Monthly Archives: March 2009

JUST HOW MUCH DO POLITICIANS RESPECT THEIR CONSTITUENTS?

Bookmark and Share    Recently a doctor in New Jersey wrote his two senators and made it known that he opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He made it clear that he hoped for them to vote against the bill as it stood.

Well one of them, Frank Lautenberg, has yet to respond and in the case of Lautenberg everyday that goes by without a response creates an increasing risk for there never to be a response. At 85, Lautenberg has little time left and his pace has slowed down quite a bit and is not getting any faster these days.

However New Jersey’s junior senator, Robert Menendez, did send a reply to the good doctor’s correspondence.

menendezHe wrote:

 Dr. Harris;

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for education priorities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this important issue.

…….Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I appreciate your support. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of more assistance.

I invite you to visit my website (http://menendez.senate.gov) to learn of other important issues to New Jersey.

Robert Menendez
United States Senate

Wasn’t that nice? After letting the Senator know that he opposed the ARRA, Senator Menendez thanked Dr. Harris for supporting him.

Now there are two things to note here. Dr. Harris never acknowledged any support for the Senator. He simply asked the Senator to properly represent his views and vote against the bill and not only did Senator Menendez ignore that fact in his reply, in the end, he did exactly the opposite of what Dr. Harris hoped for and voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That does not warrant support. If anything it is reason for opposition to the Senator.

And then, of course, there is Senator Menendez’s totally, out of the blue, reference to Dr. Harris’ support for so-called “education priorities” in the bill.

Dr. Harris made no mention of such support. He never once mentioned education in his letter. But as you can see, Senator Menendez articulated his appreciation for it.

The incident shows us a few things.

First, few elected officials actually read through all of their mail. There is quite a lot of it so that should not to be held against them. So long as they have a hard working, attentive staff with a well run office and efficient constituency caseworkers.

Obviously Senator Menendez doesn’t.

Senator Menendez apparently has an overpaid staff stuffed with patronage positions that provide little more than lip service to those who he represents. The staffer who sent the wrong boilerplate response to Dr. Harris obviously does not care and that does not instill a great deal of confidence in the people Senator Menendez represents.

A good staff is a sign of a good legislator. A good staff not only properly communicates to the people, they properly communicate the needs and desires of the people to the legislator that they work for.

Granted, this is just one letter but it is symbolic. It is a symbol of just how detached the political class is from the people they represent.

Many of them almost feel that the politics they deal with is none of the people’s business. They feel that the people do not know any better and that the people would be better off if they just left things up to them.

Nowhere is that better demonstrated than in the video I submit for your review in this post.

In it, one of Washington, D.C.’s most powerful and corrupt politicians, Charlie Rangel, actually tells a fellow New Yorker from Brooklyn to “mind his G-Damn business” when he asks the Congressman to explain how he expects to get away with some of his shenanigans like driving a taxpayer subsidized Cadillac around for personal use, refusing to pay taxes on rent properties that he owns, and abuses the use of four rent controlled apartments below market rates all while writing the very tax code that he exempts himself from.

Now I am originally from Brooklyn and let me tell you, take away our baseball bats and other weaponry and you still will not be treated kindly by us after giving the response that Rangel did.

What Rangel seems to have forgotten is that as a public servant, his business is our business. It is especially our business, like it or not, when he is breaking and skirting the very laws that he is instrumental in writing and forcing us to live by while he doesn’t.Turnout Primary

These two examples may seem insignificant but they say a lot.

These examples are just more proof of the prevailing bad attitude that our political leaders posses. It demonstrates that many are out of touch with us and that they truly lack any connection to the fact that they are no better than us and that they are not immune from the legislation they create.

Of course it would help if we, the people, held our elected officials accountable when elections rolled around but that rarely happens. After all Charlie Rangel has been reelected to his Harlem congressional district 19 times. That’s 38 years.

Frank Lautenberg, who didn’t even bother to respond to Dr. Harris’ letter, has been reelected to the United States Senate five times.

And Senator Menendez was originally appointed to his senate seat. He subsequently won election to his seat after little more than a year of incumbency. His relative newness is what probably accounts for his at least pretending to care what the people think, even though his reply to Dr. Harris totally ignored the point he wanted addressed.

In the end, I guess it comes down to the fact that we get what we deserve. I mean if we want our elected officials to be held accountable, should we not hold ourselves accountable for the choices that we make when we vote for these elected officials?

