directory
Biased rambling against Obama
Jul 24, 2009 | 687 views | 5 5 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Editor:

As a former Bee County resident, born and raised, I enjoy keeping up with the Bee-Pic, online or through family and friends. These last few months in the letters to the editor, it has disturbed me more and more to see some of the biased rambling that goes on against our current president of the United States.

Some of the ignorance and naivete of these Fox News worshippers is astounding to me! If people would take the time and effort to read a book or study up on numbers (and maybe look past race), they would judge President Obama with a fair mind and clear view. Because whether you believe it or not, his plans do favor the working class.

Throughout the campaign last year and these last five months of his presidency, Mr. Obama has had everything from his patriotism to his religion questioned and re-questioned. These arguments are baseless and frankly, worn out already!

Personally, I question the patriotism of a certain governor who cries “secession” when he thinks that rich oil company pals may actually have to pay their fair share of taxes. To me, President Obama shows his patriotism by not sending our troops into harm’s way to a country irrelevant to the war on terror for his own personal gain.

As for the question of his religion, that is a moot point (and for those people who say otherwise, he took both oaths of office to the Senate and Presidency on the Holy Bible, not the Koran). Even if he was a Muslim, so what? For all those who spit out the word Muslim or Islam as if it were a dirty word, then I suggest they visit Arlington National Cemetery sometime, to visit the graves of fallen troops they claim to support. Many of the grave markers bear the symbols of all types of religions, including Islam. Yes, these troops have practiced the Muslim faith and shed their blood for their country as well.

For the last eight years, our country’s values and standards were blatantly disregarded by those in charge, for their own personal interests. Yet many said we should support our president in all his decisions. These same people should now heed their own words!

The bottom line is, no one’s guns have been taken away, no one is being crushed by massive taxes, there are not any massive influxes in the number of abortions across the country and as far as I know, Christian churches are not being forced to convert to Islam. So maybe these expectations are all in vain?

It was once predicted that George Bush was to be an intelligent, friendly president who would look out for the middle-class working folks and bridge gaps with other countries. Like I said, sometimes expectations are all in vain.

So when President Obama sends our troops in the opposite direction of where Al-Qaeda is hiding, ignores a major American city that has been drowned by a hurricane, takes more than 300 days of vacation while in office, squanders a surplus of taxpayer cash for tax cuts on the rich while millions go without health insurance or reads a book about a duck for seven minutes after he is informed our country is under attack, then I could understand the animosity and hatred toward him. Till then, maybe he deserves the same benefit of doubt Bush enjoyed for years.

Sincerely,

Debra A. Chapa
Comments
(5)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
FedUpPatriot
|
July 25, 2009
Ms Cano-Ram & Ms Chapa

As Thomas Jefferson said "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive"

"The price of apathy is to be ruled by evil men" Plato

You may be willing to be led like sheep into Socialism, but I value my liberty and will continue to speak out. I respect the office of the President but not the man occupying it. This does not make me a racist or indicate that I am unpatriotic. I totally disagree with the direction Mr Obama is taking this country. I think his policies and views threaten my freedom. If Ms Chapa would take her own advice and read some history and listen to news other than the mainstream media and maybe read the Constitution she might be able to present her case in a coherent fashion.I personally think calling someone a Racist is hate speech, the same as calling somone a Fag, a Nigger or a Honkie.I do not have to resort to to that level.
firetherascals
|
July 25, 2009
As a correction to my second paragraph:

It took you 4 columns in the newspaper to regurgitate moveon.org's, Michael Moore's, and the extreme left's tired stance.
firetherascals
|
July 25, 2009
Ms. Chapa and Ms. Cano-Ram,

Why is it that when people do not agree with your or with President Obama's positions they are accused of being racist and ignorant. That is called an "Ad Hominem" attack and invalidates your argument.

As far as rambling, it took you (Ms. Chapa) to basically say the following mantra (most of which which has been spewed over the majority of President Bush's time in office):

Bush= Bad

Obama= Good

Anyone who disagrees with us is racist (BTW, the liberals are the one who seem to keep bringing up race)

Bush's tax cuts were only for "the rich" (actually, I was a volunteer tax adviser during most of those years and the tax cuts were for ALL of those who PAID taxes!)...it's kind of hard to get a tax refund if you never paid taxes; is that your case Ms. Chapa?

The letters to which you referred in your (4 column long) letter, Ms. Chapa, were addressing the issues. You know those silly things called "Bills" being put on the floor in Congress. The writers get their news from multiple sources, such as the Congress website and the US Constitution...you should try reading it sometime. We are interested in the issues, Ms Chapa and Ms Cano-Ram, not race (as you seem to be so obsessed with). As a matter of fact, I bet that 90% of the people who do not care for Obama's (socialist) agenda would jump at the chance to have Condoleezza Rice as their president. She, at least, has substance, class,intelligence and would be selfless enough to do what's right for the country. I couldn't imagine her throwing a tantrum when Congress (who is part of the checks and balance of the President) doesn't do what the President wants.

I hope that you write another letter while you still have that freedom. Please, though, please leave the race baiting and ad hominem attacks out...we're tired of hearing it from the last 8 years. It would be refreshing if you actually addressed some of the issues on a fact based notion instead of emotional appeal (another thing which invalidates your arguments).
Georgina Cano-Ram
|
July 24, 2009
Well said and so refreshing to read your letter, I too am a former resident of Beeville and like to stay in tune to the news of my first home. In regards to your comments I must agree with you and feel that you are spot on! We as a people need to encourage one another to open their minds and stop judging each other on their race, religion, or appearance. Indeed we have a LONG way to go before we can recover from the damage done but we can achieve this together. Abraham Lincoln said it best “A house divided against itself cannot stand" so until the citizens of this great country stop passing judgment on our Commander and Chief and support him we will NEVER see change. We have a chance to get out of the stone ages and actually advance to make us an even stronger nation. He has a wonderful vision and needs help to get us there!
Saltpork
|
July 24, 2009


Yeah, BO Diddy is just a wonderful Pres!

Read on....

Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:34 AM

Subject: no private insurance ONLY "EXCEPT WHEN" Obama Health care bill





It's Not An Option

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised - with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.

With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.

The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.

It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.





Sincerely,

LEE TERRY

Member of Congress

11717 Burt Street, Suite 106

Omaha, NE 68154

Phone: 402-397-9944

http://leeterry.house.gov