Obama and Kharsai: “Pot Calling Kettle Black”?

Sunday, March 28, 2010

I first started this article a couple months ago, but didn’t post it thinking that I would expound upon my thoughts; but even today, it’s relevant.  So, here goes. 

Not too long ago, Obama made a “surprise” visit to Afghanistan to meet with Hamid Kharsai.  It was also reported that Kharsai was told that he MUST (and the emphasis here is mine, although apparently it is the underlying purposed of the visit), MUST do more clean up the corruption in the Kharsai government.  The old saying of “the pot calling the kettle black” came instantly to mind.  If you don’t like old clichés, then here’s a better descriptor:  Hypocrisy.

Here is an example of a “leader” who builds a regime of corruption by implanting and empowering czars to run his government while saying that another leader must clean up the corruption in their government.  For example, Obama’s czars are neither confirmed by Congress nor elected by the people, and as a general rule, have never experienced leadership in any type of major business, capitalistic venture, or industrial enterprise.  However, Obama’s czars now literally have control over large portions of the nation’s economy (the automobile industry, banking industry, etc.) – let’s not mention how the affectation of their decisions have far-reaching implications, impacting  the daily lives of ordinary individuals.  In fact, Obama recently put 15 more people into important positions while Congress was on a 2-week spring break, blaming the GOP for the timing of his actions.  How absurd is that?  These positions were not so critical to the function of the government that they could not be put off two more weeks for Congress to have the opportunity to at least put on their “show” of Congressional investigation prior to affirmation.  He just circumvented “the old system” with his new one. 

So, how is this different from some of the shenanigans that are done in countries like Afghanistan or Venezuela or Russia or, for that matter, any other country where there is supposed to be some form of democratic practices –  if only in theory?  Rather than standing apart, being ” a light in a dark world”, being an example to be followed as the US once was, the Omabanation (AKA, the USA) has made enormous steps toward blending in with countries led by thugs, vandals, and despots. 

How is being just like other countries that suppress the wishes of the majority of its people a good thing?  Who will now be able to hold up a standard against corruption in those countries, or in this one?  It will all be the same modus operandi, only now known by different monikers, depending upon which country and which leader.  The difference used to be that in this country was the standard-bearer with checks and balances to help limit corruption in its government.  However, this administration has made its own brand of corruption the standard from which to perpetuate their “change” while trying to persuade others to conform – but conform to what, the US form of corruption?  A rose by any other name!

So, will all this said,  and with obvious corruption in his own administration, how can Obama in any form of conscience make demands on the Kharsai regime?  There’s another quote that comes to mind:  “How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye’, when you fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” 

While the US is in an obvious downward spiral, morally and ethically speaking (with the corruption which now is more blatant and commonplace at the highest levels of our government), and with places like Afghanistan and others are being touted as “supposedly” on an upward trend (though we’ve seen no difference in their behaviors), will that mean, again ethically and morally speaking, that our countries will meet somewhere in the middle?   If so, the US loses big.  Why?  Because the US will no longer be the “example” that other countries have looked up to.  Where the US once was the country who led the world by example, they now will be “eye to eye” on a lower plane – down in the muck and mire with corrupted countries. 

So, there you have my take on it.  Simply stated, Obama is trying his best to lower the prestige and moral strength of this country while trying to compel other countries – who, by the way, don’t respect his leadership – to behave according to his set of standards for behavior.  He suggests that the US should lower its “standards” and compel others to “meet us halfway.”   Thousands of years of history tells us that this won’t happen.  So, who really comes out ahead in this situation? 

In my opinion, as far as the US is concerned, mediocrity is not a good thing.  NOT A GOOD THING AT ALL!


Obama’s Transparency – It’s Not Clear to Me

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

I have finally figured it out….

I have finally figured out just what President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid mean by “transparency”.  Mrs. Pelosi has said repeatedly that this is the most open and transparent Congress to date.   How can she claim transparency when there are closed-door sessions where deals are cut with special interest groups and bribes for legislators?   I’ll tell you what Ms. Pelosi means.  She looks right into the eyes of the media and says, “We’re going to do this, and it’s going to be done this way, by this time, and we won’t accept any change or compromise.”   That’s pretty clear.

