Two letters in the
Sunday November 4, 2007 edition of Voices, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette,
both echoed the same theme that the Iraq war is taking funds away that
could be used to provide insurance for the children. The first letter by
a Little Rock writer wrote [Bush’s war was] “maiming tens of thousands
of American servicemen and women in a Muslim civil war …” has two
problems of fact. One, tens of thousands haven’t been killed and two, it
isn’t a civil war, both of which is provable fact. The writer must have
gotten his information from Gene Lyons or Media Matters or both. Neither
time nor space allows for the presentation of the facts, and
additionally I refuse to do the research for the liberals. Facts tend to
confuse them so the research would really bend their minds. On second
thought, it might bend their minds in a recognizable thought patterns.
|
While I do agree
with the writer from Searcy about not using the money to fight drugs in
Mexico and using instead to strengthen the borders, the facts remains
that government sponsored insurance is unconstitutional since it will
involve government delving into matters that are none of its business,
not to mention it will involve taking from one set of taxpayers to
provide benefits that are the responsibility of the parents.
|
On the other hand,
providing for the war is constitutional; the Democrats voted for it in
spite of twisting and squirming that they were mislead; the President
vetoed the insurance bill which was correct, but his refusal to close
the borders and spend money in Mexico is a violation of his duties under
the Constitution. That is where the wrong lies. So the Searcy writer,
mathematically speaking, is batting 50-50.
|
In passing,
another writer wrote (a bit different than the two of primary interest):
“… the real reason we pursue this war in Iraq is to control the oil
resources there.” If that is true, then why aren’t we controlling the
oil and bringing down our prices? Oh, I know, the prices are being held
high so Halliburton and the Bush family can reap obscene profits. Right!
|
Questions are now
in order. Does the writer complaining about oil drive a horse or mule? I
doubt it. If we don’t stop the thugs who want to destroy us, what good
will insurance for children provide when the thugs destroy the nation
and the insurance along with everything else?
|
Next, Meredith
Oakley (November 4, 2007) had her alphabet in a twist over Bush’s
comment about the Democrats having the mentality that ignored the threat
to this nation as was done with Lenin/Hitler. Oakley wrote: “Wanna know
what I find troubling? The refusal of most members of Congress to stand
up to this administration. Last time I looked, there were still three
co-equal branches of government.” Comment on this inanity to follow.
|
Then she wrote:
“For once, count me in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s amen corner. She quickly
took issue with that Lenin/Hitler comment.” Then she quoted the smartest
woman in the world, who here of late looks more like the dumbest woman
in the world. Quote: “George Bush’s faulty and offensive historical
analogies aren’t going to end the war in Iraq, make America safer or
bring our troops home,” she said in a prepared statement. “Americans are
tired of the president’s efforts to play politics with national
security. . . .” Who is playing politics with national security? It sure
isn’t the man who is too dumb to be president saith the Democrats.
|
Hey smartest woman
… hoo boy, a moment of insanity there, the President’s analogy was spot
on because the politicians did ignore Lenin and Hitler, not to mention
Stalin and Mussolini, and history tells us the disaster that followed.
It is known as WWII.
|
Now I’ll address
the promised comment on Oakley’s inanity. Remember she wrote: “Wanna
know what I find troubling?” Here’s what I find troubling. It’s that she
thinks that the three constitutional branches are co-equal which means
equal with each other. They aren’t and yet that is the common
misconception held by those who speak as if they know something,
especially liberals. Not one of the three branches can do what any one
of the other two can do. The executive can’t pass legislation; Congress
can’t do the duties of the executive (though they often try); and the
court can’t do anything until a case comes before it, and certainly it
has no power to dictate to the other two branches unless constitutional
matters are at issue that involve the two others. Oakley’s co-equal
statement is so much liberal baloney. As Jack Web said, “Just the facts
ma’am, just the facts”
|
The two letters
plus one, and Oakley, add up to one common word: Hokum.
|
© 11-04-2007 DEC
|