The Republican Party is in
search of new leader and their litany of
candidates seem content only in critiquing
each other rather than dealing with the
barrage of unscrupulous attacks from the
left. The only one who seems disengaged
from this improvident dance is the former
Dick Cheney, by standing up
to the slanderous lies propagated by the
Obama administration and the leftwing media,
is fast becoming the de facto Republican
leader that the party is so urgently seeking.
After watching Mr. Cheney,
the American citizen, speak so succinctly
and forcefully this morning I was left thinking
how nice it would be if he were to run for
the presidency. No doubt, Obama is also
a good speaker, when he has a teleprompter
that is; however, Cheney seems to be able
to cut through all the twaddle and deception
perpetrated by Mr. Obama and the left.
Where Obama's speeches can be accurately
described as sinuous, yet vacant speechifying;
Cheney's words were born of strength, experience,
and veracity. I was left very impressed
today by an American citizen, but disappointed,
yet again, by the man who is attempting
to act as a president.
Despite having no American
flags behind him, or no presidential pulpit
[or even a stamp expressing office of the
president-elect, as one pompous man once
used], Dick Cheney was far more presidential
than Obama. Strip away the location, all
the flags, and teleprompter and Obama would
ultimately be left sounding like a high-school
Model United Nations student.
Cheney, was by far, more impressive standing
before the pallid partition at the American
Enterprise Institute than Obama, who spoke
behind the regality of the presidential
seal and endless sea of red, white, and
blue This dueling dichotomy bespeaks
of the true nature of each man; one is legitimate
and does not need any ostentatious display
to be impressive while the other continuously
employs empty platitudes and desperately
needs slogans, propaganda pictures, and/or
impressive backgrounds in order to detract
people from the reality of his empty rhetoric.
The President of
the United States
Bows to Saudi King
Poor, April 08, 2009
What message has Barack sent to our closest ally?
merely nodded politely to the Queen of England,
whose nation has stood with us as brothers before
and after the murderous acts of 9/11, yet bowed, with
cowardly humility, to the King of Saudi Arabia whose
country arguably supported/supports terrorism against
the United States and her citizenry.
Moreover, how can the President of the United States
bow down to a king? Our American Founders bled, died,
and sacrificed so that their posterity would not cower
down, as simple subjects, to a concave crown. How
far and how quickly has this once great nation fallen;
from Patrick Henrys famous last words, give
me liberty, or give me death to Obamas,
now infamous, craven bow.
Micelle Obama, once callously remarked that she had
never been proud of her country [in her adult life],
now all Americans can feel a great lack of pride in
their country thanks to the irresponsible actions
of Barack Hussein Obama.
In stark contrast to the ravings of network
and some cable news, corporate greed is not the white
elephant that is killing America. On the contrary, greed
is the engine that drives many of these corporations
forward and steers them through difficult times. To
focus solely on corporations is try to distort the picture
from the true problem; liberal politicians and the unions
It has become painfully clear over the
years that liberal politicians are more interested in
winning elections than doing anything truly good for
America. Take, for example, California; at one time
California alone, would have ranked amongst the top
10 economies in the world. However, after years of liberal
abuse, California with its bloated teachers' unions
and outrageous social spending [even on illegal immigrants]
is perennially bankrupt. It is inconceivable that a
state with such abundant riches can be brought down
to the current abysmal level... yet, it has happened
and that it precisely what Obama and his fellow liberals
want to do to America.
The American auto industry is in crisis
due to one glaring problem - unions. However, liberals
have long supported corpulent unions, to the detriment
of American industry, because it garnered them votes
- no matter the cost to America as a whole. American
auto-makers can hardly be expected compete when it costs
more to make an American car on American soil, than
it does say a Toyota on American soil.
It is true, at one point, unions were
very necessary, but not now there are now numerous
federal regulations and various agencies which have
been put in place in order to protect workers from abuse.
Since their primary function has already been addressed,
unions now only serve to atrophy the American working
capital by making it prohibitively expensive to compete.
So what does Obama do about the current situation -
he promptly sacrifices the CEO of GM, Rick Wagoner,
to the altar of liberal lies.
Clearly, Mr. Wagoner was not the problem,
but Obama had to give a face to his liberal devotees...
to him and other liberals, the fact that he was not
responsible for this mess was, and is, utterly irrelevant
- that is not to say that he was an angel among men,
but rather that to blame him for the current crisis
in the American auto industry is disingenuous at best
and a lie at worst.
If only Obama would hold other liberal
democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi or Chris Dodd, and himself
to the same standard after all they penned and
passed the most expensive bill[s] in American history
and perhaps ultimately, the most wasteful one[s] as
well. Somehow I doubt Obama will hold these people responsible
for their irresponsible actions during a time of economic
downturn which they possibly transformed into a crisis.
Astonishingly, some have even attempted
to defend Barack Hussein Obamas attack on the
free market [which is what the firing of Rick Wagoner
by a politician represents] by attempting to argue that
America never embraced free trade. They fallaciously
cite Alexander Hamilton's support for tariffs as evidence
against free trade in America. However their argument
is akin to arguing that America never embraced democracy
because the founding fathers supported constructing
a republic, rather than a true democracy.
The issue is not all or nothing, it is
not so black and white; rather there are tenets of free
trade in our market system and tenets of democracy in
our republic. These established pillars are extremely
important for the well-being and success of our nation
they cannot simply be cast aside, simply because
they do not fit neatly into a succinct nomenclature.
If liberal democrats truly cared about
free trade, perhaps they should consider following free
trade as espoused by Adam Smith, rather than looking
for ways to weaken it.