You can’t make this stuff up, folks.

I agree that it is just a fact that we have a new president and need to deal with it. It just is easier said than done. I’ve spent most of the day thinking this over, and yes, I do respect the office of President, so yes, I will, to the best of my ability, try to respect the man who holds the office. He is, after all, my president now. He deserves my support (particularly when our country is dealing with any enemies that might want to bring us harm) and my prayers, and this is what he will receive.

But when I disagree with the man, which is sure to be often, I will be loud, and I will be vocal. There is nothing fair about people receiving aid from forced taxation on a particular segment of the population, regardless of how much money they make. In this country, we are promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “pursuit” of happiness. Not guaranteed happiness. We are free to pursue, to chase after, success and well-being and financial peace, but none of that is promised to us. Maybe many people believe it should be, and that is why we are seeing a trend towards socialism and Marxism, but I still believe in a free, capitalistic, democratic republic. That is how our country was founded, and that, I believe, is how our country should remain. Karl Marx said, “Democracy is the road to socialism,” and it makes perfect sense to me that it will go that way, but I will disagree with it until the day I die. And I hope that people will continue to fight against it. Obama’s tax cuts may benefit me and others like me, but I am not poor, and I certainly do not deserve any money from others just because they make more than I do. You don’t either, and neither does anyone else who will be on the receiving end of the redistribution of wealth that is sure to come. I am never going to feel differently about this.

I also will never feel differently about the fact that abortion is murder and that by passing the Freedom of Choice Act (if Obama keeps his promise to Planned Parenthood), Obama will undo one of the very best things President Bush did during his time in office (with the partial-birth abortion ban). It saddens me beyond belief to think that we are just one or two Supreme Court justices away from being able to do something about Roe v. Wade and will maybe have that chance taken away if any conservative justices die or retire during Obama’s term, but it saddens me to a much greater extent to know that we live in a country that will not, as a whole, come together to protect the most helpless and most vulnerable beings among us. Maybe that is because many (or most?) people do not view the unborn as living human beings, but as it is my belief that life begins at conception, I hope you can understand my point of view on this. Each year, many more Americans are killed through abortion than through starvation due to not being able to afford food. People may be in hard times, and I do believe we should help them (Jesus commanded this), but I believe preserving life, as that was one of the things promised to us in the beginning of this country (as it is a gift from our Creator), should take precedence over any other issue or effort.

I hope, to some extent we can again become purple states. I really do. But it is a little hard to hear that right now from someone who wanted Obama to win so badly … particularly since pretty much everyone who wanted Obama to win so badly could not bring themselves to help us be purple states prior to this. The “come together” message, if meant, should have been something people were urging because they feel it is the right thing to do, regardless of who is in office … not because their party has finally taken control of the country.

If unity is to occur, I think, at this point, the initiative is going to have to come from the conservatives of this country. Any calls for unity from those who have done nothing but deride and lambaste our President for the last eight years is going to sound like nails on a chalkboard to conservatives for now. I have not always agreed with the man, and he has not been nearly as conservative as I would have liked him to be (regarding size of government and government staying out of our affairs), but Bush was OUR President too, whether we always agreed with him or not. And, regardless of what the majority believes, he has done a lot of good things for our nation as well.  Please understand that unity may not come quickly or as fully as you would like, but that I, for one, will try to do this. We are all Americans … just like we were all Americans right after September 11th. I wish we could have stayed that way then, but maybe, somehow, we can find that kind of unity again (though that’s not to say we will necessarily ever be accepting of ideas with which we don’t agree). In addition to praying for President-Elect Obama, this is also something for which I will be praying.