Bookmark and Share

punchline-politics2

It’s tough being a politician. Half your reputation is ruined by lies; the other half is ruined by the truth!

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

THE LEGALIZED EMPLOYEE INTIMIDATION ACT

Bookmark and Share    I have held no punches when it comes to declaring my skepticism over our nations continued march in a socialist economic direction and some will argue that the march began not under President Obama but under President Bush when he proposed the first of the recent economic bailout packages. I for one will not defend the non-military related spending practices of President Bush, so I certainly wont defend President Obama against his overspending formulas and I certainly will not endorse any path to expedite our transition to socialism. But what of fascism?

336695336v3_350x350_frontIt is a rhetorical question.

I feel few Americans support fascist intentions. Yet the question is quite relevant when it comes to the current administration and contemporary liberal Democrats.

These are the people promoting something called the Employment Free Choice Act, or Card Check. Passage of Card Check would eliminate the right to vote for or against joining a union through a private ballot. The measure would also undermine the right to freely negotiate contracts.

Passage of Card Check will be a repression of opposition. It will help to produce a vote for unionizing that could be driven by intimidation. That is not democracy. It is fascism. Yet it has become clear that big labor, President Obama and his liberal congressional allies are forging ahead with this power grab.

In a closed-door meeting this past week, President Obama told over 100 top union officials that “we will pass the Employee Free Choice Act.” 

The move is an attack on our democratic values and will inflict a destructive impact on our economy.

Proof of that is best demonstrated by the damage inflicted on heavily unionized northern interests in Americas auto industry.

Government controls and liberal unionization has decimated the industry and turned it into one that can only survive with taxpayer funding. That is a drastic contrast from profitable auto maker in the southern U.S. who are not held hostage to unions. That part of the auto sector survives with profits, not deficits.

Despite these facts, Democrats are anxious to see the “Legalized Employee Intimidation Act” get passed.

They are the political beneficiaries of unions and by forcing more industries to unionize Democrats are increasing the wealth of financial contributions that unions donate to them.

What is startling though is the blatant disregard for democracy that Democrats are demonstrating here. They are willing to deny our fundamental right to vote privately and without coercion and they are willing to deny employers and employees the right to negotiate freely.

Fascism is defined as a movement that favors centralized control of private enterprise, extreme nationalism and repression of opposition. Under that definition one can easily see how we can be viewed as moving in that direction. Our government is controlling more and more of the private sector. Our government is nationalizing more and more of our interests and now they are tampering with the principles of the democratic voting rights.

It is time to put the breaks on government actions that will harm our economy anymore than it has already done and it is time to put an end to measures that take us further away from the original intentions of our intended republic.

Join me in signing a petition that asks the “U.S. Congress to ensure that every worker has the right to a secret ballot when deciding whether to organize a union, as well as the right to ratify the contract terms of their employment, rather than be forced to accept a contract through binding arbitration.” Visit the link  here to sign the petition and pass it on. 

Bookmark and Share
punchline-politics2

Jesus and a Union Guy

 

Two managers and a union worker were fishing on a lake one day, when Jesus walked across the water and joined them in the boat.

When the three astonished men had settled down enough to speak, the first guy asked humbly, “Jesus, I’ve suffered from back pain ever since I took shrapnel in the Vietnam war…could you help me?”

Of course, my son“, Jesus said, and when he touched the man’s back, he felt relief for the first time in years.

The second man, who wore very thick glasses and had a hard time reading and driving, asked if Jesus could do anything about his eyesight.

Jesus smiled, removed the man’s glasses and tossed them in the lake.

When they hit the water, the man’s eyes cleared and he could see everything distinctly.

When Jesus turned to heal the union worker, the guy put his hands up and cried defensively, “Don’t touch me! I’m on long term disability.”

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

ASSEMBLYMAN WEBBER TO DEBATE ASSEMBLY MAJORITY LEADER

 Photobucket                                    Photobucket

Bookmark and Share

This weekend will afford New Jerseyans the chance to see our political differences come together in a clash that will pit both sides of the ideological spectrum against each other.

On News 12’s Power & Politics Assemblyman Jay Webber will debate assembly Majority Leader Bonnie Watson Coleman as the two discuss the upcoming state budget and New Jersey’s race for Governor.

