Barack Obama has made it a point to continually talk about the "mess" he inherited from the Bush administration. In August, he said "But I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking."

Indeed, Barack Obama inherited an economy in freefall. There are wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while terrorist groups remain a constant threat. North Korea and Iran are testing long range missiles in conjunction with the development of nuclear weapons. It's worth noting that the precarious state of the country is what got him elected in the first place. If everything was going along swimmingly, the country wouldn't have changed direction.

Liberals need a catastrophe to get elected. They use the misfortune of others, a bad economy, a war, racial tension, hurricanes, the Rachel Maddow show - anything and everything to convince others that they and only they, can come in on their white horses with shining armor to come to the rescue and save the day. Their very existence as a political force is predicated not on solving real problems but on having problems to justify the need for their policies.

It's a vicious circle. Without having to have to worry about consequences, liberals can promote the most radical policies the way that a gambler can go down double or nothing, without ever having to worry about losing. They are never held to account for their policies. No matter what the facts say, it's always someone else's fault. Hence they have a 'Heads I Win - Tales you lose' policy. If the radical policy produces results, they are heroes; if not, then there is justification for more of their policies.

Think this sounds crazy? In 1977, the Carter administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act. The goal was noble, as most liberal goals seem, but devoid of logic, as most liberal plans are. The idea was to create a situation where low income people would be able to buy homes. Banks had to prove that a certain percentage of loans went to these low income people and it forced them to make loans to people who didn't qualify. In the 1990's, in order to guarantee those loans, Freddie Mac and Fannie May promised to buy 2 trillion dollars worth of those mortgages. This took financial pressure off banks and they were able to make more of these risky loans and show what good 'corporate citizens' they were. The downfall was inevitable.

Once all this was set in place, there was speculation and trading on these loans to try to profit from it but none of that would have happened if the irresponsible policies weren't put into effect in 1977 and then increased in the 1990's. Before the inevitable collapse, President Bush tried to point out that there would be problems if the current policies continued. It was liberals such as Barney Frank who assured everyone that Fannie and Freddy were solvent. Bush didn't push the point as hard as he should have, but at least he recognized the problem while liberal democrats said there was no problem.

So Barack Obama is elected into office based on an economic downturn that was created by exactly the kind of policies that he wants to implement to solve the problem. Incidentally, Social Security is another problem that George Bush tried to deal with. They criticized him for bringing up Social Security the same way they criticized him for trying to deal with the mortgage crisis. When Social Security blows up, liberals will no doubt use the same policies that blew it up to try to fix it. At the same time, they will blame republican and conservative greed for causing it to fail even though conservatives were the only ones who tried to head off the problems before they became critical.

President Obama talks about those who 'created the mess'. How many messes has the left created and how many of those messes have they had to answer for? When you don't have to answer to your failures, when you are, in fact, rewarded for your failures, it doesn't provide any incentive to stop failing. Liberals either don't understand or don't care that there are consequences to their actions that go beyond the immediate situation at hand.

One mess created by liberals is the banning of the chemical DDT. Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" created hysteria around chemical pesticides. The manufacturers of DDT, farmers, scientists, and others tried to assure people that DDT was not harmful and had tremendous benefits. The anti DDT campaign took on a life of its own and when a liberal cause takes on that kind of momentum, there is no stopping it (See Global Warming). So DDT was banned. Since 1972, over 100 million people have died from malaria. This is a disease that was on the verge of being eradicated in the early 1960s. Millions of people died needlessly. This is a catastrophic event of monumental proportions that few people address and fewer take responsibility for. It's not an exaggeration - 100 MILLION people have lost their lives yet no one is asked to answer for this! Is it because their heart was in the right place? Their intentions were good? People continue to suffer, mostly in Africa, to this very day and some are talking about re-introducing DDT - a bit late for all those who died because of well-intentioned people. For more information on Rachel Carson and the DDT ban, a good article is "Rachel Carson's Ecological Genocide" by Lisa Makson in FrontPageMagazine.com.

