5PM Show Open John Andrews, Matt Dunn, and Joshua Sharf
Hear the Show: 08/23/2009
Read John's Show Preview 5PM Show Open John Andrews, Matt Dunn, and Joshua Sharf
5:30PM Guest: Mark Hillman
6PM Guest: Rabbi Daniel Zucker
6:30PM Guests: Archbishop Chaput
7PM Guest: Under the Dome Special
Why Obama isn't trusted
Dear Mr. President: I believe I can help you understand why the American people are rejecting your efforts at health care reform and why you have lost the trust of so many. The following quote comes from a letter you wrote to me on February 26, 2009; “Michelle joins me in remembering Staff Sergeant Hager, who we lost on February 23, 2007, and honoring him and all the men and women in uniform who carry forward his brave mission.”
Mr. President, you did not lose Staff Sergeant Hager, his mother and I did. In fact, my son played a significant role in what became the turning point in Iraq, the Anbar Awakening. Every time you were asked about the surge you opposed the effort and claimed they would fail. My son gave his life and our forces saw great success. Throughout your campaign I sought to have a meeting with you and offered to arrange a meeting with 25 Gold Star Dads, “any where, any time.” My efforts were rejected by you and your staff.
Mr. President, it is my belief we have but one true possession as human beings, that is our personal word. When a person speaks they either speak honestly or falsely. There is no middle ground. You own everything you say. We all own our words.
Sir, you change your words to meet your needs as you see those needs in the moment. Americans know they cannot, they dare not, trust your words. It is that lack of trust that makes me angry when I hear you claim this fact is true or this law will work for everyone. Your words are neither honest or trustworthy, based upon results.
Mr. President, if you desire a better American I suggest the following simple correction to your presentation. First, stop claiming 47 million Americans are uninsured. There may be 47 million persons in the United States without medical insurance, but many millions of those are illegal aliens. Giving that group equal status with hard working American citizens may make political sense for some in your party, but that is a glaring example of your false words. We know you know the truth, and yet you would rather make false claims than be honest with us all.
Second, and most importantly, stand before the American people and make the following pledge. And having made the pledge, ask every member of Congress to join you.
“I believe the major legislation I am about to sign will improve our country and our future. It will not increase the national debt nor will the middle class face any increase in fees or taxes directly or indirectly caused by this bill. Health care will improve for all and no American will see a reduction in quality or availability of care. If these facts prove to be wrong and this legislation fails to deliver as I claim, I will resign my office as will my Vice President and the Speaker of the House. We will turn over control to those who opposed us as they were in fact right.”
Mr. President take responsibility for your words. And having taken that responsibility, act on the behalf of all Americans, not just those with whom you agree. The anger in America comes not from racial animus or ideology. It comes from being worn out by lies and spin. I am tired of asking for a five minute call from any Democratic leader in Congress or from you. America is waking up and you may not like the music we have selected. You can either start being honest or keep wasting your words, the only possession you really have.
Sincerely, Kris Hager, Gold Star Dad.
Wise up to Alinsky's Rule 13
The late Saul Alinsky and his writings are drawing much interest and study, in that the current President and Secretary of State were apparently his disciples. All one has to do is “google” (a new verb in the English language) “Rules for Radicals” and read for yourself. What I wish to comment upon is number 13 under “Tactics”: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” It is this tactic, adopted by the Progressives, that seems to have thrown Republicans and conservatives completely! In practice, this means the Progressives “go after” someone personally, using everything and anything they can find, (or even things they make up!)
We see how they vilified George Bush over the last 8 years, then Senator McCain, then Sarah Palin, (who apparently has been chased off the political scene by the tactic!) Gone are the days of the Lincoln Douglas debates, where people will “agree to disagree”. Gone are the days of mutual respect and fair play.
The Progressives seek to seize power permanently and turn the country into their version of a Soviet State. It’s time for the “Defenders of the Republic” to “fight fire with fire” rather than whimper they are not being treated “fairly”!
“I don’t understand why I didn’t get a chance to respond!” lamented one conservative lawmaker who’d been lured to a “debate” where he was beset upon, ridiculed and reviled by a hostile crowd and didn’t even get a chance to open his mouth!