And I will also be praying for our nation to turn to God again.  Unity at the expense of righteousness will never succeed.  And please understand that I do not mean that our country has instantly turned away from God BECAUSE we elected Obama.  But I do believe that for many years now—decades, even—our country has been turning further and further from God, even as more and more people claim to be Christians.  And I think, as a nation, we’ve been collectively seeing the effect of God withdrawing His hand from us.  This is the pattern seen all throughtout the Bible.  As the nation of Israel turned away from God, He withdrew His blessings from them and even let them suffer.  When they turned to God, His blessings returned.  That is not to say we can manipulate God’s blessings, but it is to say that He blesses those whom He chooses to bless, and the Bible makes it pretty clear that, in most cases, He blesses those who seek Him and follow His ways.  This is all kind of an aside note because I do not believe God supports Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or any other party, but I do believe that God cares about our direction as a nation, particularly since we still flippantly refer to ourselves as a “nation under God.”  Under God’s omniscient eye, yes.  But under God’s blessing for our nation, as a whole?  I don’t think we’ve completely lost it, but I think we’re headed that way.

Many Christians have voted for Obama because they believe he will help the poor and the downtrodden.  They believe in social justice.  Well, I also believe that is what we, as Christians, are called to do.  We ARE told to help the poor and the hungry.  But we are never told to do this through the government.

Here’s the difference, as I see it.  Christians, without any government involvement, can go out and help poor and hungry and homeless people.  And they SHOULD be doing so.  Christians cannot, however, do anything to prevent abortions from taking place if the government says they are legal.  We have our limitations.  And this is one limitation that has disastrous results.

How many Americans die of starvation each year?  Is that number greater than the more than two million babies that are murdered each year through abortion?  I’m not saying to not care for the poor.  I’m saying that when you’re talking about voting, vote for the candidate who wants to preserve life.

The poor will always be among us.  Jesus said so.  And we are to help the poor.  Jesus said this, as well.  But what about the babies who never had a chance to be among us?  Should we just not care about them?  If you believe that life begins at conception or at any point that a baby is in the womb, how can you even consider voting for a man who with his first act upon taking office will get an act passed that will lift any and all restrictions on abortions, including partial-birth abortions?

What will he do to actually help the poor?  What has government ever done except enable poor people by not requiring them to do anything for themselves?  Regardless of what Obama does, the poor will always be among us.  But, because of Obama, if he gets elected today, many more human beings will never get a chance to experience life outside of the womb.  And our tax money will be used to help pay for those murders through Planned Parenthood and other organizations like them.

That’s just sick and wrong.

This is NOT an either/or issue for Christians.  It’s not “Should we help save babies from being aborted, or should we help the poor.”  We need to do BOTH.  Christians who vote for pro-life candidates don’t hate the poor.  And I don’t think that Christians who vote for pro-choice candidates hate babies, but I do think they are misguided by not giving the sanctity of life issue precedence over all other issues.  Like I already said, we can help the poor without the government, but we can’t do anything to prevent government-sanctioned murders (except fight to get a Sanctity of Life Amendment put into our Constitution—like Ron Paul tried to do in Congress—or vote for those who would nominate pro-life judges to the Supreme Court or keep, at the very least, partial-birth abortions illegal).

Please vote for life.

First, a few questions:

1. Do you believe that slavery is OK?
2. Would you ever consider voting for a candidate who did believe that slavery was OK, whether or not he or she could actually bring it back as a source of labor in this country, if that candidate also proposed and could provide  an amazing healthcare plan, an amazing tax plan, or an abundance of new jobs?  Why or why not?
3. Would you be willing to have a better health plan, pay lower taxes, or have a better job if it meant that certain other people would have to become slaves?
4. Do you believe that life begins at conception?
5. Do you believe that abortion is OK?
6. Would you ever consider voting for a candidate who did believe that abortion was OK, knowing that he or she could definitely eliminate all restrictions on abortions, if that candidate also proposed and could provide an amazing healthcare plan, an amazing tax plan, or an abundance of new jobs?  Why or why not?
7. Would you be willing to have a better health plan, pay lower taxes, or have a better job if it meant that even more babies were going to be exposed to abortion procedures, including now-forbidden partial birth abortions?

Now, I don’t know for sure how you answered these questions, but my guess is that MOST people would absolutely be appalled at the idea of any candidate who approves of slavery and would want to bring it back.  Well, there are plenty of people out there (and you might be one of them) who believe that abortion is wrong but are willing to vote for a candidate proposing to overturn all restrictions on abortion because they have decided they will not be one-issue voters.  They generally approve of his stance on the other issues and are willing to overlook the abortion issue.