Another fine mess that liberals have never had to answer for was when they pressured congress to withdraw all funding from the war in Vietnam. When the US withdrew, it did so under a treaty that it would go back in if the situation got out of hand. There was so much pressure by the left to get out of Vietnam, that they constantly blamed the US and absolved the North Vietnamese or the Khmer Rouge of any wrong doing. When it became obvious that mass extermination was taking place in Cambodia, the left continued to blame the US and make excuses for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. They placed all the blame on Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger as if, even if that were true, it would absolve them of the responsibility of living up to a treaty and saving the millions of people who were being slaughtered.

The propaganda that took place then was similar to the propaganda now and there was no FOX news, talk radio, or the internet to present the other side. Movies such as "The Killing Fields" made it seem as if everything the Cambodians did was the result of the actions of the US. Just as now with Islamic terrorism, it could never be that there were purely evil people who had to be fought and stopped. Nevertheless, regardless of the cause of the Cambodian genocide, we had an obligation to stop it, not to excuse the actions of mass murderers. Two million people died in Cambodia. Not only did the left not want to stop this genocide, they actually praised the people committing the genocide! For a more complete telling of the true story of the Khmer Rouge, see the chapter called "The Bloodbath" in Mona Charen's book "Useful Idiots".

Whether it's as severe as mass extermination or a banking crisis, schools that can't educate, a war on poverty that creates more poverty, inner city programs that create crumbling cities, rent control ideas that create a lack of housing, ideas to stop crime by understanding criminal behavior, rather than punishing it - thereby causing more crime, welfare ideas that cause dependency instead of personal growth, the messes created by liberal ideas are endless. They are never held accountable for these failures. It's either because they didn't do enough of whatever their miserable idea was, or they didn't have enough money to do it correctly. It never dawns on them that maybe the ideas, themselves, are flawed.

So, we are now being forced to buy this bill of goods that has failed so miserably in the past. Apparently, we have no choice but to accept it. We're supposed to just "get out of the way and stop talking", but we have to leave our money behind of course -- they'll need that. Obama is like a vacuum cleaner salesman who is going to pour some dirt all over the floor to prove how great the vacuum cleaner will work. It won't work and we shouldn't have to pay $10,000,000,000,000 for a broken vacuum cleaner that will leave a mess on the floor.

By: Howard Jacobs
MBA Marketing Pace University
I currently work for a large financial institution.
I started the blog EndTheChange because I am outraged at the direction our country is going in. People who feel this way want to know "What can I do?" This blog is my little way of trying to set the record straight on the upside-down state of our country.
http://endthechange.blogspot.com

The new test of liberal political ideology seems to be, not whether you favor Obama's health care plan, but how long it takes you to realize what a disaster it is.

The American people were, as usual, first out of the gate to demonstrate their common-sense conservatism. Although a slim majority voted for Obama in November, a growing preponderance has been telling pollsters they disapprove of the President and his handling of health care. On Sunday, Rasmussen reported that Obama had reached a new low in their Presidential Approval Index, with health care one of his lowest-rated issues.

Like a teacher indulging a failing student's pleas to find a way to give him extra points on his test, the Congressional Budget Office has spent all summer admonishing Obama for presenting legislation that will be more expensive than advertised, produce no savings, and yield expanding and unsustainable deficits for the next 10 years. "Now, Barry, I've already given you all the credit I can-next time you'll just have to try harder."

The Mayo Clinic, which Obama cites as a model for cost-cutting measures, called the Medicare payment model proposed by Congress a "catastrophe."

Seven state medical associations banded together with private medical societies and two previous AMA presidents in a letter to the President opposing the legislation. The American Hospital Association is imploring hospital directors to counter Congress's bill, as are specialty associations such as the American College of Physicians.

John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal cataloging the myriad flaws in Democrats' proposal.

After Obama insulted the Postal Service in his quest for a bill, the National Association of Postal Supervisors wrote Obama a letter expressing "our collective disappointment that you chose to use the Postal Service as a scapegoat ... It was a kick to the chest to have you take a shot at a group of federal employees who are working hard every day to support this country."

Pseudo-moderate network CNN recently chronicled "Five Freedoms You'd Lose in Health Care Reform," including the freedom to negotiate details of your plan, cut costs by living healthier, choose a high-deductible plan, keep your current plan, and select your doctors.

The Associated Press fact-checked Obama's claims and called him out for continuing to tell the same lies: e.g., if you like your health insurance, you can keep it-the implication being that you can keep it for as long as your employer and insurance company would otherwise have offered it without government health care, which is outlawed in Congress's plan.

The Washington Post, no friend to conservatives, has been barraging readers with columns opposing ObamaCare. Columnist David Hilzenrath affirmed that the administration would not be able to ensure that employees can keep the plans they have now. Martin Feldstein explained that the 85% of Americans who now have insurance would pay higher taxes and receive fewer services. Maya MacGuineas ridiculed the administration's pledge that it can add an expensive new health care plan covering millions more Americans that will cost no extra and actually alleviate the budget deficit.

The Post's editorial board also reminded the administration of the CBO's harsh projections and warned him not to treat these lightly. In a separate editorial, they scorned Democrats' stubborn, mindless fixation on a public option.

Obama's own Hyde Park doctor suggests that Congress's legislation is worthless and adds of his patient, "I'm not sure he really understands what we face in primary care."

In the workers' paradise to our north, the current and incoming presidents of the Canadian Medical Association recently bemoaned the failures of Canada's universal health care system, calling it "sick," "precarious," and "imploding," and urged Canadian doctors to support free market reforms to the system.

The artist of the Obama "Joker" poster, Palestinian socialist and Dennis Kucinich supporter Firas Alkhateeb, admitted, "[Y]ou had all of these people who basically saw him as the second coming of Christ. From my perspective, there wasn't much substance to him."

Air America host Christiane Brown decried Obama's reversal of his promise not to bar negotiation for lower drug prices, then purred, "He's such a charming liar, though. He's such a nice guy when he lies like that."

On Sunday, Senator Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats, said he's changed his mind on proposed legislation and urges postponing it until the economy recovers.

Now The New York Times has gotten on the bandwagon; you might say they finally have some "skin in the game." Times reporter David Pear reported a few days ago that there is, after all, a legitimate basis for elderly Americans' fear that legislation will lead to rationing of health care.

Paul Krugman criticized the President's priorities, belittled his dwindling ability to inspire confidence, and lamented that "his speeches and op-eds still read as if they were written by a committee."

Bob Herbert scolded Obama for not explaining why a gargantuan new government program is in our country's interest in the middle of a recession: "Many sane and intelligent people who voted for Mr. Obama... have legitimate concerns about the timing of this health reform initiative... [He] has not been at all clear about how the reform that is coming will rein in runaway costs... [P]eople are starting to lose faith in the president."

I'm glad the Times is finally starting to see the light on Obama's executive inexperience and his disastrous agenda. Maybe now millions of Middle Americans who hang on Krugman and Herbert's every word will develop more confidence in expressing their opposition at all those town hall meetings I keep hearing about.

By: Scott Spiegel
http://www.scottspiegel.com

Senator John Kerry is the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the US Senate and yet, that is far too much power for a gentleman who often sides with France and Germany and the folks in Belgium who would like to rule the world over what is best for the American people and in the best interests of the United States of America. Both France and Germany were selling weapons to Saddam Hussein all the way up to the second Iraqi war.

Senator John Kerry knew this because he also received the intelligence briefings in the U.S. Senate from the CIA, and yet, regardless of this he took the side of France and Germany and those who opposed the Iraqi war as he ran against President George Bush for his second term. Now some would say that having a Senator with strong ties to European Governments and the EU itself is good for foreign relations, but if he is on their side, and not on our side then is what he is doing good for America?

