Thursday, October 26, 2006
Frightful Midterm Election
Given confidence from the majority of American's in 2004 to control all three branches of government, to do what is right for the nation and set it on a course for progress, Republican's in congress have squandered many opportunities while neglecting their party's advertised platform to limit government spending.
Republicans in the 1990s gave line-item veto power to the Democratic president, but have not given it to their own current Republican president, likely for fear that he would use it. That fear is why some Republicans' will be replaced in November.
While the GOP holds all three branches of government, they have not taken the bold initiatives needed for a party in power. Any resulting discontent from their constituents could swing congress to the liberals, who will repeal all or most of president Bush's accomplishments, including the tax cuts which haven't been made permanent by his own team for fear of democrat cries in the media. Even so, it is beyond debate how the tax cuts have given a huge boost to the economy and provided it with nearly 7 million new jobs, the lowest unemployment rate, expanded housing market, large capital gains for individual investors, low interest rates, etc..
As recently pointed out by Investors Business Daily, since the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003,
"the economy has added $1.26 trillion in real output, $14.4 trillion in net wealth and 5.8 million new jobs."But that progress doesn't seem to matter to the liberals, whose only real goal is to raise income tax rates. "Taxing the rich" will be the leading economic argument of a 2007 Democratic House, and a rollback tax bill of some kind could be voted on. The job number is actually higher as said above.
Shall the American public erase all the positives of the past 5 years, and go back to the falsehoods of the 1990's? Republican's have given in to increased federal spending by some $750 billion since 2001, and for fiscal 2006 approved 10,000 earmarks costing $29 billion. But as usual, Democrats wanted even more, and if they win the midterm elections, they'll probably get it unless president Bush uses his veto pen. With Democrats never passing on spending bills they didn't love – except for military and defense purposes proven by their votes against the war and the national Missile Defense System – they are chomping at the bit to spend like drunken sailors once again.
Offering only pain for no gain, a democrat economy will come with massive tax hikes that will increase unemployment, while they take America backwards by making us all feel guilty for being the world's richest nation. Dems love to use the media to throw out emotional tag lines such as "We can do better," and "We must do more," etc. But notice it is always we and not them. Putting democrats in charge will only cause more problems for society, as proven from their past failures during the Carter and Clinton administrations, while they claim otherwise regardless of the facts. Dems have yet to figure out why they lost congress in 1994 so badly, but hopefully the majority still remembers, and won't let them in again.
Republican's in fearing democrat attacks, never brought individual ownership of Social Security retirement accounts to a vote, thus insulating themselves from leftist critics. They've done little on health care, giving the left more ammo for government control over the world's best health care system to make it more like Canada's and the U.K., where people wait months for an appointment and longer for treatment on the cheap.
Some Conservative principles seem to have been put aside by this congress, while ethical principles have been ignored by some bad apples like DeLay, Foley, Abramoff in the party America looks to for good values and morality. Of course there will always be those who are planted in the party to cause such disruptions, so they must and will be weeded out eventually, perhaps very soon.
With the stock market reaching new highs and strong employment, democrats will have to be at their best to deceive the public with doom and gloom scenario's about the economy, as they did in 1991 with Bill Clinton's attacks on the Reagan/Bush boom during a small and yet predicted recession. But they don't have that now, so dems and their 527 media machine will make up numbers and scary stories to "suggest" the economy is failing, or that only the rich (like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid) will survive.
Power hungry Democrats claim to care for the poor when all they really care about is getting their votes to enable them to steal their hard earned money using lies about taking it from the rich, their hero's like socialist Noam Chomsky define as anyone making a "certain amount," fluctuating as they deem necessary for "the common good."
With the war in Iraq dragging on and the media playing up every car bombing and death as if it were another 9/11, Republican's are worried about the negative impact on the public psyche from the whiney left rantings about bringing the troops home, closing international trade, drawing the shades and hiding within our borders. Democrats offer no plan to win the war, voicing wildly that Iraq is another Vietnam disaster, which is like comparing the jungle to the desert.
While president Bush has been cautious about changing tactics, he is letting the situation on the ground determine the adjustments required when called for by the generals in battle, which is the opposite of how Democrats did it in Vietnam by micro-managing the war from the White House and Pentagon.
Despite the rants of Michael Savage claiming on radio that Bush is following their repetitive script, Bush is showing by his actions that he's adaptable, and isn't going to panic. No war is perfect or ever has been, and to expect it to be, as do liberals, is unrealistic and dangerous. But Bush and the administration seem to be caving to the whims of panty-waist liberals by downplaying "Stay the course" which means to win the war, not run away like libs desire. There are and will continue to be many turns on the course to defeating these evil enemies of freedom wanting to rule the world through forced religion, suppression, violence, and death. Unfortunately, this long overdue war will outlast this administration.
According to FT.com, Bush has "moved from expressing “serious concern” about Iraq, while emphasising progress was being made, to being resolute about the ultimate outcome in the country but flexible about military tactics to attain that end.
Mr Bush acknowledged the US’s most immediate goal was “to prevent a full-scale civil war from happening in the first place”.