If you believe that life begins at conception, there can be no greater issue for you.  We are talking about human life here … more specifically, the termination of human life on a grand scale.  Murder, to put it more bluntly.  At least that’s what it is if you really believe life begins at conception.

I used to be one of those voters who decided that if the abortion issue was the only problem I had with a candidate, maybe I wasn’t being fair by not considering all of the other issues at hand in the election.

I can’t view it like that any longer.  I could never approve of slavery, and I, most certainly, could never approve of abortion.  And Barack Obama has said that the very first thing he’ll do upon taking office is to pass the Freedom of Choice Act.  This would effectively remove all restrictions on abortions … even the graphically violent partial-birth abortions.

Now, I’m not going to pretend that I think Obama’s ideas on the rest of the issues are correct.  I don’t think they are, and I think he is wrong on just about everything.  But I know many of you do believe he is right on many things.  That is fair.  But I REALLY want you to consider this ONE issue—the issue of life—and I want you to consider whether you can vote for a person whose moral conscience does not tell him that abortion is wrong … that the taking of a human life is wrong.

Please.  Consider it.

This news comes at the same time that we find out that Obama’s paternal grandmother has actually stated that she witnessed his birth in Kenya and the dismissal of Philip Berg’s lawsuit over Barack Obama’s eligibility for the office of President of United States, despite the fact that he has raised many troubling questions, none of which have been sufficiently answered by the Obama campaign.

He was in Hawaii already.  He could have picked up a copy of the birth certificate while he was there, but, instead, the birth certificate was sealed.  If his natural-born U.S. citizenship is a guaranteed fact, why would he not just produce the document?  And even if he does not want to produce the document, why would he go to such lengths to make sure that nobody else could possibly review it?  The judge dismissed Berg’s case on the grounds that “ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.”  I, personally, as a U.S. citizen, find that insulting.  So are senators above the law, or is it just because he is a presidential candidate that Obama is apparently above the law?  Do “ordinary citizens” not have a valid interest in the eligibility of those running to be the president?

Still, the article that talks about Obama’s birth certificate being sealed does provide one valuable nugget of information.  It states (emphasis added by me):

Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or “registrant” according to the legal description from the governor’s office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant.

Hmm…don’t we know of a couple of people who might share a common ancestor with Obama and, yet, not have any interest in his assumption of the role of President of the United States?

Perhaps, we should ask one or both of these distant relatives to step forward and obtain the document that none of the rest of us have the right to see.

]]> http://potluckexposition.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/obamas-birth-certificate-sealed-from-all-access-in-hawaii/feed/ 31 Donnie http://potluckexposition.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/barack-obama-is-no-jfk/ http://potluckexposition.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/barack-obama-is-no-jfk/#comments Mon, 27 Oct 2008 05:49:57 +0000 Donnie Rickmyre http://potluckexposition.wordpress.com/?p=299 ]]> Supporters of Barack Obama and even the Obama campaign like to keep pointing out that Barack Obama is the next John F. Kennedy.  Is it because of the youth factor?  The promise of hope?  It certainly isn’t about policy.  Check it out:

JFK, on what needs to be done to rebuild the economy in a time of recession:

And now, Barack Obama, on how to run the economy:

If you’re interested in the full clip of Obama’s talk with “Joe the Plumber,” that can be found here.  This is where he talks about raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year so that the economy can be built from the bottom-up.  JFK would not have agreed with this policy.

For good measure, here is a video of Congressman Barney Frank, living up to his name and speaking VERY frankly, to give you more of an idea of what the Democrats, with full control of the Senate and the House, would like to do and would be able to do with Barack Obama in the White House:

Getting the picture?

So, if the ideas of Obama and the rest of the fiscal liberals in Congress don’t match the policies of JFK, whose ideas do they match?

