Build your mosque but do it elsewhere. Be sensitive to your community like you say you want to. Be empathetic. Have mercy.

Bear in mind, as I’ve said, I disagree with Obama about…well…EVERYTHING. His actions are, in my humble opinion, the WRONG way to deal with our problems, but the brutal assumption that his goal of national transformation is intentionally self destructive is, by definition, incompetence. After all, he lives here. He’s part of the country. He benefits by the Nation’s continued survival, but he clearly disagrees with those aspects that are intolerant of his “Progressive,” Communist and Socialist agenda!

Of course, as with all “Revolutionaries,” he seems to believe that “this time will be different,” and while his agenda is different than mine, or ours in a Conservative sense, it is somewhat arrogant and even irresponsible to assume that we know the President’s motivation. And, in regards to the judgment of what is the “Best” course of action, that is a generally a distinction based on perspective, and it’s easy to make judgments in hindsight or from the safety of our living room couches.

Like I said before: when we leap to the conclusion that someone isn’t a Patriot, we immediate take away any possible validity to that argument. If we, as Conservatives, are confident enough in those things that we hold as being “Self Evident,” shouldn’t we be confident enough to take on opposing arguments through an open and honest discourse? Isn’t there a greater value in winning an argument through the merit of your ideas instead of the arbitrary disqualification of your opponent?

When all the logical and empirical analyses of a particular decision point to one “best” choice and the opposite course of action is taken, then either the decision-maker is not working towards what is in the best interest of the country, or that person is incompetent.

Europe has given us many examples of the failures of socialism – Greece is the latest, however BHO and his band of merry liberals still want to follow this doomed path. It is either to destroy the country or because they are so incompetent they cannot see the writing on the wall.

When you “spread the wealth around” there is less incentive for those who create wealth and therefore there is less total wealth and fewer jobs – a downward spiral. (This is not an opinion, it is a fact,) If BHO (et al) knows this and still wants to do it, then he is not doing what is best for the country. If he does not know this then he is incompetent.

There are plenty of liberals that are patriots. But those who are trying to fundamentally change this country are not among them.

The point of this particular post isn’t to suggest that President Obama is anything less than the worst President in the HISTORY of this country, possibly only second to FDR, but that it is reactionary and wrong to assume that the purpose of his actions is steeped in a desire to destroy this country. As he was born to communist parents and raised by socialist grandparents, educated in a Progressive school system and introduced to religion through a church devoted to social justice theology, is there any doubt that, in his mind, these practices are a good thing? And if President Obama believes these things to be POSITIVE, instead of NEGATIVE influences, wouldn’t he believe that enacting these viewpoints into American Policy would be best for the Country? And if his pursuit of instituting these policies is what he believes would be best for this Country, wouldn’t that be Patriotic?

Like I said, I don’t agree with our President on almost anything that he’s said or done since he began his campain, let alone since he took office, and I disagree with the stated goals of redistribution of wealth & social justice legislation, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt on his intentions.

By the way, this particular post had very little to do with President Obama when it was written. It was actually inspired by a post on the Facebook Pages “I Hate It When I Wake Up in the Morning and Obama is President” and “Satire Works” accusing John McCain as being Unpatriotic.

Just something to take into consideration….

There are many political operatives, and even elected politicians, who appear to be more interested in pushing their personal agenda and/or exercising powers not provided for in the Constitution, than they are in doing what is best for this Country and displaying Patriotism.

By these measures, I would not label BHO a Patriot. He has always worked to advance his personal agenda and since becoming President, has worked to increase the power of the Executive Branch – an advancement towards tyranny.

One of his first power grabs was to attempt to place the census under the purview of the White House. This would have allowed BHO to control the results and thus the allocation of House seats, allocation of Federal funds and more. Fortunately he was stopped cold. There are many more examples.

