Making History

America has become obsessed and enticed with the idea of making decisions for the reason of “making history. Americans were dazzled with the idea of electing Barrack Obama was so that we could be the first generation to elect the first black president. It meant that we finally were no longer a “racist nation” and we got the bragging rights to be the first to do it. Many people told me the only reason that were voting for Barrack Obama was so they that could help “make history”; that was cool to them despite that they knew none of his policy platforms.

Now one of the major arguments for the Democrats’ Health Care Reform legislation is that again, if we have the courage to vote it in, we will indeed MAKE HISTORY! Now, yes, everyone agrees that we need some kind of healthcare reform. We need to find something affordable for everyone. The Democrats try to define the debate, as it is the Democrats for Health Care Reform vs. Republicans are not for Health Care Reform. That is simply not true. Everyone agrees that we need improvement; the debate is over how we go about it. My boss, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, R-MD, wants to find a solution to this problem that will make healthcare more affordable and keep the power in the peoples’ hands, NOT give the government a monopoly over our health care coverage.

My point is that I’m seeing a disturbing trend today in America, where people are making decisions based only on the excitement that by doing so, they will make history despite considering what the consequences of these actions will mean. Many people have made history: George Washington, Ben Franklin, Adolf Hitler, and Osama bin Laden. Making history does not necessarily mean making a good decision. We need to be much more careful what history we choose to make for our future and for our children.

2009 or 1984?

The White House has declared an ongoing war on Fox News, claiming they do not produce real news because they don’t suck up to them like the other news stations. If Fox News airs anything unflattering about Obama, it must be opinion news.

Have you ever read George Orwell’s 1984? It was the warning of a totalitarian government that slowly took over, without the people realizing. The job of the main character, Winston Smith, was to rewrite history so that no one could ever disprove what the government claimed history was. The Big Brother government controlled all news media so that their agenda was clear and there was no way for any opposition or telling of the truth.

Thank goodness we have real fair and balanced news:

Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, gives a great analogy to this situation:

How would the Obama White House deal with Thomas Paine?He challenged the notion that the English King had unquestionable authority over the lives of his subjects. He challenged the notion that Americans were subjects at all, and for that, he made himself Public Enemy Number One of George the Third.

Fox News is doing something similar with the Obama White House today. In stark contrast to the other major media, Fox News (to which I am a contributor) is raising serious questions about the Obama agenda of endlessly expanding government through its economic stimulus, energy and health care policies.The Obama White House's war on Fox News is petty and political at the least, and an abuse of the presidency at the worst. And it's only part of a wider campaign to discredit and destroy the Obama's White House's perceived enemies, be they American businessmen and women or independent journalists.

Already, we've seen this administration put a gag order on an insurance company for warning its customers about the effects of Democratic health care reform, set up an email account for Americans to inform on their fellow citizens' criticisms of its policies, and declared open war on the Chamber of Commerce for its failure to remain mute in the face of the Obama administration's anti-business policies.

To have government officials on the payroll of the taxpayers engaged in the petty politics of institutional destruction, retribution and censorship is scandalous and shameful. To have the president and his senior advisors directing this activity is behavior unbecoming of the presidency.

In fact, it is behavior more in keeping with a monarch than a president.

The president and his advisors no doubt believe they are engaged in a tough but clever political strategy. Time spent attacking Fox, after all, is time not spent answering the American people's concerns about the economy and the costs of health reform. But while these tactics may have served them well in Chicago, they are a fundamental misreading of American history.

The lesson of Washington and Paine is that you can't stop a free people from talking, questioning and seeking the truth. Together, these two men declared American independence from the tyranny of unquestioned authority. They helped found a nation of individuals endowed with rights by their Creator, not granted rights by their king.

But the current White House doesn't seem to get this. If Obama were confronted with Paine today, it's not hard to imagine him sending out Rahm Emmanuel to call Paine a heretic or a pawn of the military industrial complex.

It's also not hard to imagine him failing as utterly as King George did.

Peace Through Strength

President Obama, speaking for his first time at the United Nations World Summit, called for all the nations of the world to come together to fix the problems of our time: eco-preservation, global warming, the economy, and to work for a post-atomic age. He hopes that America can lead the world to peace without existence of nuclear weapons. Speaking specifically of North Korea and Iran, Obama said they “must be held accountable” for their disregard of UN policies and agreements in building nuclear weapons but includes that other nations cannot have weapons either.

Now, this sounds good, but there is a major problem with President Obama and others who hope for a post-atomic age. They are not understanding or considering normal human nature. If there are no consequences for bad actions or no authority with the power to stop someone from doing something, they will do it.

Do we wish there could just be world peace? Of course. But we have to realize that it will never happen. There are too many people with different beliefs and different values. Unfortunately, some nations’ ends are to rid the world of the infidels.

So what should America’s response be? Former Speaker, Newt Gingrich, once said that just because we don’t want to war doesn’t mean that others don’t want to war with us. We have to have the means and the willingness to fight.

Peace through strength. President Reagan faced a similar bully when he was in office, and the fear of the seemingly imminent Cold War had been feared for years before.

Notice, President Reagan was one of the most courageous Presidents who talked tough to Russia, yet he won the war without one bomb.

He understood that trying to appease an enemy will not help us; it is wimpy and un-American. So he stood up to the Soviets. He told them no. And he accomplished peace through strength.

America needs to stop asking terrorists to stop killing people, pretty please?

Too bad Joe Wilson isn’t in the audience for Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s speech.

For your comparing pleasure: