The beginning of a new era for America has been, to say the least, interesting. According to a gallop poll our new president has a 68% approval rating. Let us look at some of the major policies he is working on and analyze them.

The first big change was a notable one. Obama froze the pay of his staff. Making a cut for the economy and a brilliant gesture that helped get many in the nation on his side. Also putting some restraints of the lobbyists. Not only reducing their influence on politics, but also giving himself more power over congress and other agencies. But although both of these policies are of some repute I think that there might have been some additional changes that would have further bettered his approval rating and would have been good for the nation.

First, he could have cut his staff. He frankly doesn’t need a thousand plus staff. This is something that Bush should have done as well. Abraham Lincoln went through the civil war with a small staff of two. Even FDR had a staff of only a couple hundred during WW2. There is no need to have that many people in the executive branch. Although a wonderful gesture, freezing funds will do little to help the smothered economy. But cutting the bloated staff would have been a great way to streamline the Cabinet.

The second big change was not nearly so pleasant. Obama announced to the world and many pleasantly surprised terrorist groups, that he is closing Guantanimo Bay for “national security reasons”. What he forgot to mention is where we will put them. Coincidently, this story was highlighted by the fact that the last guy we released from the Detention center went and promptly blew 16 people sky high. Apparently not getting the message of the Saudi “Jihad rehabilitation center” that he attended.

Sooooo… Where do we send them? To another country? How about France? Imagine the headlines. “Mob attacks French prison. Terrorists mysteriously missing.” It would be Bastille all over again. Or maybe to the Saudi’s rehab for terrorists? Or to Yemen, where terrorists “inexplicably” disaster from prisons. 

How about the US? Well, there are several reasons why bringing them here would be a national security disaster. First, if they break out, were in deep trouble. (To say the least)  Second they get the same rights as an American citizen. So if they get a good lawyer, a couple of them could go scott free. Even though they are unlawful combatants. And where would we let them go? Here? I would not sleep a wink for months. The last reason I don’t think sending them to your local county prison is that we don’t need to be setting up terrorist “cells” in the US. These prisoners could get the opportunity to converse with each other, or worse US prisoners who will do anything for money. We could inadvertently have people who we would never expect being converted to jihad and helping with terror activities

I would like a better explanation from Obama what his national security reasons are. If they have to come here though I think we should send them all to San Francisco and Manhattan. If they have to be in the US, let the Obama lovers have them.

The next thing was the economic stimulus. Here’s a Lesson in economics. You don’t go into more bad debt to boot up an economy. That is basically what this stimulus does. Also interesting is the pork that is in the bill. For instance the Billions in the original bill that went to contraceptive devices. How does that help the economy? It is really simple really. Just cut taxes. That is the best economic stimulus. Ultimately it is the government’s duty to serve the people, and to protect the people from itself. And they can’t do one without doing the other.

Finally the most disturbing change was on the life issue. In an effort to make the world a better place, Obama reinstituted the “Mexico city policy.”  The funds aid organizations that do abortions in other countries. In addition to being yet another abomination of human rights, it takes my money and uses it to allow human traffickers an easy way to hide their dirty work, and continue to oppress woman.

On the same topic he also cleared the way for the useless, wrong practice of stem cell research. Many scientists have already found that adult stem cells are effective when embryonic ones are not. It makes not sense to do the unnecessary when we are talking about creatures that are just like what we once were. Many who would have grown up to live healthy fruitful lives if they were allowed to live. Liberals hate doing testing on animals. So why people?

In conclusion, Obama has made some good choices, and some not so good ones. On one hand he is not ending the war on terror. But on the other he is making it harder. He is decreasing government corruption. However he ignores much good advice too. I will admit I am not one of the 68% that approve of Obama first week as our leader. But I pray to God that our leader will represent a true worldview as much as possible in the years to come.   

I am happy to announce that I have gotten a post on the verivex politics site. I will be writing for them as well as continuing my blog. I will keep you posted.

http://politics.verivex.com/

Jonathan

We have been bombarded by ads that tell us it is our moral duty to go green. To protect the planet from ourselves and from, gasp, carbon. Even in the light of a recent cold snap over the last two years, environmental extremists continue with almost religious fervor. They tell us that “climate change,” as they call cold weather is a symptom of global warming. Seeing we as humans produce only three percent of carbon emissions, short of destroying every living animal on the planet, there is not much we can do to affect the climate. However we are told to buy the most expensive cars to protect Mother Nature. (My spell check just reminded me to capitalize Nature) Even though they cost more than they are worth, people feel good about buying these cars. Even when they were the size of sardine cans. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not anti-environment. I think the environment is something worth preserving. But not to the point of shooting ourselves in the foot. For instance the “Metro.” The brain-dead idea from Los Angeles. “Why use cars,” they said. “You can just use mass transit to get to work”. One problem, people didn’t want to ride the metro. For some reason people didn’t like the idea of spending extra time to have the Metro drop them off in the middle of LA and then walking for another 20 minutes to work. Voter at least had the sense to vote down a measure this last year that would have made a mass transit system from LA to Sacramento.

My point is, environmentalism is becoming a religion. Any scientist who is not convinced the end is here for the world’s polar bears is reviled in the same category as a holocaust denier. I am willing to go green as long as it can save me money and keep my family from losing our business. For instance when Arrowhead water announced it’s bottles will now implode at the slightest touch because they have gone green and saved plastic. (And coincidently saved 33% on plastic costs.) People have replaced God with Nature. (with an uppercase N) And are willing to inconvenience themselves to feel better about it. That is the inconvenient truth. As for me, I will go green when it actually helps the world.        

The thing that stands in my mind when I think of Barack Obama is change. His message was exceptionally clear. “I will fundamentally change America”. Sounds rather appealing actually. Because we all know that America has problems and struggles. We need to have change. That is one of the main reasons Obama won. But I would like to challenge the left’s and Obama’s idea that we need to fundamentally change America. America’s fundamentals are the constitution and declaration of independence. And that God created all people equal. Why do we need to change that? Maybe it isn’t America’s fundamentals that are in need of change.

Also, what are we changing? Obama was not specific. He mentioned no fundamental changes. And his cabinet choices are not reflection any change I can think of. So is change for the sake of change what we really need?

I would argue that we don’t need politicians who want change without a direction. We need reform. Most of our problems rise from the fact that we have strayed from our fundamental principals. Not that fact we have some new change that is needed. The founding fathers were actually a lot smarter than we give them credit. And much of America’s troubles could have been avoided if we followed their advice. I think America needs a revival and reform. Not random change

I would take a quick moment to recommend a new blog written by my dad. He is a inspiration and a great analyzer of many issues. The link is http://rightblack.blogtownhall.com/. Hope you enjoy it.