Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?
The resurgence of the monarch - A tale of two presidents
By Political Agenda, Section News
In light of the situation we find ourselves in as a county, coupled with the fact that we have a President for whom change is everything, I think it would be a worthwhile venture to survey our two most recent presidents. Let us now endeavor to take a look at these two men, not from our feelings and/or subjective impressions, but from an open minded look at history.
Before we get started, we (including myself) must admit that true objectivity is impossible for human beings. Yes, even Danian Michael brings his biases to every situation, but so do you. For example: It is easier for a conservative to look past the misdeeds of George Bush. During the Bush administration, Republicans in congress did not oppose the growth of government. Conversely, it is easier for Democrats and
So with this level of self-awareness (what philosophers call presuppositional self-awareness), let us now look at these two presidents to do some contrasting and comparing. Admittedly, this is a pretty ambitious task and some may even argue that it is premature, given that president Obama has only been in office for a little over 60 days. President Bush also did many things during his two terms in office, so I think it would be prudent and sufficient to narrow our focus down to two aspects of their respective approaches in governing.
Aspect number one: how they approach taxes.
I don't want to rehash old arguments and if you do, I would encourage you to go to the Political Agenda Archives and read the article titled "Raise our taxes; take our freedom." For this presentation I would like to get into the mind of a democrat, why are they comfortable with higher taxes? Why is it that a liberal Democrat, while drinking his wheatgrass tea and watching MSNBC, won't choke on his drink when he hears that President Obama will increase our deficit by $7 trillion? Why does that not raise any flags within a liberal's mind? I believe I have an answer for that question: Liberal Democrats have a profound inferiority complex. So deep is this sense of inferiority that they can't help but feel inadequate when someone else achieves a measure of success. So profound is this problem, that when Christians try to live by a standard that says abortions are wrong or that having sex outside of marriage is immoral, many liberals respond with deep hatred for us, which I think is (as Charles Krauthammer puts it) a deep hatred of self. When George Bush signed legislation that lowered taxes for ALL tax paying Americans (including the rich), he had to fend of a back-draft of fire-breathing Democrats who hated the fact that the tax cuts included successful people. And so taxing the wealthy (aka sticking it to the man) has become an end in itself; all other considerations are secondary, including bankrupting the country and all of its citizens. Why are liberals willing to sacrifice so much to gain so little, to gain nothing quite frankly? After all, taxing a complete stranger, will not affect my life in the slightest. Why then tax the wealthy? May I suggest that liberals want higher taxes on the rich for the same reason kids in high school gossip about the beautiful A-student: The success of others highlights their own failures; the playing field must be leveled! Now someone may object with good reason to my trying to speak on matters of the heart; how can I possibly know what motivates someone? That is a valid objection, but I would ask; if liberals want to tax rich people so that the poor can be helped, why does hatred for these rich people enters the picture? Why not be kind, thanking them for their hard work and treasure? Instead all we hear, time and time again, is how George Bush is giving tax breaks to his rich buddies. Why the hatred for the rich, that is what I would like to know?
Aspect number two: how they approach Presidential powers.
Perhaps the one complaint that liberal Democrats had for George Bush that angered them even more than his alleged favoritism for the wealthy, was his casual wielding of presidential might. From the Iraq war to the war on terror to his authorizing the National Security Agency to execute warrantless wiretaps, George Bush has become a type of Hitler to the left. By contrast, Obama is seen as this really cool guy who is going to relinquish presidential powers accumulated by George Bush. Is this a fair appraisal of the two men? To no one's surprise I'm going to argue that actually the reverse is true. Let's start by taking a look at the United States Constitution: All the duties conferred to the President are found in Article II. Many things are written about the office; about who can hold the office; how to discipline and the many responsibilities of the office. I think it is noteworthy however, to point out this fact: The framers deemed it important to summarize all the many duties of the President in one statement; the oath of office, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Observe that the only duty of real and foundational importance for the President (at least in the minds of the framers) is that of protection of our way of life as Americans. President Bush, I would argue had a profound appreciation for this duty, so do I, and so should you. By contrast, Obama has a profound appreciation for his duty to implement universal healthcare, renewable energy (but not nuclear) and climate change legislation. Now I would ask of these two men, which one of them has the constitutional backing to pursue his goals as president? I think the answer is obvious; at least to me, George W. Bush. There is one other category that I think bears some scrutiny; this is perhaps the most powerful weapon the President wields in moving through an agenda: The Executive Order. By it, the United States President can decree a course of action that does not have to be voted on by congress; it is as if he has become a king. Originally, executive orders were meant only for executive office holders; the president would declare a course of action for his appointed staff. Today, executive orders are used to govern. By the way, if you look through Article II of the constitution, you will not find executive orders as one of the perks of the presidency. Anyway, did you know that President Bush in his first 60 days of office made 8 executive orders and never made more than 40 in a year? President Obama has been President for 67 days and he has already made 18. There are 298 days left in the year, you do the math! Think about this, by executive order the President of the United States has decreed that my tax dollars will be used for abortions and the killing of embryos in research. For staunch pro-lifers like me, this is a complete and utter travesty, what has happened to my representation in government?
So what do we have here? Through Taxation and executive order, Obama is acting less like the democratically elected president of this republic and more like King Edward (Longshanks) of England. He feels justified in his methodology for one main reason; he is uncomfortable in his own skin. The source of that discomfort (mainly successful, hard working Americans) must be weakened in their perceived power over him and those like him. He will take from the wealthy and give it to the poor so that everyone (but not hard working Americans) can now start to feel good about themselves.
This is a recipe for disaster, of the order of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; which gave loans to people who did not deserve them for the misguided notion that poor people MUST own homes too. Do we need to shed the Monarch again, along with taxation without representation? Or will we once again pour our tea into the face of tyranny letting Washington know that we are the American people; we fought for freedom before and we will fight for it again?
 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf) Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, October 15, 2008 The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global
 (I don't have a reference as of the issuing of this article. Fox News does not keep an archive of their programs accessible to the public. I noted Charles Krauthammer's words as I was watching the program live). Charles Krauthammer on the Fox News show, "Special Report with Brit Hume" suggested that hatred of self is at the root of Liberal Democrat's hatred of Sarah Palin.
 The New York Times reported in December 2005 that the National Security Agency was conducting warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens within the United States. The NSA was given these instructions in secret. President Bush argued that if someone in the U.S. is talking to a known terrorist via telephone, then as a matter of national security we must continue to listen to that conversation since the conversation would most likely be over or important information missed, if Agents were to stop listening to procure a warrant during that live discussion.
 (The American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php). This website gives a list and link to every presidential executive order ever written. In 1826 Adjutant-General R. Jones writing on behalf of recently deceased John Quincy Adams gave the first Executive Order. The order had instruction to the armed forces about how Mr. Adams would be honored at his funeral. The times have changed; Executive Orders are far more numerous in present time and but now they also dictate policy to the American People. Talk about abusing a privilege; the abuse of sick-leave comes to mind, in that the privilege is rarely used for its intended purpose.
The resurgence of the monarch - A tale of two presidents | 0 comments ( topical, 0 hidden)