The program will air 4 times during the course of the weekend on

News 12:

Saturday at 10:00 a.m. & 3:00 p.m. and Sunday also at 10:00 a.m. & 3:00 p.m.

It is a program that you should definitely try to catch.

Both of these individuals are looked at as potential statewide candidates and both of them represent the ideological bases of their parties.

Our favorite is Assemblyman Jay Webber and after seeing him in action I am sure he will be yours too.

untitled

New Jersey is not known for being home to the most prominent conservative lawmakers and policy makers in the nation but that could soon change.

Right now New Jersey is witnessing a Republican primary for Governor that features probably one of the most conservative candidates to run for governor in any recent race, including the conservative safe havens of the southern United States. That of course is Steve Lonegan. But Lonegan is not alone. In fact he is not the only conservative running for Governor. Assemblyman Richard Merkt is also seeking the G.O.P. nod for governor and he too is pretty far right of center.

Aside from gubernatorial politics, there are some conservatives in New Jersey. In fact many of them flock to an annual event in New jersey called New Jersey Reagan Day. The event is organized by assemblyman and gubernatorial candidate Rich Merkt’s legislative partner in the Assembly, Jay Webber.

Assemblyman Webber is also a conservative. A young conservative who after his first term in the Assembly has shown himself to be a bright light that is leading the way for the conservative movement in New Jersey.

The fact that Merkt and Webber serve together, representing the same district in the state assembly says something in and of itself. It reminds us that there is hope in New Jersey and that there is hope for us to turn things around. If the people of Morris County can elect two conservatives to represent them, the state, as a whole, just might eventually be able to find one to represent and lead it.

That leader just might eventually wind up being Jay Webber.

As a freshman assemblyman, Jay Webber has let no grass grow under his feet.

In his first year in office he adhered to conservative doctrine and applied it to government. He knows that big government leads to big spending and he knows that big spending takes the money out of the pockets of the governed. That is why he has sponsored over a billion dollars worth of tax cuts and it is why he joined with others to find ways to reduce state spending by as much as he would reduce taxes.

However; Assemblyman Webber is not just a fiscal conservative. He understands that our conservative values and principles do not stop after fiscal concerns. That is why he has led the fight to reform Health Care. His legislation focuses on keeping choices available to the people and even increase their options by making it possible to buy insurance across state lines. Aside from making insurance more affordable through greater competition his bill mandates that pre-existing conditions would be covered. That measure would help protect the interests of those most vulnerable and in need of decent health care coverage.

With an eye not only what is happening now, Assemblyman Webber has legislated with an eye on the future as well. Rather than rubber stamping legislative solutions which might be seen as quick fixes, he has opposed such measures as the Highlands Act, forced consolidation, Abbot funding and other unruly state mandated measure that would break the backs of communities and taxpayers.

His legislative initiatives are quite varied and as a primary sponsor those initiative range from exempting military personnel receiving combat zone pay from the gross income tax to opening up the government process and making government more transparent. His legislation demonstrates a belief in people more than government and at 37 and just in his first term in office, Assemblyman Webber is proving himself to be a leader of the conservative cause and a true leader for New Jersey.

Don’t miss him this weekend!

party_republican

For today’s regularly scheduled  POLITICS 24/7  post BECAUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE ADOPTED SOCIALISM” and joke of the day visit click here

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

BECAUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE ADOPTED SOCIALISM?

Bookmark and Share   Norman Mattoon Thomas believed in socialism. He had no evil intentions and he had no desire for government control. He just wanted life to be better for everyone. He just wanted to spread the wealth and did not trust free markets. But the only way for government to foster his hope to spread the wealth thomas-button-awas through government control and because of that, few remember N. M. Thomas.

Before becoming a socialist politician, Mr. Thomas was a Presbyterian pastor and a pacifist. And while he opposed our entry into World War II he also opposed communism and fascism but his greatest opposition was to the American economic system.

But such beliefs never got Norman Matoon Thomas very far.

The height of his political career was achieved after the death of Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs in 1926. Upon Debs death Thomas took the helm and ran the Socialist Party until 1955 when he stepped down from his leadership post but continued to be the Socialist Party’s most visible spokesman.

Along the way, Thomas did run for Governor of New York, twice, but lost. In between those unsuccessful runs for office he ran for President of the United States as the socialist candidate in 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944 and 1948. Each time he lost resoundingly.