Harry Reid has his own version of transparency.  His transparency is that he tells people what the Senate is going to do (that’s the transparent part), then in closed-door sessions he buys a vote or two that will put his plan over, and then ultimately proclaims the success he predicted.   Come on, who cannot see what’s really happening when senators exchange their votes for millions of dollars for their states?  When Senators Nelson and Landrieu took Reid’s bribes for their healthcare votes and support, it was well publicized on conservative talk shows on radio and TV, and through conservative blogs on the web.  It became really transparent to Americans at that point that what was going on in Washington was “politics as usual” – or maybe on politics on steroids!   The audacity of the Democrats was that they believed that they can get away with such underhanded dealings  — even out in the open — because, after all, they had control in the White House, Senate, and the House of Representatives.  Who was going to stop them?   Seriously, who can expect real transparency when deals are negotiated behind closed doors, especially when only those of like-minds are invited inside and those holding opposing views are banned from participation in the sessions?   

Obama’s lack of his promised transparency has cost him in the polls, and yet he still spouts the same old rhetoric from his campaigning days, still tossing the blame for  everything on Bush, still holding closed door meetings with special interest groups and congressional leaders, and still has his czars and others with far-left political views in policy-making positions who are not confirmed by Congress or elected by voters.  Is that transparency?  Not in my book.  When Obama campaigned on transparency, the people took him at his word… And why was that?  Because that would truly be the  promised change and hope for a new way for  Washington to operate.  Who wouldn’t vote for that?  Only it hasn’t happened – and it won’t under THIS administration, for sure!

We were forewarned by deeds rather than words.  Obama certainly didn’t display any transparency during the campaign…. not about his collegiate career, college applications and transcripts; not by producing his actual birth certificate, not by explaining how he traveled about the globe as an unemployed individual of non-existent means, and other things – things that could be easily produced and would end the suspicions and speculations once and for all, assuming he really wanted to be transparent!   

How can Obama proclaim his administration is transparent when there are special considerations for individuals and certain groups, and when what should be public information is hidden from the public?  Again, what about the campaign promise of transparency, of the CSPAN-televised negotiations on healthcare reform which never materialized?  In fact, Obama has laughingly shrugged that one off as a “just one of those many campaign promises politicians make” – and as everyone knows ALL campaign promises can’t be kept, right?   At this point, it’s pretty obvious that we will never see the kind of transparency we had hoped for from this Administration or from Congress.  Rather, the type of transparency now being promoted is the transparency of some of our national secrets under the guise criminally trying enemy combatants in our federal courts – the kind of transparency that can cost us our national safety – or de-classifying important documents and publicizing interrogation techniques used on terrorists.  Just who is that transparency for?

As I’ve pointed out previously, Democrats say there is (by their own definitions) transparency in our government.  I have noticed, though, there are some differences in the “applied definition” of transparency between the Legislative and Executive branches.  The Obama White House tends toward (unintended) transparency where the various members of Obama’s staff inadvertently reveal things simply because the players can’t keep their stories in synch – or their mouths shut.  The Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House do their “dirty” dealings behind closed doors, usually with a group of like-minded persons, and try to come up with a more palatable way of force-feeding their “transparency” to the voters.   (Occasionally, politicians seeking the limelight will spill some beans though.   I happen to be thankful that at least this kind of transparency has occurred because it has made for a wiser American public.)  

Perhaps the differences between the White House and Congress “transparency successes” are because the Legislative branch happens to have had a lot more experience with “covert transparency” than the intellectuals and academics who are presently making up the Executive Branch and staff.  Congress is full of professional politicians.  The White House is amateurish on governing in this way, having their strength in organizing groups.  However, because of the closer scrutiny by those on the right, and even independents, who have their eyes and ears open,  both branches have come up short on executing their types of transparency. 

For instance, remember the healthcare bill and the people who went to townhall meetings to express their opposition to HR 3200 and make their concerns known?  When it came time to literally push through controversial legislation on healthcare that apparently was in direct opposition to the wishes of the majority of the American voters (you’ll recall the uproar of the summer and fall townhall meetings!), Pelosi and Reid showed a surprising lack of understanding of the tenor of the public’s sentiment and their grasp of what the bill actually contained.  But they made no bones about what they were going to do …. that’s their transparency!  They had dismissed the fact that the voters were becoming more educated on the issues and beginning to become active in the process by using their freedom of speech to contact their legislators and following the examples of other grass roots organizations to come together.   The conservative and independent voters have educated themselves on the issues as well as having gained a better understanding of  “the game” of politics.  While these newbies to politics began paying close attention to the activities of their legislators, they are also began to groom their own to rise up to replace those entrenched and out-of-touch members of Congress.   