Some say the US foreign-policy, and much of our diplomacy efforts is a giant tactic at the State Department of "good guy/bad guy" and whereas, that might appear to be true, in the case of John Kerry much of his actions and activities during the Iraq war undermined the United States military and our efforts in Iraq. Lives were lost, and US soldiers died because of many of the policies that the Democrats tried to pull politically to stop the war, which was in progress.

This wasn't the first time John Kerry had tried to undermine the US military in time of war, as you'll recall he worked very hard to discredit the United States of America and our efforts in Vietnam. I question the personal integrity of Senator John Kerry, and believe he should not be allowed to be the Foreign Relations Committee Chairman. I do not believe this is good for America and although this is just my personal opinion, I am judging the man's character by his actions, not by his words. I ask that you do the same.

By: Lance Winslow
Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes the US should be insulated from foreign threats, thus, we all need better Insulation

Who can forget the classic movie; when Ingrid Bergman plays the role of a woman who is married to an unscrupulous man, who attempts to drive her insane so he can have her committed to an insane asylum, so he can have access to the fortune which has been secreted in her own attic! This scenario has been played-out off the screen many times as well. Even today, we have seen these tactics used by our own politicians against us; they hope by discrediting the American people by their radical and personal slurs, they can cow the people into letting them do as they please, so they can remain in power, and to enable them to change the fundamental fabric of our nation. No longer are we a nation governed by the people; we are now rudely asked to be silent; while they do with our country what ever they desire. Those that speak out against them are called mobs, stupid, miss-informed, and only working as pawns, controlled by some greater entity, with no mind of our own. They have the country (our country), headed toward financial ruin; those that control the money, have always controlled a certain percentage of the voting populace, but now the control does not simply come from our own shores; it is worldwide, quite frankly the big money no longer comes from those who wish us well; it comes from those who do not!

For years we were told that the Republicans were for big business, and that the Democrats were for the poor people, and the middle classes, this is a fallacy: since the day that the first politician was paid for their labor, we have been moving into the false system whereby gain equals reward: Their gain, and their reward...the common people are only given enough to keep them relatively happy, but never enough to be secure; their labors must be rewarded in someway, or else they will not work! This has always worked out for the most part, because in the past their was always enough wealth to keep everyone fairly content in their perspective socioeconomic level, but now wealth is dwindling; after all, wealth is never found within the vaults of our banks; you can't eat money! There are simply too many people upon the globe for the available natural resources; we are simply running out of stuff...

Even the people who champion financial and governmental reform; do not truly understand the philosophy of those that are really the driving forces behind these proposed changes. We have become a consuming nation; we really don't produce anything anymore: we buy foreign goods, and most of our economy is based upon the extrapolation of wealth from our own people. Who, most of which merely consume food, shelter, and other commodities, which others have worked to produce. This is important: we no longer produce, we consume. The only way the truly powerful and wealthy; can continue to remain in power and wealth...is to begin forced distribution of the dwindling natural resources; food, shelter, energy, and other commodities. This will need to be done under a different form of government; than we have had in the past. They need to totally take our freedom first: freedom of speech; freedom of choice, and our other liberties must go! Are all of the people who want change bad? No, when the environmentalist petitions or protest for a clean environment; they do not understand why certain political, and financial power houses wish to assist them. When people strive to increase access to affordable health care for the poor; they don't wonder, or care; why they are being supported by the entities which fund and encourage them. People believe: that if their own motives are sincere, and their cause seems righteous: all others who are supportive of their ideas are sincere as well.

The government has looked with envy upon the money; that is deducted from your paycheck for health coverage each week. They have long recognized that this is an enormous source of potential revenue. It does not take a genius to figure out; that if the government takes the money, and at the same time, is the governing authority that regulates when benefits are paid; we have another major source of income for these people to grant Largesse (large gifts) to the poor, and [big] business; to keep them in power. Will look at the plan next!