The latest target, however, has been citizens who have shown up at town halls to object to the Health Care plan. For the first time, the Alinsky tactic has not been successful, because thousands of people showing up at hundreds of town meetings are hard to target.
In many respects, the tables have been turned. Speaker of the House Pelosi accused protestors of “carrying swastikas”, which follows the Alinsky “polarize it” formula. The Obama joker pictures have triggered “racism”howls from the Administration, in spite of the same tactics used against Bush. Basically, the Progressives like to “Dish it out, but can’t take it!” The mass tactics of town halls and Tea Parties have been hard to vilify effectively.
The quicker the Conservatives lay aside their genteel notions of politics and go for the jugular in these political fights, the better the chances of survival. Of course there will be those who huff “we’re stooping to their level”! But that’s a little like the British Officers who railed against the Indians of North America in the 1750’s because they wouldn’t line up in rows on a battle field and “fight like men!”
Democrats socialistic? Of course they are
The greatest single weapon in the Democratic Party’s arsenal has been its ability to confuse the voters. Even though it has practically defined itself since the 1930s as the party of Big Government, with high taxes and spending, massive regulation and intervention, and continual encroachment on private property, its leaders and spokesmen have vehemently denied that their policies amount to socialism. But why? Is socialism such a bad thing? Maybe not if you advocate socialistic policies, but maybe so if calling something by its right name will antagonize the voters and lose their support. That’s been the predicament of the Democrats as they consistently seek to solve real or imaginary problems with government programs and income redistribution, rather than abiding by the Constitution’s protections for free trade and commerce.
There’s no point in trying to pin the socialistic tail on the Democratic donkey when the donkey disowns it. Better to define our terms and decide the question based on the relevant principles and salient facts, rather than accusations or denials.
The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines socialism as follows: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Governmental ownership of production and distribution of goods rather than private property, then, is the essence of socialism. This contrasts with the limited government and largely unfettered trade and commerce by individuals and corporations that have distinguished the United States of America.
How then do we understand the Obama Administration’s takeover of banks and other financial institutions, automobile companies and the current proposal to take over the health insurance industry? Plainly, these are all socialistic measures, not just because Republicans say so but because they are examples of what socialism is.
In Europe, where nationalized health care has long been in effect, along with nationalized heavy industry and mining, socialism is more "advanced" than in the United States. When President Obama says that he wants to "transform" America, following the European model is what he has in mind.
Socialists here and in Europe are not enemies of government by the people, or at least they have no intention of replacing it with any sort of dictatorship. During the many decades that they have promoted socialism, they have been at great pains to distinguish themselves from Marxists, who have advocated violent overthrow of so-called "bourgeois" (middle class) democracies and replacement by the "dictatorship of the proletariat."
The difference has turned on very different evaluations of modern democratic government. The Marxists believe that western democracies are a sham, allegedly dominated by the evil capitalists who manipulate the people by money and influence. These corporate chieftains will not, Marxists say, willingly give up their rule, so the only way to change things is through violent revolution.
Marxists have as much scorn for democratic socialists as they do capitalists for their supposedly naive belief that peaceful change is possible, if not their covert cooperation with the enemies of the people. But the democratic socialists believe that, through persuasion and effective politics, the majority can be brought around to socialism without violent revolution, and they now have several decades of success here and in other Western countries to prove it.
However, in spite of two great waves of socialism in America via the New Deal (NRA, AAA, social security) and the Great Society (war on poverty, medicare, racial quotas), and the wave now being stirred up by the Obama Administration, a majority of Americans still prefer limited government and free trade and commerce. If there is one overriding reason for this, I would maintain it is their firm belief that they retain the capacity to govern themselves.
That is why, according to recent public opinion polls, a.majority now views unfavorably the President they elected last fall. They have been shown by their harsh, bitter experience with the first few months of the new administration that the Democrats are not the political party of the little guy but of Big Government.
This emerging majority for a restoration of fundamental American principles of government may or may not be put off by Democratic denials of the party’s commitment to socialism, but they know that party stands for policies that threaten their health care, their contracts and their private property. Truly, socialism is the right name for those policies.