The closest he ever came was in 1944 when he maxed out with no electoral votes and 880,000 votes from the general electorate.

In each of his elections and throughout his leadership of the Socialist Party, he failed to convince a preponderance of Americans that socialism was the way to go and in what was probably his most famous speech, at the conclusion of one of his last bids for elected office, Thomas said “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism”, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Well ladies and gentleman that day is right ahead of us.

Right now we are witnessing the rapid transformation to that day and place. The place where ingenuity, entrepreneurial spirit and motivation is replaced by government bureaucracy. Where the food on the table is not earned by you or selected by you, but is placed there by a government that will increase in it’s size and power. A government that will increase its control upon us.

As Thomas made clear through his words, governmental liberalism is a political philosophy that is essentially basedthomas_norman-a in the very roots of socialism. And as a liberal thinker, President Obama has shown that to be true.

During his campaign for President he came right out and said that he wants to spread the wealth.

To many, that sounded good. It sounded sincere and defendable. Yet the problem is that the wealth President Obama wants to spread is not his. It is our ours. As President, he has no government wealth to spread. Our government is only as wealthy as our people and if they are not making money, the government isn’t making any money. This is a lesson that many nations have already learned and apparently, it is one that we will have to learn again.

I for one believe as Margaret Thatcher did when she said “the problem with socialism is that you run out of everyone else’s money.”

I for one do not believe in the socialism that America has rejected for so long, during and after the life of Norman Mattoon Thomas. I just do not believe that Socialism can sustain itself in any way that allows our nation to benefit from the freedom that it is suppose to be a bastion of.

And just as much as I do not believe in Socialism, I equally believe that most Americans don’t either.

I believe as Norman Thomas did. That most “American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism”, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program”

Such is the case today.

We are witnessing a conversion of our democracy to socialism that will take years to undo all because we elected a socialist who got away by calling himself  a Democrat.

In that same speech, Norman Thomas went on to say “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

That was said 65 years ago yet today, it rings truer than ever.

The question is, when will Americans wake up and realize what Norman Mantoon Thomas realized. That political liberalism is socialism and when will they realize that socialism is futile.

Bookmark and Share

punchline-politics2

DIFFERENT TYPES OF GOVERNMENT

 

Socialism: You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

Communism: You have two cows. The government takes them both and provides you with milk.

Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes them and sells you the milk.

Bureaucracy: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours it down the drain.

Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Democracy: You have two cows. Government taxes force you to sell them in order to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow which was a gift from your government.

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under politics

NEW SIGN FOR STIMULUS PACKAGE IS A SIGN OF THE TIMES

Bookmark and Share    It was revealed the other day that sign makers were to become the most immediate beneficiaries of the recent historic stimulus package.
aara_logo_21

Unbeknownst to anyone who read through the thousands of pages tin he stimulus bill, the White House initiated the creation of a new emblem.

 

According to the President “We’re making it easier for Americans to see what projects are being funded with their money as part of our recovery. So in the weeks to come, the signs denoting these projects are going to bear the new emblem of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” Obama said. “These emblems are symbols of our commitment to you, the American people — a commitment to investing your tax dollars wisely, to put Americans to work doing the work that needs to be done. So when you see them on projects that your tax dollars made possible, let it be a reminder that our government — your government — is doing its part to put the economy back on the road of recovery.”

 

Think of it as the tag on a Christmas present designating who the gift is from. You.

 

There is no word as to how much the new symbol costs to make and how much it will cost to reproduce and display on the countless required projects expected of it.
But who cares?
Whatever the amount is, it is an amount that is insignificant compared to the spending legislated in the bill.

 

The new emblem representing the “spread the wealth” legislation is quite symbolic. The creation of the emblem is quite symbolic of how the stimulus package will work.

The stimulus package generates work provided by the government and once that work is completed, where will more work come from? Under this stimulus package the only assured way for their to be more work is by making government create it. That means more government spending.

Now never mind the fact that all this spending is not helping the deficit which the left has made one of the top issues to use against Republicans. Never mind the fact that the stimulus package does little to free up lending in the free market and does little to boost free enterprise in America. All of that is not suppose to matter because government spending is creating government jobs. But the problem is that government jobs do not sustain themselves, private sector jobs do.

The problem is that although sign makers with the right government contract will make money from the creation of the new emblem for the stimulus package but what will they do when all those signs have been made?ussa1

The free market will not be expanded by the growth of government and the work for more signs will not be increasing, unless of course it is for more government projects.

