree with President Obama.

But remember: The American people through the plebesite on November 4, chose President Obama and his policies. A majority of Americans decided, through the ballot box, that they want President Obama to take the country in the direction that he told him he would during the campaign. A majority of Americans rejected the Republicans and what they stood for. That's why President Obama won and the Republicans lost.

Your opposition is a minority opposition, but nevertheless, will be heard.

Your enmity toward his philosophies and policies is perfectly within your rights as an American and needed in a healthy democracy.

Neither I, nor any reasonable person, think you or any of your fellow travelers is unpatriotic to oppose President Obama.

This is the way Democracy works.

What I, and I believe most of the people here at CC wish to see end, is the rancor, destructive, and divisive methods of expressing that opposition.

I don't even mind creative name-calling or passionate outbursts. Our friend Patrick, for example, is quite good at this.

So. Have at it, my friend.

Let the head banging begin!

Arthurstone said...

Thanks for clearing that up Ken.

Truth is I never have had the slightest doubt opposition to the Bush regime (particularly the military adventurism) was a patriotic act.


Anonymous said...

You asked "Is it radical to stand against our leaders when we disagree with them ?"

Ask that question to Al Gore

The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

Shaw, I don't know where Charles came from. Sometimes when one is writing gaffes slip by in the concentration of the moment. History 101 knows George but somehow Charles made a showing anyway. Thanks for the correction.

Now onto the rest of your comment. Regardless of who the voters have chosen it is our responsibility as Americans to oppose any leader that we disagree with. I find to this point NOTHING that Obama is doing or has announced that he plans to do in which I can find agreement and therefore I cannot support his agenda because I beleive it is wrong for America and takes us down a path never intended for this country.

Though I had several disagreements with Bush his basic policy agenda was not designed to fundamentally change this country and I could lend my support as a result.

Obama's does promise to change the Constitutional principles if his socialist agenda is adopted. A change that even after he leaves may not be reversable.

Remember Social Security and the royal pain it has been as well as a political football to try and influence voters. That socialist program from FDR will never disappear and has been flawed and corrupted from the beginning. Obama is following FRD's example which did not work then and will not work now.

TAO - First I beleive that Bush at heart beleives in conservatism but he did not govern as a conservative which caused many disagreements with him on my part.

But I cannot just sit by and watch Obama's socialist agenda take this country down the tubes. What he is proposing has never worked in any country that tried it. In fact many who went down this path have ended up on the slag heap of history and a question on Jeopardy that only history buffs know.

If his agenda had any possibility of being successful then Denmark would be a world power and not have 22% unemployment and hyperinflation in the low 20's.

If his appeasement policy like that which he expresses about Iran worked then history would remember Neville Chamberlain as a hero and Winston Churchill would have historically been remembered as one of many First Sea Lords of Great Britain rather than the Lion of Britain.

TAO said...

First off, we have been having diplomatic discussions with Iran and we have just one step away from having an embassy in Tehran...all of which have ocurred in the last year of the Bush Presidency.

So, to all of the sudden acknowledge outright what is already going on quietly is really not a change of policy...its just bringing a dark secret out in the open.

We established a consulate there in November 2008...one step down from an embassy.

If you believe that Iran is such a threat then the appeasement occurred, and this is how I see it, when we decided to attack Iraq rather than Iran and Pakistan. When we decided to attack a poor useless country rather than two with known nuclear capabilities and we know what the Iranians think about us and Pakistan harbors more Al Qaeda then Iraq ever did.

If you add up our unemployment, which drops people from the count after six months, add the ones who have been dropped to the ones who have taken part time employment when they want full time you are getting real close to Denmarks unemployment....as far as inflation goes...we could really use some right now....its a lot better than deflation.

But according to UPI News Denmark had inflation rate of 3.8% as of July 2008 and as of 1/12/09 their inflation rate had fallen from 2.7% to 2.4% in one month as of fxstreet.com

From the Danish government reports it shows that Denmark had its highest unemployment of 12.3% in 1994 and has steadily dropped to 3.5% in 2008. Which is from the CIA World Factbook.

You can believe whatever you want about Bush and his heart...which is just like Bush peering into the eyes of Putin and seeing his soul.

The bottom line is facts...not souls, not hearts, not intentions..but facts.

It was always the liberals who looked at everything in rose colored glasses....

Shaw Kenawe said...

Remember Social Security and the royal pain it has been as well as a political football to try and influence voters. That socialist program from FDR will never disappear and has been flawed and corrupted from the beginning. Obama is following FRD's example which did not work then and will not work now.