I think we would all agree that improving the economy is the single most important issue facing the Country. BHO has ignored this issue and instead focused on his personal agenda of health care reform and cap and trade. The so-called stimulus bill that he championed was not a stimulus bill as much as it was a political payback bill. The money spent may prove to be the largest plank in a platform that is on path to bankrupt this country. A true Patriot would not take this chance with the country’s future.

I also have serious doubts about his Love of Country. Although BHO was born in the US, his formative years were spent in countries not favorable to the US. Do you think he ever learned about US Exceptionalism overseas?

I short, I disagree that BHO believes he is doing what is best for this Country (as a whole), but instead he is doing what is best for BHO and the factions to which he is committed. BHO is not a Patriot.
.

I disagree with the Tenure System for its fundamental socialistic tendency. Because it protects the bad teachers, it promotes mediocrity, and that’s bad for the students any way you cut it. But I do agree that the administration can manipulate the system just as much, if not moreso, than the teachers, and that needs to be addressed as well.

We also have to be careful when we think about our personal school experiences. When we were in elementary school, the Federal Department of Education had just been formed. States and local districts had much more control over the conduct and the content of education. Now, local districts have to conform to local standards, which have to conform with State Requirements, which have to adapt to Federal Demands, all while incorporating socially-biased forms of discipline and motivation. Good schools aren’t rewarded for their success: their students get bussed out to be replaced by students from the bad schools to make it “Fair” instead of working to make the “bad schools” better.

But, you’re right: teachers aren’t generally allowed to make their own decisions on HOW to educate, and that’s one reason why we have so many mediocre teachers, protected by Tenure. (Yes, I realize that this is circular logic, but it all tends to lead to itself in a never-ending sprial of inadequacy. Kind of like flushing a toilet….)

Today, we don’t have a two party system. We have a two party system in the Republicans between the Conservatives and the Moderate/Progressives, and a three party system in the Democrats between the “Blue Dog” Conservatives, the Liberals, and the Progressives. As Van Buren intended, we still get distracted by the fight between Republican and Democrat, and rarely see the larger picture: we don’t know what the candidate really stands for.

Take Scott Brown as an example. He was elected due to a groundswell of CONSERVATIVE support, but Brown is more a Moderate/Progressive than a Conservative Republican. Of course, we didn’t know that BEFORE he was elected, and we didn’t really have a better choice.

That said, you are correct that the creation of a third party has, historically, been disasterous for the Republicans, generally siphoning off support for their candidate, providing insufficient support for the third party, and invariably handing the election to the Democrat. (As an example, I give you Ross Perot.)

And, Lynn, I’d give you this question: “Is it a ‘Special Interest’ if you agree with their agenda?” If you have an interest in the Environmental Reformation of Energy Production, wouldn’t you be in favor of an Environmental Corporation providing funding to a candidate who espoused your interests? I despise George Soros and everything he stands for, but if he wants to spend his money to achieve his goals, I believe he should have the right. Rather than fighting to limit financing, maybe we should be investigating our candidates to determine what they really stand for.

And lastly, any idea you get from a Richard Pryor movie is usually a bad one, Steve. The “None of the Above” vote would result in NO government, NO representation, and eventual anarchy, and that would be worse than what we’ve got.

I’m not saying we don’t need a change. I’m just saying we need to be careful which direction we go towards.

Furthermore, we end up with the potential to have two strong candidates and a third mediocre candidate where the 3rd candidate takes the lead simply because the strong candidates split the majority of the vote (consider what would happen in Florida if Charlie Crist did, in fact, decide to run as an Independent – he would split a majority conservative vote with Marco Rubio and potentially give the Democrat the winning vote count).

That said, I could *totally* get behind a “Brewster’s Millions” style “none of the above” option on *every* ballot – a winning vote for “none of the above” would negate the right of any of the current candidates to run again.

There are guys out there like that (my congressman, Bill Young, seems to be one of them), but most of the politicians are looking out for someone other than you or me. I refuse to vote Republican or Democrat unless I have to. I’d rather throw away my vote on a third party candidate than support the schmuks that say they represent me now!