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need. ” – Karl Marx

There’s a quote that’s been floating around since I began my talk radio career. This quote is most often attributed to someone named Alexander Tyler writing in 1787 about the fall of the Athenian Republic. Others have said the guy’s name was Tytler. Let’s not argue spelling right now … let’s just get to the quote, because the quote goes to the heart of this presidential election:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Think about this, my friends. Isn’t this exactly what we’re seeing right now? In fact, hasn’t this pretty much been the theme of Democrat Party election politics for nearly as long as you can remember? Here we have Barack Obama promising that he’s only going to raise taxes on the evil rich who make over $250,000 a year while 95% of Americans will get tax cuts. Think of this in terms of votes; higher taxes for 5% of the voters, lower taxes for the other 95%. It really doesn’t take all that much brainpower to figure out how this is going to work at in an election does it? You take money away from the people whose votes you don’t need, and give it to the people whose votes you do need. So very simple. The result is that people have, in fact, discovered that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. Who is promising those wonderful goodies? That would be Barack Obama. Just what percentage of voters out there do you think are going to vote for Obama simply because he is promising them someone else’s money? My guess is that the number would be high enough to constitute the margin of victory for The Great Redistributionist.

Somehow I had this idea when I was growing up that if you wanted something bad enough, you would work hard until you got it. That was then. This is now. Now you vote for it. That’s change you can believe in.

Can’t you see that the end is in sight and that there is no light at the end of this tunnel? A vote for Barack Obama is a vote to end the democratic republic as we’ve always known it and, perhaps, to end it completely.

So I urge you now, please read these articles and commentaries.  Most of them are really short.  The one by Neal Boortz is really long, but it is DEFINITELY worth reading.  And, now, without further ado, the articles and commentaries:

• Neal Boortz’s thoughts for the undecided voter (this is the really long one, but it is WELL worth the time it takes to read it)
• Obama supports giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants
• Obama aims to kill 401(k) tax breaks
• I believe strongly in the importance of my future children getting vaccines (as long as they are safe) to prevent serious diseases, but I also believe that the choice should be left up to parents.  The government should not be able to force any kind of medical care upon us or our children.  John McCain agrees.  Obama does not.
• Obama belonged to a major socialist party in Chicago
• Regarding how Obama would not even be able to gain the security clearance to be an FBI agent or bodyguard for the president and yet very well may become the leader of our nation and get every security clearance there is
• This is the William Ayers that Obama knows
• Why Christians should not vote for Obama
• Why so many Christians are confused about the election (Obama tells every audience exactly what they want to hear)

The City Council of New York City voted today, by a margin of 29-22, to allow city officeholders three consecutive four-year terms in office.  This vote applied to them as well, and I think it is very telling that two-thirds of the members on the Council are currently in their second terms.  This is completely outrageous and needs to be reviewed in the court system.  There is no way a vote like this should be allowed to be made by those already in office.  The people must be allowed to decide how long officials will  be allowed to represent them, and the people of NYC need to stand up and fight this with everything they’ve got.

How long will it be before the U.S. Congress decides that the president no longer has to be limited to two four-year terms?  My guess?  Only until Barack Obama wins the presidency and the potentially supermajority Democratic Congess decides they just want to leave him in there awhile.  Now, maybe I’m being a little paranoid, but if those in power can decide these things for themselves, why should the people matter?  Let’s just let the rulers decide how long they are going to serve us.  We can abolish the whole inconvenient and flimsy process of voting altogether.  Isn’t it starting to feel like we might as well do that anyway?

Josef Stalin once said, “Those who cast the votes decide nothing.  Those who count the votes decide everything.”

I feel like that is quickly becoming the reality of our nation.  It won’t keep me from voting, but with the incredible lack of safeguards for the whole process, I sure don’t feel confident that my vote actually counts anymore.

Asked what he believes, Obama said: “I am a Christian. I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there’s an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.”

So how many paths to the same place does he think there are?  Did he learn this from Jesus?  I don’t think he did.  Obama clearly doesn’t know what it means to be a Christian.  He also has said that he doesn’t know if he is going to heaven, nor does he he believe that hell is the alternative to following Jesus.  Regarding Obama’s prayer life, Farrah writes:

Obama says he prays regularly. But look how he describes that process: “It’s not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. … I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing, why I am doing it. The biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass.”

So whom is he talking to in these conversations? He’s talking to himself! He’s talking to his under-developed conscience – the one that told him it was the right thing to do to prevent doctors and nurses from offering life-saving support to babies born alive after botched abortions.