But the fact is that the American people support and want to continue Social Security. Your opinion on SS is a minority opinion. We can respect it, but in a democracy, majority rules. A majority of Americans like Social Security:

From: http://tinyurl.com/8pqf7v

"A majority of voters continue to agree with President-elect Obama’s proposal for workers to pay Social Security taxes on more of the income they earn each year. Sixty percent (60%) say people should pay Social Security taxes on all or most of their annual income. Twenty-nine percent (29%) disagree, and 11% are undecided."

And although you and others call Pres. Obama's agenda "socialst" that doesn't make it so. TAO has shown us that facts, not opinion, i.e., Denmarks' unemployment rate, are what count.

CB said...

Obama's agenda is clearly socialist and anyone truly listening, not getting caught up in the focus grouped/Rules for Radicals slogans of "Hope and Change" can tell you that he is an extreme leftist. Shortly after he won, on his transition web site, he posted a REQUIREMENT that all children in middle school through college age do 50 to 100 hours of community service each year. I wrote in and said that the federal government will mandate such a requirement on my children over my dead body. Others complained too and it was removed from his site. A precursor to reeducation camps?

More compelling still was his conversation with NPR interview, prior to his candidacy, combined with his "spread the wealth around" comments on the campaign trail and similar comments about not being able to heat and cool our homes, drive what we want and eat what we want (while he keeps the White House at 80 apparently). In that conversation with NPR, he lamented that the Civil Rights Movement didn't go far enough to address America's FUNDAMENTAL FLAW. The flaw being that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are what he saw as a series of "negative rights" or a listing of what the government can't do to you. He and those who ascribe to the very marxist "negative rights" legal theory want to identify what government must do for you. Now if this were Cuba, China, North Korea, the former Soviet Union or Cambodia in the not too distant past or if this were Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales or Hugo Chavez, I wouldn't be surprised. But this statement came from a man who is now the president of the United States.

Recently, this same man foolishly said, "now is not the time for profits." I take that back, a fool makes a statement not knowing the implications of what he's saying, Obama is no fool.

Contrary to what brother TAO believes, America's greatness is not because of geography, it is in the uniqueness of our charter Novus Ordo Seclorum. There was great study and debate about the systems throughout history that produced great success and key among them is freedom from the tyranny of government interference and largesse. The change Obama desires will wreck this country, leading us toward the rot of Canadian and European style socialism at breakneck speed or worse.

We have an obligation not only to ourselves but to those who follow us to see to it that he does not succeed. Wishing him to fail is not enough. Toqueville's observations about the greatness of America were prescient and so too were his words about our eventual demise. Bastiat was correct about the nature of government and Benjamin Franklin's words to a woman who asked him upon his emergence from the Constitutional convention were never truer, when she asked, What have you given us Dr. Franklin? He famously replied, "A republic madame, if you can keep it."

The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

TAO - The appeasement is not discussions at a lower level but the one on one at the Presidential level without conditions that Obama is seeking. Every European country is against it and experts agree that it only legitimizes Achmadinejad and the Iranian regime.

Iran also sees Obama's move as weakness which has the US approaching the problem from a stand of weakness rather than strength. Presidential level talks especially without conditions being met are dangerous and appeasing.

Shaw - you made my point with your stats concerning Social Security. The danger of socialized programs are the fact that once instituted even a free people become dependant on them thus giving up freedom for government security.

Also allowing themselves to become a football for vote getting as politicians use the programs as scare tactics and leverage to gain votes.

A social program once started never ends because of the forced dependancy that it creates. That is the danger of socialism.

Dependancy upon the government causes even free people to continue allowing their freedoms to erode into government programs of dependancy which further erode freedoms until the people are vulnerable to the dictates of not just the government but powerful individuals who become dictators and eventually end all freedom.

That is how Germany fell into the trap of Hitler. Dependancy upon socialist governmental programs combined with a need for the ability to once again feel good about their country and themselves made them open to anyone who would fill the gap and the Hitler met the need.

Social dependancy erodes freedom and that is why our own Constitution speaks against it through the tenth Amendment when stating that all powers not specifically written in the Constitution belong to the states or the people or both.

When people depend upon the government they no longer accept responsibilty for themselves and fall to the whims of polititians and government entities then finally dictators.

TAO said...


Liberal...you need to stop with automatic answers and then filling in the blanks with names and regimes. Achmadinejad and the "Iranian regime" are the legitimate rulers of Iran. No one not even the most conservative are claiming otherwise.