The legislators dismissed the American people and the subsequent polling that resulted from the discontent.  However, with the strong showing in NYC 23 and with Scott Brown’s senate seat win, there is a transparent national “routing out” of those who do backroom deals or who refuse to listen to their constituents.   One only has to read the handmade placards at the rallies and look at the polls to see this is true.  Concerned Americans are being transparent in their plans to unseat those who are not listening to the people who sent them to Washington.   The people are outraged that their own legislators don’t read the bills they are voting on, or even know what was in them.  Yet the legislators will still push for a bill’s passage while the people are aggressively telling them no!  The people  have had enough.   

The biggest mistake made by the Democrats, which  will cost them dearly in the mid-term elections is that they wouldn’t consider that the emotion which was demonstrated in the townhall meetings was genuine, and that it would still rage strong or be as widespread this long.  The people, who had placed their hope in the promises of transparency and openness and of a different Washington than previous administrations, were transparent when they expressed their concern all summer and fall.  They had grown tired of Washington’s favors and bribery, and they were expressing strong opposition to the Democrats’ type of “transparency”, yet they got more of the same.

Unfortunately for the Democrats,  the polls now reflect a sharp downturn for long-time incumbents who are up for relection in 2010.   (Just as a reminder, it’s not just Democrats who will find the going rough.  Some Republicans should watch themselves as well.)  Recently, public backlash has prompted several prominent, long-term, entrenched Democrats to”called it quits” rather than run for re-election and face certain defeat, and why?  Perhaps they’ve seen the “handwriting on the wall”.  Or, as Rep. Snyder (D- AR) said, “I want to spend time more with my family”.  Perhaps they’ve come to realize that there really IS a grassroots movement —  NOT the “astroturf”, as Nancy Pelosi called it — that has taken hold and spread all across this nation and it will affect real change in our government and restore hope to American citizens.  

When people band together in groups called “tea parties” and have an announced agenda of becoming politically savvy and involved for the purpose of routing out the politicians who don’t really care about preserving the principles upon which this country was founded, but rather make a political career for themselves, I call this a type of transparency, too.  Don’t you? 

The Scott Brown win has the Democrats scrambling to “embrace” the other side of the aisle, but they’re still missing the transparency issue.  They want the Republican “participation” but they don’t want to hear Republican input!  What they all should be doing is listening to the people!  We’ll see what happens over these next few months until the next election.   At this point, though, what the Democrats are doing is  pretty clear and transparent to me – more political games, not more transparency!

Obama’s Plan to Spread the Wealth — TO THE WEALTHY!

Saturday, November 21, 2009

According to Edmunds.com, 690,000 Americans took advantage of the Cash for Clunkers Program.  Under this Obama brainfart, it cost the taxpayers $24,000 for EACH one of those cars.  Remember the head-slap “I coulda had a V-8!” ?  Well you, too, could have had at least a V-6 — along with all the other folks who got their new cars if you’d been given your OWN money to spend!

So, my point here is that SOMEONE took some of your wealth and gave it to someone else!  AHHH— that would be Obama’s promise to Joe the Plumber when he said he thought that spreading the wealth around would be good for everyone.  Well, was it good for you?  Seriously, who got that $24,000?  It wasn’t the car dealers.  Some of them are still awaiting their money from the government to cover the rebates given to those who purchased the cars… So, WHO got that money?

We’re all, by now, familiar with the fact that the reported “jobs saved or created” numbers that have been posted on the recovery.com site are absolutely false.  I’d like someone to PROVE that any job was actually saved due to the economic strategies of the Obama Administration. They like to use the nice round number of one million jobs, even though it’s much, much less than that.  But we’ll go with data the Obama administration has posted, just for the sake of this argument. 

The Administration says that they’ve created and/or saved one million jobs and they spent $160 billion doing it.  That means that government had spent  paid $160,000 on each job.  Hmmm.  Will someone please introduce me to the person who got a job created by the stimulus with a starting salary of $160,000?  The Obama Administration likes to say that some of the jobs saved are “the waitress who’s still on the job,” —  as Joe Biden himself used this example.  (I’d like to meet the waitress who makes that kind of money!)