Again, I know that not everybody cares about whether the president is a Christian.  But what people should care about is the way Obama is misrepresenting himself.  He says he’s a Christian, but we see that he doesn’t really know what it means to be a Christian.  He says he isn’t a socialist, yet he is very open about “spreading the wealth” and creating massive government-run entitlement programs.  He says he was never hired by ACORN as a community organizer, which is true, but he was invited to work with them and then trained people for them for almost ten years (not to mention he represented them as their lawyer).  He says he has never been close to William Ayers, but they have served on two boards together—the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which failed in their effort to distribute money to improve Chicago schools, and the Woods Fund, which distributed grant money to ACORN.  Obama also launched his political career in Ayers’ home.  And there is some speculation that Ayers basically wrote (or, at least, rewrote) Obama’s book, Dreams of My Father.

But, I digress.

Obama will say anything he has to say to win this election.  It isn’t about truth.  It isn’t about substance.  It’s about a political grab for power.  And if Obama has lied about so many things already, what else might there be which he is lying about and/or will lie about in the future, heaven forbid, as our president?

I’m not sure why they think so many people were stunned by this endorsement.  He has been praising Obama since at least early summer, so this, to me, just seemed like the voicing of the inevitable.  I think most people who pay attention to political news saw this coming from a mile away.  I could be wrong, but I’m not exaggerating when I say I haven’t heard anybody besides the writers of this article talk about this as if it was a big surprise.

What surprised me a little bit was his reasoning for endorsing Obama.  I have always respected Powell and thought that he was really a stand-up guy who really believed in conservatism and the ideals of the Republican Party (not to be confused with where the Republican Party is today), so I was shocked when I saw that the reasons he gave for endorsing Obama contained almost no substance whatsoever.  According to the article, he said the election of Obama would “electrify the world” and that Obama “is a transformational figure” and “a new generation coming … onto the world stage and on the American stage.”  He then said that this is why he was endorsing Obama.  He also said:

And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities — and you have to take that into account — as well as his substance — he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.

I’m not sure what substance he is talking about, but Obama definitely has rhetorical abilities.  He can talk and talk and talk.  Unfortunately, he doesn’t ever seem to tell us how he’s going to accomplish anything.  That Powell was drawn in by this rhetoric really disappoints me.

He also said that he thinks John McCain made the wrong decision in picking Sarah Palin as his running mate and that he doesn’t feel she is ready to become the president.  He doesn’t feel she is experienced enough; yet, he is fine with Obama being president.  Something is just not right with that picture.  Powell has said that his endorsement has nothing to do with race, but I think Rush Limbaugh might have been on to something when he said:

Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race.  OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I’ll let you know what I come up with.

The fact of the matter is that Obama, in many ways, has even less experience than Palin.  He does not know what it is like to be the Commander-In-Chief of anything; she, on the other hand, has been the governor of a state, which is an executive branch position.  Each of them has different types of experience, but to discredit Palin while endorsing Obama reeks of hypocrisy.  I seriously doubt anybody who becomes a president for the first time is fully prepared for the job upon assuming the office.  If the issue is Palin’s lack of foreign policy experience, then I guess we should have dismissed Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, as well.

Finally, in what is perhaps the most disappointing statement made by Powell on Meet the Press, he said, “I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that’s what we’d be looking at in a McCain administration.”  Seriously?  Was he ever a conservative?  I really wonder why he wanted to be a member of the Republican Party in the first place.  I’ve heard some people say that his endorsement of Obama is a way for him to protect his legacy after the association he had with the Bush administration.  Powell was the one who delivered, in detail, the information on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  He made the case for why we needed to go in there, and now he feels like he was used as scapegoat to get us into the war, since we did not end up finding the weapons that he said were there.  I think he feels betrayed by the Bush administration, and he feels like his reputation was greatly harmed in the process.  So by endorsing Obama, who is largely believed to be unstoppable in his quest to make history as the nation’s first black president, I believe Powell sees an opportunity for a kind of redemption.  If Obama wins, he will forever be associated with his endorsement for Obama, and a large number of people will once again look upon him favorably.  But the fact that he has so abandoned the Republican Party, to the point of not wanting more Republicans on the Supreme Court (which is something that pretty much EVERY Republican wants), is really a shame.  I just don’t know what has happened to him.