Whether you talk to them at lower levels, and a consulate is just one level away from full diplomatic recognition which would involve Presidential level direct communication or not is really irrelevant. The fact that we have sat there and called them part of the axis of evil, and we have by default allowed them to develop nuclear capabilities and continue their support of Hamas and Hezbullah is all true signs of our true opinion of them.

Whether you talk to them or not you have acknowledged their right to exist, you have acknowledged their right to have nuclear weapons, and you have acknowledged their right to support Hamas and Hezabullah.

You are right about social dependency and that is exactly what has occured with our economic system. But then again the 10th amendment does not allow our government to send troops all over the world to defend "interests" and thus that should be unconstitutional also. Following up on the same idea that pretty much makes everything unconstitutional that our government does. But then again the constitutionality of everything the government is doing today has been tested and it stands as per the constitution. So this whole point is a moot concept.

Exactly what socialist programs did Germany have in 1933? With their government and economy in shambles and the socialists and communists starting to win more and more seats in the Reichstag Hindenburg saw Hitler as the only choice to DEFEAT socialism and communism in Germany.

Its nice to argue about social security in the theoretical but as I have paid into social security for 36 years and have another 20 to go and with over 100,000 in the thing I DO EXPECT to be paid back. Now, rather than just go off criticizing our dependency on social security why not sit down and draft a proposal of how to unwind the monster.

Then go on and tell me what you are going to do with all the folks that depend on social security today to live. Then when you give everyone back their money tell me how you are going to deal with the debt that that creates without raising taxes.

Ideas have consequences and to sit here and discuss 'freedom' and 'dependency' is fine and dandy but some place ideas have to hit reality. May as well add veterans benefits to the concept of dependency and deal with unraveling that one too.

Or are veteran benefits 'earned' while payments into social security not 'earned.'

Our government is socialist and has been for a long long time. Our whole economic system is dependent on government and has been for quite sometime. With our economic dependency on government we, as individuals, are dependent on government by default.

Once I hear a conservative deal with that dependency and hit it head on then they will have my attention. Don't bring up lower taxes because unlike others I know what the actual overall tax rate is for corporations and I realize that almost half of fortune 500 companies pay no taxes.

The whole time you focus on communism and socialism you are missing the fact that our business interests are in bed with our political system and the Wall Street Bail out should prove that point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

TAO said...

CB...almost missed your musings...


So, which one is it our form of government that makes us great or our economic system?

Lets define "great"

What does one mean by greatness?

What measurement do we use to determine how much better or greater are we than other countries?

Whether we talk about forms of government and countries or economic systems and societies we need to define and specify.

Its great to get on a soapbox and make speeches that warms ones heart and drives one to patriotic feelings but reality is in the facts.

Its like income distribution...everyone is against it. But if you got through the stats and look at federal tax collection by state and federal expenditure by state then you realize that all the states paying the most in taxes are democratic and all the states receiving the most in federal largresse are republican.

Then the republicans make a big issue at elections about income redistribution...and yet their senators are bringing home the gravy like nobodies business.

If it was just our system of government that made us great then we should have been an overnight success with the installation of our new government back a couple of hundred years ago. But we weren't.

It took hundreds of years for us to achieve the level of whatever greatness you are talking about and we did it because of geography. We didn't have constant wars with neighbors and we had room to grow without interference.

It is enjoyable to seek out quotes from a couple of hundred years ago and all of that but none of those people had any idea if we were to be successful or not and it took a lot of folks over that time to achieve the greatness that we have achieved.

While everyone goes on and on about Abe Lincoln...lets not forget that he killed the concept of states rights. He established the supremecy of the Union or federal government to trump states.

That is what is nice about picking and choosing ones historical quotes. Our founding fathers were very much against foreign intervention in all ways shapes and forms and yet the folks on this blog who incessantly quote the founding fathers are also rampant interventionalists.

Then as far as lineage goes, Thomas Jefferson who is considered by many to be the founder of the democratic party was dead set against government debt and the founding of a national bank...it was Alexander Hamilton who was for government debt and a national bank...and he won.

But the bailout of Wall Street pretty much ended that debate once and for all....

Our founding fathers were very much against a standing army but no one on this blog will bring that up because all of you have served in the military and that becomes a special interest to you.

Most people who blog do so during the day while at work, so of course they hate unions and organized labor....its because the americans who would be for unions and organized labor do not have access to computers and the internet on their desks while working.