In fact, Jared Bernstein, chief economist and senior economic advisor to Vice President Joe Biden says that the cost per job was more like $92,000.  So, even if the “shovelers” on the shovel-ready jobs, and the waitresses, and teachers, or whoever, got $92,000 on average, and didn’t actually get their fair share of that $160,000 average – WHO did?

Are you beginning to get the picture?  The Obama Administration has borrowed billions upon billions of dollars in only 11 months in office.  And only a small portion of that money has trickled down to the people who are hurting and need to work.  Millions, if not billions have been documented as wasted – mostly in million-dollar chunks that include rebates to the long-dead, rebates to prisoners, yada, yada….. 

I CAN tell you where jobs were actually created. There are 30-some-odd czars and they have sizeable staffs. There are innumerable advisors and expanded staff roaming the White House halls on any given day.  All the czars make at least high six-figure incomes. Their operating budgets/expenses have not been made public. But just their combined salaries run in the millions of dollars. Government is the sector where the greatest amount of job creation has taken place.

 Where is the rest of it going, though?  Is it going to some middleman?  To some corporation (cash for clunkers) perhaps?  To local governments (shovel-ready projects) perhaps?  To banks (bailouts) perhaps?  To financial insurers (AIG) perhaps? 

 Out of the “dollars” Obama is getting from China, he’s sending “pennies” down to the the people.  And the wealth of our nation is being re-distributed to the wealthy GROUPS .  The “have nots” NEVER have gotten theirs… just look at all cultures and civilizations throughout history.  So, if you’re looking for your share of Obama money!  Don’t hold your breath! 


US House of Representatives To Ban News Coverage??

Monday, October 26, 2009

Anita Dunn gave great insight into how the Obama Administration controlled the media coverage during the presidential campaign and how the Democrats plan to control their agenda now – just as they did in the campaign.  They spun their rhetoric for “change”, they gave access for coverage ONLY when, with whom, and how  it suited their agenda.  This fact is true and documented.  (How many of you who voted for Obama feel manipulated now?)

Apparently Democrats are growing nervous about how the far left’s “best laid plans” are being revealed by the floodlights of fair and balanced reporting done by Fox News.  A prime example very recently was when the White House tried to strip Fox News from having access to a press conference with “Pay Czar” Kenneth Feinberg.  (Kudos to the other media outlets that banded together in a “one for all, and all for one” on behalf of Fox News.)   The campaign is over (though the Obama Administration doesn’t seem to know it) and the battle may now being waged on a new front.  The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi may have joined the White House in trying to stop the “unfavorable” reporting of the goings on in Congress

Hugh Hewitt reported in his blog that Pelosi appeared on Keith Olberman’s program on Friday and declared that she plans to bring to the floor of the House this week a vote to strip Fox News of its journalistic rights of  access to Congressional activities, saying basically that Fox News falsely reports what is going on in Washington or that it is biased in its reporting.  (This vote, by the way, would not affect other new agencies or reporting entities – just Fox News.)

He also said reported in his blog that Mrs. Pelosi argued “That Fox regularly grants access to Republican Congressman to spread their lies and propaganda on their airwaves is a violation of the public trust, and their continued desire to challenge such well documented facts as Global Warming, and the efficacy of single payer health insurance, proves that they are simply doing the work of the special interests. They should thus be stripped of their journalistic access in the halls of Congress.” (Whether this Pelosi/Olberman scenario occured or not, that would be an egregious abuse of power!)

Democrats have been given equal opportunities (and a few have taken them) to speak on Fox programs from the steps of the House and Senate to discuss their positions on certain issues.  They have also been given many invitations to appear on panels and debate the issues, but most have flatly refused to do so.  At times the Democratic leaders in Congress have even told their party members to not speak to Fox News.  (Sounds like grade-schooler activity doesn’t it?) 

Why is that Democrats don’t want to deal with Fox News?  Is it because the Democrats don’t have a convincing argument for their political positions sufficient to sway the public?  Is it because they don’t all speak with the same voice?  Is it because their agendas are flawed – or worse, un-Constitutional?  Is it because their intent is to chop away at our freedoms until the American way of life is no longer recognizable?  Is it because they just don’t like hearing some news agency giving both sides of the political argument so that people can be fully informed?  Is it because they want only one voice to be heard – theirs? 

