In Response to "GOP is everything that is wrong with this world" thinking.

Chris,  Thank you for your comments on my last article.  Unfortunately, my response was a little too long for the comments section so I've posted it here. The truth is the "King" comment was directed more at the conservative folks on the far side of the right wing aisle, which is where that post was aimed as well.  There was some rather intensive fear-mongering on the part of conservatives who honestly thought that the President was going to be hammering down doors and confiscating guns this week.  I'm sure they were disappointed, but honestly, if you had been bombarded by that like I was, you'd realize the Missing the Target article actually DEFENDS the President, rather than castigates him. Admittedly, I took some pot shots across the bow as well, especially at Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder, but what do you expect? I'm a conservative. I believe in the rule of law.

First of all, I don't understand why you are bringing up the number of executive orders each president has issued. Executive orders are designed to allow a president to "bend the rules" slightly around legislation, and while your list gives us a great count of the number of executive orders issued, it doesn't really tell us what they were for. I would imagine most are immaterial methods to deal with unruly bureaucracy, but some of them, like Obama's executive order to the Immigration Customs Enforcement Agency setting new rules for deportation of illegal immigrants, in direct opposition to actual law, is of much more concern. That executive order basically had him saying, "I don't agree and since I'm KING I can go ahead and do what I damn well please, DESPITE the law." Admittedly, I don't have a list of President Bush's executive orders in front of me, and I'm sure you and I both could find orders we didn't like and were not pleased with, but right now we're discussing Obama, not Bush.  Just because Bush did X amount of executive orders doesn't mean that it's okay for Obama to have X amount of executive orders.  It is a fallacious argument.

As I also pointed out in my article, there are at least eleven direct "actions" that the President outlined that I was either totally okay with, or actually wondered why we haven't ALREADY been doing these things.  However, there were quite a few that concerned me.  I outlined WHY in the article  and if you'd like to discuss the merits of allowing doctors to grill our children, asking questions like "does your daddy own a gun?" and "does your daddy drink beer?" followed by "how often does your daddy hit your mother?" and possibly "does your father like President Obama?", only to turn around and report someone to the government in violation of patient/doctor confidentiality, then I'd be happy to do so. 

Your article from the Huffington Post carries as much weight with me as if I were presenting an article from FoxNews.com to you and frankly, after reading it, perhaps even less. The Huffington Post isn't worth the electrons it takes to bring up on the computer screen. As usual, the Huffington Post sees the trees but not the forest, failing to understand that what Governor Perry was really implying was that America has reached a crossroads where secularism, atheism, and most importantly, moral relativism have become vogue.  Our next generation isn't taught the value of human life because without religion, there are no consequences beyond death, no long term reason to live a moral and decent life.  It doesn't surprise me that the report for HuffPo didn't understand what was going on with Perry.  It's sad really, but I addressed this very lack of moral fortitude in my last article "A Tragedy of Liberty" in which I explained why I thought the Sandy Hook Shooting occurred and what we need to do about it.

Another aspect of this entire article, which you actually might be aware of, is the fact that many liberal figures in the public limelight, including Vice President Biden, were calling for much stricter action than that taken by Obama in his presidential actions on gun violence.  Worse, the hypocrisy is not just something that conservatives like me noticed,  but actual facts.  For example, there is definitive proof from the FBI that the last magazine capacity and assault rifle weapons ban during the Clinton Era did absolutely nothing to mitigate either mass shootings or gun violence.  So why propose it again?  Because Obama's base doesn't understand guns, much less crime statistics, and they want guns to go away and this is a start.  Take for example CNN's commentator Piers Morgan, who had to falsify British gun and crime statistics just to make his point that America has more gun violence.  But the liberals who spoke out against the second amendment clearly don't seem to understand the purpose behind the right to bear arms.  It's not so we can hunt, and only partially to help us keep the criminal element at bay.  At its very essence, the second amendment is designed to give the people a last resort to the onset of tyranny.  History is replete of governments disarming the people.  Mao said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun.  And then he disarmed his citizens and murdered political dissidents.  Other despots have done it too, and thus it can be a scary thing from a historical perspective to see representatives of your OWN government saying that they want to disarm you.  George Washington didn't debate the British, he shot at them.  Had President Obama done what Vice President Biden suggested, using executive fiat, then he would have been violating the second amendment, using the power of the presidency to override our rights.  That would have been the action of a KING, not a President.  But as it turns out, he did nothing of the sort, and while I'm still concerned about his administration's approach at dealing with the mental health at least he IS focused on the right problem.

Actually, I'm kind of pleased that you said that I represent what is wrong with the GOP today. That's something of a compliment, since I represent most of all the ideals of fiscal responsibility, personal freedom and responsibility, and most of all the rule of law.  The Democratic Socialist party represents the parasite class who, like an unwanted lodger who just won't leave, takes up residence using valuable resources without giving anything back, or even trying to make something of them selves. It is imperative that the people are not beholden to the government for their food, their livelihood, or their health care because they then are no impartial or responsible voters, who will vote for what is best for the country. Instead they will vote for the politician who gives them more stuff.  This is why Obama won the election.  You, my friend, are a member of the minority of Obama Voters - ones who do it for ideology. 