Reality is until we pay off our national debt and deal with that monster we are stuck with the government that we have right now. We will not reach our day of freedom with lower taxes we will not reach that day of freedom with less spending because the current debt of $184,000 for every man woman and child in the United States is on the books and it is a debt.

We need to RAISE taxes and LOWER spending at the same time then once we clear up our books we can have a discussion about the type of government we want for the future.

Until then we are indentured servants to the system already in place and all the fancy speeches and latin words will not change that reality.

That is the biggest issue I have with conservatives, lets quit talking about it and lets do something about it.

Make Wall Street pay us back with interest by March 15th. Freeze social security payments at today's level and then issue treasury bonds for the balance of what every citizen paid in vs. what they have drawn with interest.

Remove all our troops from every single foreign location they are at right now unless the governments of those countries agree to pay us the full cost for use of our troops. Implement a flat tax of 17% across the board with no deductions of any kind and no credits of any kind...and income includes everything whether earned in U.S. or not and give no deductions for taxes paid overseas. Anyone caught cheating will lose their American Citizenship and be deported. Lock the borders down and deport any illegal alien who has committed a crime but if they can document that they have paid taxes and are crime free then offer them citizenship.

All government spending will be requested in one budget once a year and said budget will be approved via a national election.

Cease all payments to foreign entities including Israel.

So, since our economy will take about 20 years to recover on its own and since our standard of living will drop about 50% it will probably take us about 65 years to emerge with our national debt paid in full....

Then we can discuss returning to the intent of our founding fathers until such time it is just wishful thinking.

TAO said...

Oh, and by the way, the Federal government, operating on the budget proposed by a conservative president is fast becoming the number one employer in the United States....

Thats before the socialist has even prepared his first budget so we might need to get moving pretty fast on changing things

Myself said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CB said...


Great or greatness are words that beg the question, "compared to what?" I'll suggest several measures, feel free to add your own. In terms of liberty, social mobility, prosperity, longevity, generosity, productivity, we have no peer.

As for your theory that geography has produced this greatness, what of Canada or Mexico, whose natural resources equal or best our own and whose geography protects them as you say ours does?

The wisdom that established self rule and the principles that were placed in the charter establishing and limiting government are the key to both liberty and prosperity. It is why people risk their lives to come here because compared to any other place on earth, we are greater.

Our current difficulty is almost entirely the result of nettlesome entanglements by government in private affairs, including in our markets and economic activity. Although, I'm no fan of Hamilton, not even he would approve of the extent to which government has involved itself in picking economic winners and losers. Jefferson was correct as was his protege Madison.

You can't prove your point either with Lincoln, who was America's first fascist (followed by the two worst, Wilson and FDR), by saying he was a Republican. George Bush was a Republican and he proposed the first bailout to nowhere, that doesn't make him right nor does it make Republicans wrong. Straying from principle is different than not having any at all.

As for your call to raise taxes, I almost agree. If those who pay no federal income tax were required to do so, the hue and cry would be so great and the call to cut spending (which is the real problem) would be so loud that we would certainly get action on eliminating unnecessary programs, even if those who benefit from them have to struggle for a while.

But the engineers of dependency would never allow that. Their purpose is not to help but to gain electoral advantage and then control through largesse. They would want to continue to create class distinctions and envy by soaking those already burdened by "progressive taxation" (number 2, 3 or 4 on the Communist manifesto wish list along with the elimination of private property rights and the abolition of the right of inheritance).

Myself said...


NO! We should NOT support him. And don't give me that "He's our president right or wrong"
He IS WRONG for America. Totally wrong. This man stand for all that I despise.
I'm sick and tired of us conservatives taking the high road all the time. We did with Bush and were did that get us? No where, we got stepped on and trashed everyday of the week. With their references to Hitler, their cartoons of him looking like a chimpanzee, calling him dumb and a drunk and druggie.
Do the libs take the "High Road" no they don't they throw mud and are as dirty and filth as can be and where are they? They control everything!
So like it or not, it's my time to tell it like it is. I will not support THIS president and I will not call him president just like the libs and the liberal media NEVER called President Bush President. They didn't even call him Mr. Bush, it was always "BUSH" The liberals are Sickening. And now it payback time.
No, I will not support Barack Obama a man that finds it necessary to attack the Conservative Talk Shows, a man that seems to only find Pastors or Reverends that are RACISTS, to Close Gitmo, and to give handouts to those who are to lazy to work. You can argue with me all you want but I will never support him. I am already counting down his time in office and I know he will be a One term president.
So I will not support Obama and the corrupt people and organizations he is surrounded by.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe that he has been in office only a very few weeks. I think he has done more in those few weeks to destroy this country that anyone p reseeding him... I also think that by the time 4 years are up, every liberal who voted for him will be saying "why did I vote for this man"?
(well maybe that's a stretch)

Unfortunately, we deserve who we elect. I sense a massive comeback for the GOP in 2010. Steele is just the man to go against Obama--and race is just one advantage he has. Obama is not man enough; isn't qualified; and hasn't accomplished anything in his questionable life beyond politics.