So this new emblem for projects funded by the new stimulus package is quite a good representation of all that the so called recovery act represents. It represents a short term action that will cost us more than it is worth in the long run. It represents an increase in government control and a decrease in the expansion of opportunity and the free markets that built America.

A much more accurate symbol for the stimulus package which I call the American Economic Socialization package would be the old hammer and sickle.

Bookmark and Share

punchline-politics2

A socialist, a capitalist and a communist agreed to meet.

The socialist was late.

“Excuse me for being late, I was standing in a queue for sausages.”

“And what is a queue?” the capitalist asked.

“And what is a sausage?” the communist asked.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

KENNEDY KNIGHTED. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

Bookmark and Share    What has her majesty’s kingdom come to?

Today British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came before a joint session of Congress and declared honorary knighthood to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.

ted-kennedyBeing a Kennedy has almost always been a magical thing. It is a get out of jail free card that exempts them from wrongdoing. Be it a Kennedy cousin who has killed a Connecticut neighbor, a Kennedy nephew who raped a Florida neighbor, a Kennedy relative in Congress caught driving drunk or Ted Kennedy’s swimming away from a date after plunging into icy cold waters in Hyannis port and then neglecting to tell anyone that he left her there, being a Kennedy is a great thing.

When it comes to Kennedy wrongdoing, cover-ups are expected and accepted. When it comes to Kennedy scandals it is again, both expected and accepted.

Now it is worthy of knighthood.

The sad fact is that the Kennedy clan has come along way since the days of President John F. Kennedy and New York Senator Robert Kennedy. But it has not progressed in quite such a good way. Kennedy’s have since then have done more harm than good.

We knew John and Robert had faults of their own, but we were able to respect John and Robert Kennedy, but Ted Kennedy is no John or Robert Kennedy.

John and Robert Kennedy had their lives taken. Ted Kennedy has taken lives.

Yet the monarchy of Great Britain has chosen to put more value in Ted Kennedy’s socialist agenda, than his crimes.

It is a shame but such is the world we live in.

God save the Queen.

Bookmark and Share
punchline-politics2

A woman interviews for a job with Ted Kennedy.

Kennedy: “You realize that you’ll have to travel a lot.”

Woman: “That’s OK.”

Kennedy: “And that to save money we’ll have to share a hotel room.”

Woman: “OK.”

Kennedy: “And on some nights we will be having sex.”

Woman: “That’s all right.”

Kennedy: “Do you have any questions?”

Woman: “Well, if we are having sex, I might get pregnant and I wonder what arrangements you’ve made for obstetrics insurance, maternity leave, etc.”

Kennedy: “Don’t worry; we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”

1 Comment

Filed under politics

ARE DEMOCRATS REALLY CONCERNED WITH HUMAN RIGHTS?

Bookmark and Share     Just wondering.

Now that Democrats have gained full control of the federal government what happened to their wealth of human rights advocacy?

mask20chinese20flagRecently Secretary of State Clinton went out of her way to let China know that the United States will not let human rights concerns hinder our cooperation with China.

Now, I contend that liberal thinking is hypocrisy based but this recent Democrat commitment confirms it.

But beyond their hypocrisy is their insincerity. Republicans can not make any moves without being accused of human rights abuses and even when Republicans lead efforts that advance human rights, liberals deny credit and the ensuing results.

The fact that millions were freed from oppression and torture in Iraq with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein meant nothing and liberals did nothing but accuse President Bush of waging a useless war. At the same time, they shunned him for not throwing us into civil war in Rwanda.

And what of Rwanda? Where is the liberal urgency to advance human rights there now that they are in charge.

Leadership certainly changes ones priorities, doesn’t it?

What caused Democrats to withdraw their concerns with human rights?

Could it be that achieving them through the political process is a lot harder to do than talking about them?

Or could it be that human rights are nothing more for liberals than a political tool to be used to pull at the heart strings of a compassionate electorate?

I am sure that the people of China are pleased with the new administration and our new Secretary of State. I am sure that the students who risked their lives to participate in protests at Tiananmen Square are glad to know that the worlds beacon of freedom is willing to sell them out for cheap sneakers.

