By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including The Federal Election Commission Reform Act of 1997, 4 U.S.C. 2324 et seq., it is hereby ordered that:
Section 1. Policy. Whereas, it is the policy of the United States to ensure that the President and other officers of the United States (hereby known as "grownups") who have responsibility for the security of the Nation and the advancement of its interests and who have allegiance to the President remain in control of necessary government functions.
Whereas, the electoral processes underway in the current election cycle have been demonstrated to have been undertaken by certain "rookies" of the national "democratic party" in an inappropriate, disingenuous, and misleading fashion and these misguided actions have resulted in a "sham" electoral mess.
Therefore, until further notice, the presidential electoral processes are hereby halted and suspended. Any and all preliminary results achieved to date will be considered null and void and all current office holders will so continue (except for the San Francisco House district and Nevada Senate contests which will be held as scheduled - with the exception that only landowners will be allowed to participate).
Section 2. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) "democratic party" means a political party engaged in promoting or advertising policy choices that have no counterpart in actual real-world experiences; that violate or ignore long-standing or consistently observed behaviors in the areas of human nature, financial markets, commercial and financial transactions and impetus(es) for economic activity and decision-making; and whose actions reflect directions and goals which are consistently at odds with the American experience and past national accomplishments and successes.
(b) "sham" means an "election or electoral process with no real power or control being exercised by the actual voting public including the impression that voters matter when actual results depend exclusively on unnamed and unaccountable individuals (delegates) placed or appointed into positions of power far in excess of their respective capabilities".
(c) "rookies" means the person of and staffs of proposed candidates for federal office that overstate, magnify, or otherwise exaggerate their experiences and capabilities to serve in said office. Also includes the use of misinformation, out-right falsehoods and other similar activities to mislead for the achievement of nefarious goals. Such people are often referred to as pin-heads.
(d) "grownups" means those adults who understand and accept that their actions have consequences; are normally employed (or have been) in "real" non-governmental jobs; have not benefited from sweetheart cattle futures deals which tend to warp one's view of the real world; who understand that taxes can't be cut on citizens who pay no taxes, who appreciate that the Constitution is a device intended and developed to limit and not endlessly extend the power of the Federal government; and who believe that words means things, integrity is important, and only the Truth can set us Free (John 8:32).
KAS for GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 1, 2008.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 9
I thought some might strain as did you to take this seriously when of course it is not. Serious is the complete incompatibility of the democratic candidates with American values, history, and most importantly with fallen nature of man. Be of good cheer.
A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones. (Proverbs 17:22)
Or, do you mean that they do not support the view that says that only the rich count, that anybody can break the law and not be punished for it, that there is no duty of the powerful to take care of the weak - that it's "dog eat dog" and "screw you, buddy" to your neighbor. Gee, and I thought that you bible-quotin' religious folk actually believed what Jesus taught. Guess not. It's the bible according to the powerful that you subscribe to - bomb your enemies, screw the little guy, take what you can no matter how you get it cuz the person with the most amount of earthly wealth when they die wins.
Pathetic. Truly pathetic. I'll take the monikers of Democrat, Liberal, Intellectual, Elite, and Socialist ANY day over the opposite meanings of those words. Thanks for the quote from the bible.....now go turn to the NEW testament and see what Jesus said about all this.
I do believe in all the values that you accuse me disdaining (or twisting) but I do not believe that government is capable of addressing them effectively or should it (from a Constitutional perspective). The government is to "promote" the general welfare (not provide it). The size government that you envision (doing all that you want it to do) would without a doubt remove our liberties! Such removal is acceptable only if one believes that a socialist state is the only way to meet people's needs but the trouble is that - IT HAS NEVER WORKED TO ACCOMPLISH THAT anywhere anytime in history. Why do you think it will or can now?
How do you feel about regulations and the bodies that enforce those regulations that protect the American people from unscrupulous people?
For example:
- do you think that the American government should be responsible for protecting the food sources that the public consumes?
- do you think that the American government should be responsible for protecting the medicines that are sold to the public?
- do you think that the American government should be responsible for offering free education through the 12th grade?
- do you think that the American government should ensure that the portion of our population who cannot work - the old, the disabled, the mentally deficient, etc. - should receive support to continue even the most basic type of life?
- do you think that the American government should ensure that we have some type of road system intact?
- do you think that the American goverment should ensure that we have some type of standards set for business in the country? (consumer/investor protection, anti-monopoly, anti-fraud, etc.)
And if you reply that these functions should be the responsibility of the states only, then how would you address the discrepancy of standards and economic abilities among the states to ensure that there is an overall standard in the nation? Or, are we simply a collection of states, not ONE nation afterall?
I looked over your comments to this article and I noticed that you either insult the President , the country, or me and you ask many questions (while answering none). Your only neutral statement was one which encouraged reading the New Testament. I agree wholeheartedly with that one.
Now as to your queries:
I have no problem with the FDA efficiently regulating in their area. I do have a problem when they overstep their bounds, operate without any real oversight from Congress as to their effectiveness and performance, or do anything in secret.
The American government should have little to no involvement in Education.
As an American you have the primary responsibility for your life and well-being (and that of your family). That is the essence of liberty (freedom balanced by responsibility). IF we cede that responsibility to the government, where is the incentive to excel, to innovate, to grow and stretch (when you can just let the government look after you)?
IF people's life long social security payments were invested under their control (instead of being lost in the rat hole of government spending), they could easily look after themselves (you essentially proved that in your article on compounding) and have something for their heirs. But then the government wouldn't be able to control and waste those funds on earmarks, etc, etc, etc.
The only portion of the road system under Federal control is the Interstate system and it was established to be able (in the time or war or national emergency) to be able to move people and military assets quickly.
I'll gladly allow any standards for business that apply equally and without exception to the US Congress.
Why didn't you ask me if the Federal government should defend the country from it's enemies, secure the borders, and respect the Constitution? Oh, my bad, you probably don't want it to do those things.