What is Largesse? It is when; those in power begin the practice of granting (voting) large gifts from the public treasuries; our elected officials are [now] doing this; on a scale that has heretofore never been seen, They are attempting to remain in power, by our means (using our money), and not upon their own merits. We must understand: both political parties have some decent members; not all of them have ulterior motives, but many do; however, many do not realize; that they are being manipulated by corrupt thought. Notice! I said corrupt thought, and not necessarily corrupt people; although they do exist. What has happened is that our collective mind, our very cognitive process (way of thinking) has been changed. We have been totally desensitized: if we expect corruption from our politicians; why are we surprised to find them to be so?

I realize ours is not the perfect form of government, but to many around the world it has been the most perfect. We have been told like children we are a corrupt people; television teaches us that we glorify those individuals with no morals. People, who find worldly wealth and honors by unscrupulous means, only prove that we have lost our moral compass. People get the leadership they deserve; we have regressed into largesse...greed rules the day...greed of money, and power, dictate peoples opinions. You can tell when a paid political pundit speaks their party's lines, 'they don't even believe their own words!'

All who attempt to manipulate your mind, and change your opinion, don't do so maliciously; many manipulators have themselves been manipulated. Remember, corrupt thought degenerates people, and changes their views; corrupt people do as well, but not as surreptitiously as our own minds. The President of the United States may truly believe in his proposals, but...none are so blind, as those that will not, or can not see! We are all products of our own environment; we cannot escape the moral, social, and environmental, teachings of our youth. We cannot always accept what we hear as being the truth...we must ask questions. There are many reasons why it is more difficult to be manipulated today: We have access to instantaneous information through the internet, and twenty-four hour news coverage via the cable networks; where in the past we had one hour of news each night, and the print media alone to give us our information. We have always been told what the rich and powerful want us to hear, but now...if we're smart; we can find the truth by making our own inquiries; up until now...we have not taken the time, but now we must be diligent, and seek the truth. One of the most often used methods of mind manipulation is called imprinting; this is done by continuously repeating the desired behavior, thought, or idea, over and over...until it has been accepted as the truth. A lie, often enough repeated, soon becomes more acceptable, and before you know it; is accepted as the truth. Haven't you ever told someone something, and then had it retold to you by the same person, who totally forgot where they heard the though or idea in the first place; this is a form of imprinting!

The truth of the matter is: The manipulators have themselves been manipulated. Regardless of your political affiliation; we have lost the ability to see the things; that years ago, were so clearly incorrect; God must be allowed back into the political process; we were blesses once as a nation; we were founded upon the bedrock principles of faith; we have been manipulated into believing that there is some provision in the Constitution; which disallows the mention of God, or that somehow, we aren't supposed to pray in a public place, or at an event controlled by any federal, state, or local government: This provision... "The Separation Clause," is not in the Constitution; you know the one you hear so much about: it says, "That the Government cannot establish any religion, or show partiality, to one religion over another, and that individuals are guaranteed the right to practice what ever religion they may choose." paraphrasing of course. This clause has been corrupted to promote certain liberal ideas to mean: God may have nothing to do with [state] affairs; this is a fallacy, Congress, and the Senate's sessions are mandated to be opened by prayer; our founding fathers quoted the scriptures, and mentioned the "Creator" in our founding documents. This clause: The First Amendment was placed into the Constitution to preclude the involvement of the Church; in the affairs of "state," as they had been previously in Europe; where the Church was empowered to arrest you for heresy, tax, dictate the official religion, and act in many ways, as a form of government within themselves. This was the purpose of the "First Amendment," not what you have been told! Think for yourself; don't be manipulated...Send it on; copy the link; email a friend; get the word out...Be free!

By: William Sirman
[url=http://william-sirman.blogspot.com/]http://william-sirman.blogspot.com/[/url]
William J. Sirman Th.M. A former Virginia Magistrate. Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice. Master's Degree in Theology. Doctorates in Theology and Pastoral Counseling completed from Andersonville Theological Seminary,(waiting Graduation). Hampton Roads Regional Academy of Criminal Justice Graduate. Former Chaplain United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. Continuing Studies through Andersonville Theological Seminary and Trinity Graduate School of Apologetics and Theology. Christian Counsulting Services available upon request. Sermon writing help, and general church assistance in a multitude of areas and doctrines.