President Bush described the muslim terrorists as ''killers and evildoers.'' This simplistic use of those words really grated on the leftists. Obama can't even bring himself to use the words ''war on terror.'' As a matter of fact, you'd be hard pressed to hear it anywhere in the MSM except on Fox News.

TAO said...

"Great or greatness are words that beg the question, "compared to what?" I'll suggest several measures, feel free to add your own. In terms of liberty, social mobility, prosperity, longevity, generosity, productivity, we have no peer."

Okay, thats a start.

Liberty...it is the key and it is a value that falls under the domain of government.

Social mobility, prosperity, longevity, generosity, and productivity are not values that should be under the domain of government and or that we should make any expectations of government to deal with.

Then in regards to these issues from an economic prospective. We are NOT the leader in longevity nor were we ever. social mobility prosperity and productivity are the key points where I differ with most conservatives. yes, we are the most productive and hardest working country in the world, the statistics show that BUT we no longer reward productivity and hardwork and that is shown in the stagnation in our average household income. If you go further and study the data on incomes you will also note that most americans are falling back to lower income classes and we are developing a big discrepancy in between the "middle class" and the wealthy. Which begs to differ about social mobility.

Its nice to 'believe' anything that you want to BUT the beliefs have to be substanuated by facts.

Just pull up the census and study the information.

Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly about class distinctions and all of that BUT I BLAME Republicans as much as Democrats for that.

You cannot extol the wealthy and not expect the backlash when people wake up and realize that they have been left behind.

If things are not fair then they are not respected and where there is not respect there can be no support. Without support then everyone wants to get something for themselves at someone elses expense...and that is where we are now.

Tax cuts, spending...whatever...its all done to placate one class over another and in the end we are nothing more than cannibals. Devouring ourselves, our future, and future generations.

Its easy to scream at the liberals but at least they do not pretend that they want to spend what is not theres...its the Republicans that drive me nuts because they spend more than democrats do and lie about it by claiming to be for lower taxes.

That is why I support Obama...he didn't lie about a thing....and the only way we are going to get reality is through the truth....

Obama at least gave us the truth.

He said he was going to spend and tax....I admire the truth in a politician...which is more than I can say for Republicans.

So, let the craziness continue but at least we got one truthful President...now maybe everyone will get a taste of reality for once and then we can sit down and deal with our problems and face our shortcomings and get to work making this country great once again...

Anonymous said...

TAO said..."That is why I support Obama...he didn't lie about a thing....and the only way we are going to get reality is through the truth....

Obama at least gave us the truth"

It's only been one week the best (or the worst is yet to come) Is that a reason to support someone because they didn't lie (yet)
Did he lie about not hearing his Paster say all those racist things in 20 years? Liar, Liar pants on fire.

Anonymous said...

Why not say it like it is!

You support him because he is black.
At least you would be truthful

TAO said...

Sorry, Walt...color means nothing to me...if I was going to be so superficial then I would have voted for Sarah Palin...at least she is HOT! If I am going to be subjected to news conferences for four years I definitely would prefer staring at her...

Reality is I really do not give a shit about Obama's minister...and now with a couple of ministers from the right claiming they would be pleased if America fails because that is what we deserve then they are not much different than Obama's minister (and by default we know YOU would agree with them thus you have always agreed with Obama's minister). I don't want Obama to fail...I didn't want Bush to fail...

I didn't want Jimmy Carter to fail even though I thought Gerald Ford was a much better choice.

Other than that, Obama is ending up being more moderate than I thought he would be...no new taxes yet....

He is actually ending up being rather Republican, lowering taxes, and increased spending and increasing our debt....

Too bad politians never realize that by buying supporters and making special interests happy they end up screwing all of us...

Shaw Kenawe said...

You can't prove your point either with Lincoln, who was America's first fascist (followed by the two worst, Wilson and FDR), by saying he was a Republican.