Now I am not suggesting that the Bush administration advanced the cause of human rights in China with any great leaps or bounds but the liberal mentality of people in the Obama administration had them cursing George W. Bush for attending the Olympics in Beijing. Many of them wanted him to boycott the Olympics all together and prohibit our athletes from competing.

The uproar against our participation in the Beijing Olympics reached a fevered pitch during the summer of boycott2008, but now, in the winter of 2009, with the shoe of leadership on the other foot, the Obama administration came right out and said that human rights in China will have no bearing on our relationship and there is not a peep of protest offered by the left.

In the mean time the Chinese government continues to torture prisoners, deny citizens due process, suppress and torture women, limit speech, the media, independent organizing and freedom of association. All this is added to an undying commitment to suppressing religion which has led to the raping of Tibet that includes the actual raping of Tibetan women, the destruction of over 6,000 monasteries and restrictions prohibiting the practice of their religion.

In the face of all this, Democrat leaders have been able to say that it doesn’t matter. If such a statement came out of a Republican administration, liberals would be tying the knots in nooses made to fit the neck of every member of the President’s cabinet.

So which is it? Do human rights really matter to liberals? Do they mean what they say or do they just say what it takes to look concerned?

Bookmark and Share
punchline-politics2

When Coca-Cola was first introduced to China, the company had some difficulty spelling the product’s name in Chinese, while keeping the same pronunciation (“ko-ka ko-la”) … the first attempt translated to “bite the wax tadpole.” Finally they arrived at something which translated to “may your mouth rejoice,” and now Coke is selling quite a bit better.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

POOR PRESIDENT OBAMA

Bookmark and Share   It is interesting to listen to the left grouse over objections to President Obama’s economic proposals. They are astonished by any dissent and they are offended by any lack of sensitivity offered to the messiah’s vision for us. They want us to give him a chance and give him some time. obamaicon2

Perhaps they want us to treat President Obama the same way that they treated President Bush? 

From his first forays into the race for President in late 1999, Democrats demonized George W. Bush and since that time, they never once let up .

From day one, they called President Bush an illegitimate President and despite defeating them in a bid for reelection, many continued to make that claim.

From day one, the left never gave President Bush a chance. With unfounded grounds as their basis for accusations, Democrats spent much time even threatening impeachment.

Yet today, they have the nerve to suggest that opposing President Obama on certain issues, so early, is inappropriate.

The same people who once hoped for us to fail in Iraq are the same people crying foul when someone states that they hope President Obama’s socialist agenda fails.  It is not the right which is declaring that Obama has lost any chance at turning the economy around, yet liberals like Harry Reid went so far as to claim that we lost the war in Iraq.

The left used the difficulties of war as fodder for their campaigns and did everything in their power to make George Bush fail. From calling it a lost cause to voting to deny our troops the financial resources to properly fight, liberals have wished for the failure of the war in Iraq, every step of the way.

Yet today, they come before us complaining about opposition to President Obama.

I for one do not oppose President Obama. I oppose some of his positions.

I say, some, because many of his positions have yet to unfold. But of those he has revealed, I am not pleased. I am not pleased with the lurch to socialism that President Obama has promised. I am not happy with his breaking of promises to oppose legislation packed with pork and earmarks or his promotion of the largest budget proposal in history.

But despite my disagreements, unlike many on the left, I do at least refer to President Obama as my President. Many of them refused to acknowledge the same when President George W. Bush was our President.

In truth, the left is the very last side of the political spectrum to protest current of futire opposition to the President.

President Bush never justified opposition to him by being held in contempt of court or for lying under oath. President Bush never warranted disparaging remarks for calling our troops stupid like liberal icon John Kerry did.

The right is not advancing an anti-American socialist agenda. The right is not praying for our loss in a war. The right is not assassinating the character of the President anymore than his own past conduct already has.

The left, however, has to answer for such acts themselves. The left has no legitimate leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about opposition to President Obama. Doing so is simply another fine example of liberal hypocrisy.

Leftist sympathizers may try to claim that opposition to President Obama is Obama bashing, but given the amount of Bush bashing that they took part in, you would think they know better and would realize that current opposition to President Barack Obama is tame in comparison to their baseless allegations and mean spirited attempts to denigrate President Bush and his family.

But leave it to a liberal to demonstrate hypocrisy. Saying one thing and doing another is their modus operandi.

Bookmark and Share
punchline-politics2

How can you tell when a lawyer has gone bad?

When you call them senator.

1 Comment

Filed under politics