He stressed his role as commander-in-chief – “the ultimate accountability rests with me” – even as he deferred to the commanders on the ground to dictate troop levels.
As Cal Thomas' well reasoned article Rumsfeld's Prophecy Has Come True, points out,
Using a justification for fighting terrorism that would resurface in the current war, Rumsfeld said, "Terrorism is a form of warfare and must be treated as such... weakness invites aggression. Simply standing in a defensive position, absorbing blows, is not enough. Terrorism must be deterred." In his 1984 speech, Rumsfeld said terrorism cannot be eliminated, but it can be made to function at a "low level" that will allow governments to function. He repeated that thought at lunch and added that the United States is somewhat at a disadvantage because the terrorists don't have a media that challenges their policies, they have no hierarchy and they "get to lie every day with no accountability." Speculating again about the future, Rumsfeld said, "there will be no conventional wars in the near future and no way the military can win or lose a war.""
On Wednesday October 25, president Bush sought to align himself with US public opinion when he said he was “not satisfied either” with rising violence in Iraq. But he warned that US troops were needed to “prevent a full-scale civil war”.
That is some distance from the definitions set out in November in the Victory in Iraq document. It said the short-term view of victory was an “Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces”. The medium-term goal was to have a “fully constitutional government in place”.
Mr. Bush said he would consider any “proposal that will help us achieve victory” but declined to say whether he would directly engage with Iran and Syria to resolve tensions.
“Iran and Syria understand full well that the world expects them to help Iraq.”
The flaw to this reasoning is to expect Iran and Syria to help us at all, when their oft-stated goal is to eradicate Israel and America from the Middle East using Islamic terror and if possible, nuclear weapons. It is dubious vegas odds makers would give a spread on terrorist sponsoring states helping the world.
Although Mr Bush said he had no intention of “standing in the crossfire between rival factions in Iraq”, officials and analysts in the Middle East – and some Republican loyalists – are saying US troops already face that direct challenge. Gee, no kidding?
Victor Davis Hanson said in The Dark Ages -- Live From the Middle East!
"Since Sept. 11, the West has fought enemies who are determined to bring back the nightmarish world that we thought was long past. And there are lessons Westerners can learn from radical Islamists' ghastly efforts.
First, the Western liberal tradition is fragile and can still disappear. Just because we have sophisticated cell phones, CAT scanners and jets does not ensure that we are permanently civilized or safe. Technology used by the civilized for positive purposes can easily be manipulated by barbarians for destruction."
Emotional tactics 2006
Have the majority of voters become smart enough to see through democrat deceptions? Being experts at creating false fear in the media while ignoring the truth about terrorist enemies, even while at war, the left will create deceitful campaigns to get votes and exploit suffering for politics.
Back to the Future democrats are victimizing people like Parkinson's ridden actor Michael J. Fox (who falsely played republican supporter Alex P. Keaton), and injured military vet Tammy Duckworth to make people feel guilty about disease and war is another deceptive tactic used by democrats to pull on the emotional strings of bleeding hearts. Democrat's say they "will make cripples walk" if only they will vote for them, as ex-senator John Edwards and John (Swift boat) Kerry insisted in the last week before the 2004 election with promises of–to date unproven–embryonic stem cell cures.
Cloning web of lies
Voters in Missouri on Nov. 7 will decide whether to approve that 2,000-word proposal, a plan that has been billed as a "cloning ban" by its supporters. However, the document itself shows that the only human cloning that it bans is the actual production of a living human being from a clone, and it actually enshrines in the state constitution the right to clone human embryos for "research" purposes.
Liberals see this as an issue to keep abortion legal from challenges. This is reason enough for voting to keep them from gaining power.
While Amendment 2 is advertised by supporters as a ban on human cloning, said Suppan, "in the 2,000 words you won't read, it makes cloning a constitutional right".
See: Celebs tell Missourians to vote no on cloning.
Michael J. Fox claims, despite embryonic stem cell research not having helped a single patient,
"George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research."Obviously, Fox wants to open the door to whatever may help him personally, even if morally unjustified and/or wrong for humanity. We feel his pain, but killing embryo's for the sake of potential research is unethical when there are other ways to achieve the same results.
A new study by Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center finds embryonic stem cells cause tumors when inserted into rats that have Parkinson's. As a result, patients like Fox would likely be killed or face severe problems if treated with embryonic stem cells.
Again Fox claims that Senator Jim Talent opposes all kinds of stem cell research. "Unfortunately Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research," Fox claims. "Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope." This is fraudulent deception and a blatant misrepresentation of the facts prescribed by the Democrats.
The truth is that Mr. Talent has voted in favor of spending millions in federal funds for adult stem cell research, the only kind of research that has ever cured a single patient.
As always, go by the votes, not the hype!
Confusing the pubic is now what democrats must do to win, so they will continue to say anything despite evidence to the contrary to push their wicked agenda against the people in hopes of gaining power over them.
Oh what a tangled Webb Dems weave... to deceive!
© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.|