So Lincoln was a fascist? How? By suspending Habeas Corpus?--during a time of insurrection and in the service of saving the Union, which was his first and only duty when he took office--not emancipation for the south's slaves, is that what you mean when you label Lincoln a fascist?

Surely you don't believe this. Here is how Lincoln defended his extreme, and yes, extra-Constitutional action:

"Lincoln said that, had he not suspended Habeas Corpus immediately, Washington itself might be now be in Southern hands. That, of course, would have prevented Congress from meeting, let alone from responding to the rebellion. Lincoln then took aim at Taney's claim that the President's job was to sit back and ensure that the laws be faithfully executed, even in the face of John Merryman's [a member of the Maryland legislature] recruiting soldiers for the Confederate cause. In the Confederacy, fully one-third of the country, the Constitution itself was being ignored. Should Lincoln's hands be tied by the writ of Habeas Corpus in such a national emergency? He asked; "[A]re all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"


Is this why you label Lincoln a fascist?

How easy to call a dead president such a loaded name, especially when you are in no danger of having to demonstrate how YOU would have behaved in order to save the United States at that perilous time in our history.

Anonymous said...

Shaw Kenawe said...

You can't prove your point either with Lincoln, who was America's first fascist (followed by the two worst, Wilson and FDR), by saying he was a Republican.

"So Lincoln was a fascist? How? By suspending Habeas Corpus?--during a time of insurrection and in the service of saving the Union, which was his first and only duty when he took office--not emancipation for the south's slaves, is that what you mean when you label Lincoln a fascist?"

Holy crap do we have to go all the way back to Lincoln to prove how inept OBAMA is?
And if I hear the "SLAVE" BS one more time I'm going to puke!

My Files said...

Excellent post Ken.. It's refreshing to see someone tell it like it is. Let me be among those that say this to everyone who voted for Obama, that you were screwed and you screwed me and millions of others along with you.
A funny thing happened on the way to sainthood. After Obama had won the primary nomination he started to do things that were contrary to what he had been preaching for nearly 2 years.The kooks on the left who supported him were beginning to get a little worried but they continued to support him because they knew he was only moving to the middle in order to get elected, or so they thought. Though it is true that liberals always pretend to be moderates in order to get elected (they cannot get elected adhering to their far left philosophy), Obama seems not to have returned to his far left roots, at least when it comes to his selections and his “so much in a hurry” executive orders.
What did you expect? His first public act was to turn the terrorist loose. Closing Guantanamo, not helping the poor, and not repairing the economy. I don't think that's the first thing you do as a new president. You should look out for the people who put their faith in you. That you would make positive changes and help the people not feel like their country is going down the tubes. But not if you’re the Messiah!
Give him a chance? No, I don’t want to give him a chance! Just like they gave President Bush a chance? And don’t tell me not to be the same as the kooky Left! I’m also sick and tired of taking the “High Road”
What was his “plan” for getting us out of this economic mess? Putting us deeper in debt and expanding government. Just print up more money! Yeah that's the answer, and in a year it will be a valuable as Cambodian money.
It’s starting to there are finally some of the devoted Obamamania voters who are finally seeing that he isn't the Messiah after all? And since he hasn't walked on water or healed the sick or raised the dead since he's been in office for less than 2 weeks, now all of a sudden they are dissatisfied with him? So why should I support him?
The Lib’s and the Blacks put him into office because they were more interested in making “History” than getting the best President for America. And now we all have to deal with the consequences. I think that Geraldine Ferraro was right, if Obama wasn't Black, he would never had been nominated, and if Obama was a white man, he would not be in the position to even be considered for nomination.
This was only to be expected. He was elected by losers who hoped that he would lead them to fabulous wealth and success strictly by his promise of “Hope and “Change” well that just isn’t gonna happen. Support Obama. No, I won’t support him or his policies or his principles! Or any of those CROOKS that he has appointed to his cabinet.

Arthurstone said...

The world according to CB (a very, very odd place). A couple of his drive by whoppers:

FDR invented special interest (pork barrel) politcs

Abraham Lincoln was a fascist. As were Wilson & FDR.

Heh. Heh.

Splendide mandax.

Gayle said...

Love the post, Ken!

TAO said "Other than that, Obama is ending up being more moderate than I thought he would be...no new taxes yet... Not exactly true. The house passed a bill where very American citizen will be taxed $3,333 more in taxes - it just won't affect us. It will fall on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren!