More Political Thoughts

I find it senseless to “debate” with people of liberal persuasion because I am not going to change the way they think, and they certainly aren’t going change my way of thinking.

It seems ironic that liberals seem to have the same concerns about high taxes and outrageous court decisions, yet they continue to vote for Democrats who always increase taxes and appoint liberal judges – the same judges responsible for verdicts that defy common sense and encourage frivolous law suits. This has caused our society to become twisted in fear of extensive litigation!

I AM disappointed that Bush refuses to admit that he would not have gone into Iraq had the intelligence at the time not indicated the existence of weapons of mass destruction. At that time, World intelligence, not just U.S. military intelligence, indicated the existence of WMD's. Without that “evidence,” I don’t believe anyone would have agreed to go into Iraq.

Hillary voted to go to war in Iraq. At the time she stated that the military intelligence Bush had was consistent with the military intelligence that existed during her husband’s administration. When Saddam was captured, Hillary boasted that she had voted for the war. When tides of public opinion questioned if we should stay in Iraq to finish what we started, she started to hedge her bet, and now she actually accuses Bush (and the rest of the free world’s military intelligence?) of lying to the public, and she states she would never have voted for the war had she known the “truth.”

The difference between these Democrats (who seem to base their politics on public opinion) and Bush, is that he has to do what he feels is best for our country, which might not be popular with current public opinion. Can you imagine Franklin D. Roosevelt basing United States military strategy during World War II upon public opinion polls?! Bush doesn’t have the luxury to waver according to opinion polls. Like a parent with a child, he has to decide what is in the best interest of that child, not what will make the child happy at that moment.

Last year General Petraeus followed orders and gave his assessment of our military progress in Iraq. Most Democrats condemned his assessment and attacked his integrity. Was this because they had staked their political future on the failure of the war in Iraq? What would their reaction toward him have been had his assessment been favorable to their political agenda?

We are not in an enviable position in Iraq, but to pull out, without regard to the consequences, would be irresponsible and only create problems that would have to be dealt with in the future.

It seems politicians try to find “sound bites” on which to attack opponents. When McCain stated that we might be in Iraq for 100 years, he was comparing it to our military presence in other countries (Japan, Germany, etc.) where we have military bases. His comment that what is unacceptable is not the military presence, but the violence and death toll, was completely ignored by his opponents. When McCain stated his expertise is not economics, his opponents jumped on that sound bite and accused him of not being qualified to be president. I don’t know ANY political candidate that is an economic expert. Hopefully they all would rely on experts they trust to give advice in various areas. The president then has to use his own judgment, based on gathered information and his personal character and convictions to make decisions in the best interest of the country. So it comes down to a matter of trust. We have to TRUST the person we elect President of the United States. We have to decide if the person is honest, trustworthy, and competent.

The most influential role of the president, even more important than other decisions he makes during his term, is the appointment of court justices. Quite simply, Democrats appoint liberal justices and Republicans appoint conservative justices.

I feel the reason the court system has handed down outrageous decisions to absurd lawsuits is because of liberal judges. The liberal interpretation of the law allows, and even encourages, these frivolous lawsuits. Fear of litigation affects everyone’s’ life with extensive paperwork and endless rules and regulations that are put into place as a precaution against lawsuits that defy logic. Thus, in my opinion, it is because of the liberal courts that we are being held hostage, so to speak, due to this fear of litigation.

I am a Republican because I am against high taxes, and I am against extensive governmental control. And I am sick and tired of outrageous liberal court decisions.

Liberals feel the government should solve all problems. They seem to want to redistribute wealth from the upper and middle class to the poor. Socialism has NEVER worked anywhere in the world. Evidently liberals feel that that is merely because it hasn’t yet been done right. I also sometimes question if they intentionally try to create dependency to assure a voting base.

As I watched the Republican and Democrat debates and interviews, I was amazed at how candidly and directly some of the Republican candidates answered questions, and I was amused at how most Democrat candidates evaded answering questions for fear of offending some people and possibly losing votes. It was also fascinating to note that none of the Democrat candidates ever uttered the words “Moslem terrorists.” I guess that would have been politically incorrect.

Democrats seem somewhat complacent with respect to terrorism. They oppose extending the surveillance law (which expanded the powers of government to monitor communications of foreign suspects without warrants). Democrats said that the expiration of the temporary law would have little, if any, immediate impact on intelligence gathering. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of Bush, "He has nothing to offer but fear," after Bush's address stressing the importance of extending the surveillance law which would protect cell phone companies from being sued for cooperating with the government. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a letter to Bush, in defense of his colleagues in the House, "Instead of needlessly frightening the country, you should work with Congress in a calm, constructive way."

Has anyone noticed that there hasn’t been a terrorist attack in the United States since 9-11? I wonder which political party Moslem terrorists hope wins the presidential election.

Hillary actually took some credit for current success in Iraq due to the Democrats’ supposedly taking office next January. How pretentious and arrogant can a person be?! And then when she outright LIED about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire! How can anyone justify or excuse that dishonesty?! I have absolutely NO respect for her as a politician or as a person.

I don’t agree politically with Obama, but from the little I know about him, I do at least think that he might be sincere and honest.

Although there is some question as to who the author actually was of the following quote, it is certainly food for thought. And it is OBVIOUS which candidates consistently promise the most benefits.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.