Maybe I was duped.  I’ve heard people say he wasn’t ever very conservative, and if that is the case, I was, in fact, mistaken about him all along.  I, along with many other people, really wanted him to run for president in 2000, but he claimed he wasn’t interested.  All things considered, if he really isn’t conservative, I guess that was for the best after all.

So now he can put on his blue coat and ride in upon the donkey as his decision to endorse Obama is celebrated by Democrats far and  wide.  If Obama wins, I think he probably will be looked upon favorably by a large number of people in this country, so, to that end, maybe he will be happy.  But when our country turns to socialism, the economy starts to falter, and our Constitution is largely ignored or interpreted as a “living document,” I hope he at least takes the time to reflect upon what this movement he has now joined is really all about.

A touchdown would have done it. 120 yards would have done it. At the very least, he could have caught SOMETHING. But no. He didn’t even catch one pass.

I can’t blame it totally on him. If I had used Antwaan Randle-El instead of Toomer, I would have won. So frustrating. So much for having any faith whatsoever in Yahoo’s projected point totals. Arrrrgh.

I know all of this happened on Monday, but I just didn’t feel like talking about it before now.

Cobra Vipers: 2-4

Cincinnati Bengals: 0-6

Tennessee Titans: 5-0

Go Titans!  Go Vipers?  Go Beng … oh, forget it.

So, all of that said, there are things I’ve wanted to write about, but I just haven’t had it in me to do so.  So, for now, these few things I’d like to share with you will have to suffice:

• Just in case anyone is still in doubt regarding whether Obama really is a socialist, read this: Obama’s Socialist Agenda—Is Anyone Listening?
• Just in case anyone still thinks Joe Biden actually  does know what he is talking about, see here how he doesn’t even know the responsibilities of the vice-president (and read all of the other factual mistakes he has made): Did Biden Get It Wrong?  You Betcha
• Socialism explained so that just about anybody can understand it (substitute “conservative” for “Republican” in the story since Republicans don’t have the best track record anymore either): Father and daughter talk politics
• The income tax system explained so that just about anybody can understand it (and an explanation that shows why we need a fairer tax system): Income Tax Explained
• These are the people canceling out your votes:

• Just in case you were wondering who the Messiah is, Louis Farrakhan can fill you in:

• Brainwashing much?  (the beginning to this video is a little silly, but the part with the militant kids dedicated to Obama is a little scary and sad):

Of course anxiety is feeding market instability.  But what is feeding the anxiety?  That is the million dollar question.  If someone was on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” and needed to phone a friend for the answer to this question, I would recommend that they just pick a taxpaying American citizen (virtually any taxpaying citizen) to be their lifeline.  Anxiety is feeding market instability.  Government is feeding the anxiety.

People are experiencing high levels of anxiety because their representatives, the people sent to Washington to actually REPRESENT them, in large part voted for this $850 billion bailout despite receiving an overwhelming barrage of letters and phone calls from their constituents urging them to do just the opposite.  Now, people are freaking out about the market, and they are freaking out because they are afraid government is out of control (which it is).

In the article referenced at the beginning of this blog post, Terrence Hunt writes, “President Bush said Friday that the government’s financial rescue plan was aggressive enough and big enough to work, but would take time to fully kick in.”

President Bush is wrong here.  Things may get sorted out eventually, but the reason everything seems to be going to hell in a hand-basket right now is directly because of how aggressive and big this financial “rescue” plan is.  Congress, the one branch put in place to give the people a true voice in government, shirked its most important duty and did exactly the opposite of what people wanted.

So, yeah, anxiety is now feeding the market instability.  Remember when the House voted down the first bailout proposal?  The market saw a dramatic drop, and people freaked out.  But what happened the next day?  It stabilized, and I think it may have actually gone up a little.  At the very least, it didn’t keep plummeting.  What has happened since both the Senate and the House passed the bailout proposal?  The market has continued to drop day after day after day, and now it has actually crashed for the first time since 1987.

Think this anxiety is going away anytime soon?  Think again.