Pelosi and the uber-liberals like her in the Obama Administration (including the President – though he’s too slick to say it out of his OWN mouth) seek to shut down any reporting that is in opposition to their extremely liberal agenda.  This is an appalling infringement on America’s basic  freedom of speech.  If that freedom is to remain from now on, any vote on the House or Senate floors must never take place.  If you ever want to be heard, or if you want to hear both sides of what is going on, you better step up – speak up!  Just imagine the ramifications of this vote!

Guilt By Association

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Green Jobs Czar Van Jones is gone! Well, sort of.

Before we conservatives rejoice, let me remind you about former Senator Tom Daschle. You remember, the former senator who was Obama’s nominee for the cabinet position of Health and Human Services Secretary, but who couldn’t win Senate approval for because of his financial problems? Well, it appears that he’s been at the White House coaching Obama on healthcare, if not assembling the language for the healthcare revisions. (And I thought that the American public had short memories!) I would have thought that having been turned down by his peers as HHS Secretary would have been a strong message that he was not wanted on Capitol Hill even in the capacity of consultant on the topic of healthcare. Apparently not the case!

Well, with that said, Robert Gibbs has said that while Van Jones has resigned his “green jobs czar” position, he will continue to work within the administration. Oh yeah? In what capacity? And more importantly, why? Also, he’s touted as an expert on green jobs. How did he get that expertise? Has he run a business on green principles? Has he created any green jobs? What really are his credentials other than ranting and raving about whities at any opportunity?

Having him as a Green Jobs Czar really had presented me with these and many other questions. But perhaps this from the final Presidential debate with John McCain and one of Obama’s own books will give us a clearer picture of why we have a duplicate “cabinet” or a regiment of czars:


Now, from the Transcript:

OBAMA: “Bob, I think it’s going to be important to just — I’ll respond to these two particular allegations that Senator McCain has made and that have gotten a lot of attention.

“In fact, Mr. Ayers has become the centerpiece of Senator McCain’s campaign over the last two or three weeks. This has been their primary focus. So let’s get the record straight. Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago.

“Forty years ago, when I was 8 years old, he engaged in despicable acts with a radical domestic group. I have roundly condemned those acts. Ten years ago he served and I served on a school reform board that was funded by one of Ronald Reagan’s former ambassadors and close friends, Mr. Annenberg.

“Other members on that board were the presidents of the University of Illinois, the president of Northwestern University, who happens to be a Republican, the president of The Chicago Tribune, a Republican-leaning newspaper.

“Mr. Ayers is not involved in my campaign. He has never been involved in this campaign. And he will not advise me in the White House. So that’s Mr. Ayers.

Beg pardon, Mr. President.  He was indeed involved when you started campaigning for State office.  It has been reported that he hosted the kickoff in his livingroom.

“Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they’ve done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn’t really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names.

“It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I’ve had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.

“Now, the reason I think that it’s important to just get these facts out is because the allegation that Senator McCain has continually made is that somehow my associations are troubling.

“Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. If I’m interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or General Jim Jones, the former supreme allied commander of NATO.

“Those are the people, Democrats and Republicans, who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House. And I think the fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, Senator McCain, says more about your campaign than it says about me.”

Oh, not so, Mr. President. In fact, those people are recently minted associates of yours. Do you remember this from your book Dreams From My Father? Have you forgotten the others that you aligned yourself with for the past 20+ years such as those listed below?

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

So, now we’re seeing the results of Obama associating himself for these past twenty plus years with these people and people like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and others. Definitely not part of mainstream America!

Once in the White House, Obama has continued to seek these types of people and has surrounded himself with a rogue layer of officials he called czars that are the “extreme” of extremists with agendas that they are planning to put forth and enforce without proper authority. That is to say that the President does not have any Constitutional right to appoint people with making and enforcing policies who have not been duly approved either by election or Senate and House approval. So, these czars are totally illegal. I’m truly surprised that Congress hasn’t complained. They are being circumvented by these czars who are making policies and handling the oversight of those policies. Shortly, the czars will have more power than Congress, because they are making up laws as they go and implementing penalties as they see fit. God help us!

“I chose my friends carefully.”

I am hoping that out of these “Tea Party” Rallies, Tea Party Coalitions or organizations will spring up and begin educating people, getting on school boards, on city councils, into the courts etc., so that we can reverse this administration’s renegade policies and practices. If you agree with me that something stinks about this practice of the administration, then do something. Even it it’s just a simple thing, do something. It’s that important!!

