Archive for September, 2010
Wealth is creatable and unlimited
By Donald S. Conkey – The Bible begins by stating: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Later John would add to this declaration “All things were made (created) by him; …” Still later America’s initial document, the Declaration of Independence would be ‘created’ by Thomas Jefferson, implied that “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” would become the cornerstones of America’s freedoms and liberties.
In paragraph two Jefferson declared “that all Men are ‘created’ equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – …” Two words connect these declarative phrases: creativity and creator. Creativity, a noun, is defined as “the ability to create new ideas or things” and create, a verb, is defined as “the ability to bring something into existence. Both God and Jefferson used their ‘creativity;’ God to create the heaven and earth and Jefferson to create America’s unique Declaration of Independence.
Today’s divisive political debates revolve around Obama’s administration’s desire for the “redistribution of wealth” from America’s ‘haves’ to America’s ‘have nots.’ Obama’s political agenda has caused a serious class warfare to develop between America’s taxed and non-taxed and could lead to America’s self-destruction. The assumption of Obama’s administration, aside from gaining power and personal wealth, is that there is a limited amount of wealth in the world and that this limited wealth needs to be equally shared by the rick with the less fortunate and poor. This is a false assumption.
God for our Liberties!
By Donald S. Conkey - Following my talk before the Georgia Tea Party in Marietta last week a member asked me a question that I didn’t answer well. She asked me what is there for Tea Party members to do other than to stay in touch with their elected officials, and protest locally the ‘fundamental changes’ of Obama that could enslave America. My answer was lame and it caused me to ponder her question more deeply. I think I have a better answer today.
Having organized similar organizations I fully understood her question. Most organizations, like today’s Tea Party organizations organized to oppose President Obama’s efforts to “fundamentally change” America, often die once the perceived crisis passes and repetition and boredom sets in. It is difficult to keep a group of concerned citizens involved, unless they are members of Acorn who are organized and paid to protest by the government. But this is not the case with today’s Tea Partiers who are primarily family people who work hard to care for their family and businesses, and care deeply about their freedoms and country – and strongly believe in ‘their cause,’ and the future of their children and grandchildren.
Speaker Pelosi’s Future – Column No. 1035
By J. Randolph Evans - Two term Speaker Nancy Pelosi faces two possible futures following the General Election on November 2, 2010. Neither is a particularly pretty picture. If history is any indicator, Speaker Pelosi’s last day as the Speaker of the United States Congress will be January 2, 2011.
One possibility is that Democrats will lose a significant number of seats in the House, but not enough to lose control. Currently, Democrats hold a 253 to 178 margin in the House of Representatives. This means that if they lose 38 seats or fewer, then Democrats will retain control of the House and elect the next Speaker. Of course, Democrats do not have to reelect Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.
In 1998, Speaker Newt Gingrich was a two term Speaker who had led his party from minority status to majority control in the U. S. House. In 1994, Republicans had taken control of the House with huge gains during the first midterm election following the election of President Bill Clinton. Yet, in 1998, Republicans lost 5 seats in the House and Speaker Gingrich had become the centerpiece for Democratic attacks on every Republican Member of the House.
Can you believe?
By Donald S. Conkey – “Can you believe …” is the punch line for a popular TV commercial used to grab the attention of older women. But today I have borrowed this line to reflect on a Cherokee Tribune editorial and corresponding cartoon published a week ago today. The editorial was titled “Cuba – Socialism failing there, so why not raise rabbits.” The cartoon shows an older badly beat up car with a license plate with ‘Socialism’ written on it; and Fidel Castro telling Barrack Obama “I’ll be honest, it doesn’t work, it never has … Obama’s quick reply was “I’ll take it.” The car lot’s name was “Crazy Fidel’s Used Cars.”
“Can you believe” that a newspaper anywhere in America would ever run such an editorial and cartoon depicting the president of the United States of America leading his country down the road to socialism, with “Socialism” defined on local bumper stickers as “Poverty equally divided.” Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined such an editorial, or cartoon, would be ever published in America. But it was and it depicts clearly what is happening here in America today. Not only is this scenario scary but it is frightening. No wonder “We the people” are rising up to turn out of office those elitist who hold deep distain for the average working American and for the American family.
Obama Versus The Tea Party – Column No. 1029
By J. Randolph Evans - The dynamics of the 2010 General Election has everyone guessing about exactly what will happen on November 2, 2010. No one seriously doubts that Republicans will make some gains during the first midterm elections following the election of President Barack Obama. In part, history plays some role here.
Typically, the party out of power in the White House picks up seats in Congress in midterm elections. For example, between 1942 and 1994, the party in power in the White House lost seats in the House of Representatives in every midterm election with some losses in some elections reaching 50 or more seats.
In part, this historical pattern stems from the de facto “nationalization” of Congressional elections. “Nationalization” means that the election is a referendum on something common to all of the country (like the President or war or taxes) rather than being about individuals, personalities, or local issues.