Also, if the administrators in the district didn’t like a good teacher, they could assign that teacher the lower-performing kids to prevent them from getting raises. This has happened already to a few teachers I know with bad administrators because there is a bonus based upon the FCAT.

I agree that tenure can protect bad teachers, but it can also protect good ones. We need to weed out the bad administrators because they perpetuate the problem by encouraging butt-kissing to get the “good” kids for bonuses. I also feel that this system is WAY too top-heavy.

My school system was an independent one (one elementary, one middle, and one high school) that was one of the best in the state of NY. This was because it was independently funded by the people of the town and independently run by our own school district. I believe that the biggest problem with Florida is that they don’t give enough freedom to the teachers and schools to make their own decisions on HOW to educate.

Rant complete.

But for anybody else that has anything quite as profound to say as “Gartnizle”, don’t waste your time unless you actually intend to take a stand for your position on the issues.

But, perhaps, and I’m just spitballing here, perhaps the real issue is that you object to my First Amendment Rights, which include my right to share my opinions, whatever they may be, so long as they are not slanderous or libelous, or calling for violence. (Of course, if I were a Democrat Member of Congress, I’d have to turn you in to the FBI for your hateful comments. Can’t we just tone down the rhetoric?)

My First Amendment Rights are the exact same ones that you have. You have the right to your opinions, and I’ll gladly defend to the death your right to have them and to share them. And, while you have that right to freely share them, neither you nor I have the right to inflict them on others. I have the right to post, and you have the right to read them, or not read them, at your discretion. You do not, however, have the RIGHT to be heard in a public forum. As such, you are welcome to submit your comments and share your arguments, and we welcome them, especially when we disagree with one another, but you will not be permitted to post anymore vile, defamatory or potentially violent comments on this site.

As for the other extreme, aren’t most of the things we purchase typically “overpriced junk?” Try selling that big screen TV for the same price you paid for it a week later. I can pretty much guarantee it won’t happen. Certainly, those who purchase products like wrapping paper, candy bars or, yes, even Girl Scout Cookies, pay more than the “Fair Market Value” of the product, and that is being “charitable,” but point is that it teaches that personal responsibility aspect that kids seem to be missing out on these days.

That’s just my point of view on it.

But I wonder where you draw the line? How do you feel about true *charities*? For instance, what about the fire fighters standing on street corners with their boots out for MDA? or the Salvation Army’s kettles?

How about the other extreme? The school fundraisers where they actually sell stuff, but it’s seriously overpriced junk?

The point is, what is a fair “minimum wage”? If $7.25 is not enough, then how about $10.00? Is $10.00 not enough? Maybe not, how about $20.00? Or $100.00 an hour,? No? Why not? Who decides what is a fair “minimum wage”?

The answer is the marketplace, not government. The market offers a job and you take it or reject it. If no one takes the job, either the pay will increase or the job will not be filled.

If a pay rate is mandated by the government, employers will be less likely to hire entry-level people. When the minimum wage is increased, these are the first to go. They do not get a pay raise, they lose their jobs.

Remember what Ronald Reagan said:

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

It might take 100 years, but eventually, you get to the point where the minimum and maximum wage are the same… You think they won’t wait a 100 years to achieve this goal? The left is *incredibly* patient when it comes to destroying this country so they can create their “vision”…

Remember the stated goal of the left: achieve equality for everybody! Everybody crosses the finish line together, regardless of ability! If that means that the performers have to be held down and the non-performers have to be lifted up, so be it!

I agree about him being somewhat unknown… But the important point is, he didn’t campaign as a liberal that’s actually a closet conservative… He campaigned with a very conservative platform and won with an indisputable margin…

As for the rest of Congress pushing through the bad legislation, there are two ways that I see it happening (without more bribery, that is):

• Stall seating him until they can vote
• The House could pass the same bill, verbatim, that the Senate has already passed

Cheers to the people of Massachussetts for finally saying “Enough is Enough.”