As a conservative, I believe that government is responsible for creating an environment of equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. And that is where the liberal and conservative differ.  Our president has done some highly questionable things during his first term of office.  From Fast and Furious, to Benghazi, to his violation of the War Powers Act, to the irresponsible spending spree his administration seems to be on, not to mention the devastating business disaster Obamacare is wreaking on the nation.  And yet liberals seem to forgive these brazen violations of law and ethics - violations that would have heard screams of outrage had they been perpetrated by George W. Bush.

Lastly, I'd like to examine your GOP accusations one by one. 

1.  How has the GOP prevented a budget from being passed? It is a recorded fact that the Democrat controlled Senate has not passed a budget in four years.  And they soundly voted down Obama's budgets as well, multiple times.  Not only that, but the Republican controlled House HAS passed budgets, several of them in fact, that balances the federal budget within a decade.  Please feel free to confirm this through alternative sources, since I doubt you will take my word. Don't expect to find the information on HuffPo. I recommend ABC or CBS.  It also explains why the Republican leadership is currently agreeing to a debt ceiling increase to officially "give the Senate a chance to pass a budget", thus putting the burden of at least an ATTEMPT by Democrats to but a budget on the table. So we'll see what Reid puts together.

You then accuse the Republicans of preventing the military from being paid.  Both times we have approached a fiscal cliff the Republican led house has proposed legislation that prioritizes operable debts - thus making sure that the treasury department can't politically decide not to pay the military, or hold back social security checks, in order to make sure the GAO can throw lavish parties in Las Vegas.  So to somehow think that GOP is responsible for you not getting paid is ridiculous and I have to wonder where you get your information.  I hope it's not HuffPo. I get my news from a variety of sources, including CNN, CBS, ABC, and Fox.  Admittedly I don't trust MSNBC but they are good for a laugh at least.  And of course Current TV now belongs to Al Jazeera.  Gotta love Gore for that, right?  

Again you've been drinking the koolaid that HuffPo serves up.  Conservatives, and thus the Republican party, are a giving bunch.  Studies show (as well as a quick check on Google) that conservatives give more in charity to those in need.  The problem is not our hearts, its HOW we want to help.  HuffPo wants you to believe we are cruel, heartless individuals who want you to die.  In reality, we want government to have a limited role in charity, or more of an oversight role, and let traditional outlets handle it.  As usual, Government is inefficient. In fact, a program started by George W. Bush, called Faith Base Initiatives, has been one of the best government welfare programs in history, all because federal money is used by churches to help the poor.  So yes, I do take offense when you call me heartless.  We clearly are the giving bunch and want people to succeed.  We should ALL succeed!  And while it looks like Republicans protect the rich, it's because we understand that economic prospertity doesn't come by taking wealth away from the rich and giving it to the poor, it comes from the rich investing back into the country they live in, creating jobs, products, services, and the poor rising into higher levels of economic prosperity as the get a job, improve their circumstances, get training, get a better job, and eventually become a rich person too.  It's sort of like minimum wage.  Minimum wage should be raised because "it's not a living wage". Minimum wage ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE a living wage! It's a starter wage! If you are forty seven and making minimum wage, there is a problem with YOU, not your salary. 

Now we should take on abortion.  Putting it plain and simple, I believe that once there is a heartbeat and brainwaves in an unborn child, aborting the child is tantamount to murder.  You clearly side with the idea that a woman has the right to kill the child... because... it's... her body.  Because shes uncomfortable. Because she doesn't want to be burdened with the consequences of her actions... or it's too expensive to have a child.  Well, that is what adoption is for.  And I speak with righteousness because at its worst, the discomfort or financial problems will last nine months and there are plenty of religious charity organizations willing to help.  Killing the child will last a life time.  So yes, I support taking away that choice.  Both men and women should have to deal with the consequences of their actions when an innocent life is on the line.  Besides, abortion should probably be redefined as genocide, since African-American babies are the number one aborted demographic in the United States.  Planned Parenthood makes Adam Lanza look like a newb.

Congress has always had a low rating because people from both parties feel that the people from the other parties are the problem.  Congress is as polarized as you and I.  And yet when the Republicans present sane, realistic plans to get us out of our current financial difficulties (admittedly that they helped create) President Obama refuses to cut spending and forces them to agree to a meaningless and ineffectual tax increase on the rich that will no more solve the deficit than minting a trillion dollar coin (another less than brilliant plan from one of your liberal brethren who doesn't understand economics, nor monetary policy.  And with the collusion of the main street media, the Republicans are painted as the villians who just HATE the poor people, and just love the rich.  And instead of actually investigating what is actually going on, liberals everywhere accept what they're told, like mindless sheep, and bleat "we hate Republicans because they hate people and want them to die."  Please... can we actually agree to use our brains here?

So yes please, feel free to lump me in with the group of people who might have helped cause the problem in the first place, but at least aren't perpetuating it to buy votes.  I don't need an Obama phone. I don't need Obamacare - and thank you very much because my taxes have gone up.  My insurance premiums have gone up. I've lost my co-pay, lower deductables, and pharmacuteical percentage pay because of President Obama.  But America voted for the man, so fiscal insolvency, here we come.  Let's see you blame the Republicans and George W. Bush at the end of THESE next four years, because trust me, what you'll be hearing from me for a long time is "It's Obama's fault."