Nothing to Fear But Fear Itself – NOT!

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Things are so convoluted in our government these days that a lot of people are feeling a sense of hopelessness, of being pushed back into a corner. So it’s no wonder they’re coming out swinging. It doesn’t matter how much the administration and its mouthpieces, those “windup” spokespersons on camera in front of the White House, including paid commentators, spin their rhetoric about these uprisings and call these highly concerned citizens crazy, dangerous, organized mobs, etc. The fact is that these citizens are genuinely concerned about the direction in which this country is being taken. And it has not just been conservatives or Republican voters who are attending these townhalls and questioning the policies being put forth right now. The polls that came out today all are reflecting this same truth. People are sick and tired of being sold a bill of goods and told out and out lies. They are no longer willing to sit back quietly and just let it happen! More power to them!

My hope is that these national polls that were released today will be an encouragement to those who were feeling hopeless. Those “well-dressed” people (who can’t possibly be “normal” citizens) at the townhalls are demanding that this madness stop! Their determination is beginning to make the far left nervous because these “rowdy” people are beginning to ask direct and pointed questions and demanding answers. They’re beginning to hold the far left accountable for the lies they’ve been telling, and accountable for the piece-by-piece dismantling of this country. Since it is affecting “the powers that be”, I hope that these folks really do recognize that their willingness to get out and stand up in those meetings and speak (at whatever volume it takes to be heard) is paying off and will convince them they are making a difference.

There’s a term that’s being bandied about strongly right now, primarily coming from the White House. That term is “fear”. Those who are attending the townhalls are being described as an organized group of people motivated by fear mongering initiated by Republican leaders. That’s not true. Rather, I believe there is extreme concern about how quickly and at what depth this administration is taking us away from the country America used to be. Perhaps there is a fear that if they don’t act now, this country and the American way of life as it has been know and which has been the envy of the world will be lost forever. But I think that it’s a healthy fear. It’s the fear when one’s survival hangs in the balance. It’s the fear that you experience when your family is in danger. And let it be known these townhalls are not just about healthcare and end of life issues. They’re about everything that this administration is doing that is destroying this country.

Let’s look at where this fear thing all started. It started last fall when Bush started the banking bailout with TARP #1….. birthing fear of financial collapse if we didn’t act now and act BIG. Nevermind that no one read the bill. That fear was perpetrated and even enhanced when Obama took office. We had to get the Stimulus Package passed now, don’t take time to read the enormous bill, just pass the darn thing right now or the world would end immediately. (I’m still waiting for any news organization to report on the actual shovel-ready jobs that this was supposed to pay for.) And the jobless rate which was supposed to be curbed by this bill has continued to skyrocket dramatically since then. Many more families are in now in real financial jeopardy. Those who’ve lost jobs are fearful of not being able to get a new one because not only are there more people per job vacancy, there are far less vacancies because many businesses have gone under or have drastically scaled back. Those who still have their jobs are fearful they won’t be able to keep it until we get out of this mess.

Well, they aren’t alone. There is another fearful group of people. However, this group consists of those few legislators who are holding these townhall meetings as well as those who are too afraid to get in front of their constituents and answer questions as to why they aren’t reading what they’re voting for before they vote, why they aren’t paying attention to their calls and emails, why they aren’t being represented in Washington. These politicians don’t know how to handle a crowd that’s in their face! As a result of their own fear, they’re now going to require things like photo IDs and even personal invitations before a person can enter a townhall meeting. Some have even concocted a shell game of posting locations for meetings and changing it at the last minute to do “damage control”. What is profoundly interesting is that some of these are the same individuals who voted against requiring photo IDs to vote. Now, does that make sense? The pat answer to this would be that there are two sets of rules, one for the liberal side and one for the conservative side.

I’ve noticed something about these concerned citizens who are upset about the healthcare plan, the bailouts, the Stimulus Plan, corporate takeovers, and all the czars — the more they’re willing to bow their backs, the more it’s confounding those in Washington. They don’t know how to handle this. Liberals are the ones that usually behave this way – though perhaps it’s not so much out of concern on the issues as it is a disruption of the meeting. So, that’s why these fearful politicians and their followers are convinced this is an organized effort to get the “messenger” off topic. But I pray that this movement continues and grows exponentially. I want to see US citizens who are genuinely concerned for this country to fight for it. It’s our country – if we take it back, that is!