Bookmark and Share


Friday, March 27, 2009

The resurgence of the monarch – A tale of two Presidents

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then "Save Target As"

In light of the situation we find ourselves in as a county, coupled with the fact that we have a President for whom change is everything, I think it would be a worthwhile venture to survey our two most recent presidents. Let us now endeavor to take a look at these two men, not from our feelings and/or subjective impressions, but from an open minded look at history.

Before we get started, we (including myself) must admit that true objectivity is impossible for human beings. Yes, even Danian Michael brings his biases to every situation, but so do you. For example: It is easier for a conservative to look past the misdeeds of George Bush. During the Bush administration, Republicans in congress did not oppose the growth of government. Conversely, it is easier for Democrats and
Liberals to turn a blind eye to the misdeeds of President Obama. Democrats for example think nothing of Obama proposing a 7 trillion dollar deficit over the next 10 years, yet would not give former president Bush a moments rest for spending a small (very small) fraction of that amount on the war on terror.[1] So let’s not kid ourselves, all of us, without exception, understand this world through the prism of our belief systems.

So with this level of self-awareness (what philosophers call presuppositional self-awareness), let us now look at these two presidents to do some contrasting and comparing. Admittedly, this is a pretty ambitious task and some may even argue that it is premature, given that president Obama has only been in office for a little over 60 days. President Bush also did many things during his two terms in office, so I think it would be prudent and sufficient to narrow our focus down to two aspects of their respective approaches in governing.

Aspect number one: how they approach taxes.

I don’t want to rehash old arguments and if you do, I would encourage you to go to the Political Agenda Archives and read the article titled “Raise our taxes; take our freedom.” For this presentation I would like to get into the mind of a democrat, why are they comfortable with higher taxes? Why is it that a liberal Democrat, while drinking his wheatgrass tea and watching MSNBC, won’t choke on his drink when he hears that President Obama will increase our deficit by $7 trillion? Why does that not raise any flags within a liberal’s mind? I believe I have an answer for that question: Liberal Democrats have a profound inferiority complex. So deep is this sense of inferiority that they can’t help but feel inadequate when someone else achieves a measure of success. So profound is this problem, that when Christians try to live by a standard that says abortions are wrong or that having sex outside of marriage is immoral, many liberals respond with deep hatred for us, which I think is (as Charles Krauthammer puts it) a deep hatred of self.[2] When George Bush signed legislation that lowered taxes for ALL tax paying Americans (including the rich), he had to fend of a back-draft of fire-breathing Democrats who hated the fact that the tax cuts included successful people. And so taxing the wealthy (aka sticking it to the man) has become an end in itself; all other considerations are secondary, including bankrupting the country and all of its citizens. Why are liberals willing to sacrifice so much to gain so little, to gain nothing quite frankly? After all, taxing a complete stranger, will not affect my life in the slightest. Why then tax the wealthy? May I suggest that liberals want higher taxes on the rich for the same reason kids in high school gossip about the beautiful A-student: The success of others highlights their own failures; the playing field must be leveled! Now someone may object with good reason to my trying to speak on matters of the heart; how can I possibly know what motivates someone? That is a valid objection, but I would ask; if liberals want to tax rich people so that the poor can be helped, why does hatred for these rich people enters the picture? Why not be kind, thanking them for their hard work and treasure? Instead all we hear, time and time again, is how George Bush is giving tax breaks to his rich buddies. Why the hatred for the rich, that is what I would like to know?

Aspect number two: how they approach Presidential powers.

Perhaps the one complaint that liberal Democrats had for George Bush that angered them even more than his alleged favoritism for the wealthy, was his casual wielding of presidential might. From the Iraq war to the war on terror to his authorizing the National Security Agency to execute warrantless wiretaps, George Bush has become a type of Hitler to the left.[3] By contrast, Obama is seen as this really cool guy who is going to relinquish presidential powers accumulated by George Bush. Is this a fair appraisal of the two men? To no one’s surprise I’m going to argue that actually the reverse is true. Let’s start by taking a look at the United States Constitution: All the duties conferred to the President are found in Article II. Many things are written about the office; about who can hold the office; how to discipline and the many responsibilities of the office. I think it is noteworthy however, to point out this fact: The framers deemed it important to summarize all the many duties of the President in one statement; the oath of office, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Observe that the only duty of real and foundational importance for the President (at least in the minds of the framers) is that of protection of our way of life as Americans. President Bush, I would argue had a profound appreciation for this duty, so do I, and so should you. By contrast, Obama has a profound appreciation for his duty to implement universal healthcare, renewable energy (but not nuclear) and climate change legislation. Now I would ask of these two men, which one of them has the constitutional backing to pursue his goals as president? I think the answer is obvious; at least to me, George W. Bush. There is one other category that I think bears some scrutiny; this is perhaps the most powerful weapon the President wields in moving through an agenda: The Executive Order. By it, the United States President can decree a course of action that does not have to be voted on by congress; it is as if he has become a king. Originally, executive orders were meant only for executive office holders; the president would declare a course of action for his appointed staff. Today, executive orders are used to govern. By the way, if you look through Article II of the constitution, you will not find executive orders as one of the perks of the presidency. Anyway, did you know that President Bush in his first 60 days of office made 8 executive orders and never made more than 40 in a year? President Obama has been President for 67 days and he has already made 18.[4] There are 298 days left in the year, you do the math! Think about this, by executive order the President of the United States has decreed that my tax dollars will be used for abortions and the killing of embryos in research. For staunch pro-lifers like me, this is a complete and utter travesty, what has happened to my representation in government?

So what do we have here? Through Taxation and executive order, Obama is acting less like the democratically elected president of this republic and more like King Edward (Longshanks) of England. He feels justified in his methodology for one main reason; he is uncomfortable in his own skin. The source of that discomfort (mainly successful, hard working Americans) must be weakened in their perceived power over him and those like him. He will take from the wealthy and give it to the poor so that everyone (but not hard working Americans) can now start to feel good about themselves.

This is a recipe for disaster, of the order of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; which gave loans to people who did not deserve them for the misguided notion that poor people MUST own homes too. Do we need to shed the Monarch again, along with taxation without representation? Or will we once again pour our tea into the face of tyranny letting Washington know that we are the American people; we fought for freedom before and we will fight for it again?

Danian Michael
Political Agenda.


[1] ( Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, October 15, 2008 The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global
War on Terror Operations Since 9/11. This CRS report show a total expenditure of $864 billion for both wars from 2001 – 2008.

[2] (I don’t have a reference as of the issuing of this article. Fox News does not keep an archive of their programs accessible to the public. I noted Charles Krauthammer’s words as I was watching the program live). Charles Krauthammer on the Fox News show, “Special Report with Brit Hume” suggested that hatred of self is at the root of Liberal Democrat’s hatred of Sarah Palin.

[3] The New York Times reported in December 2005 that the National Security Agency was conducting warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens within the United States. The NSA was given these instructions in secret. President Bush argued that if someone in the U.S. is talking to a known terrorist via telephone, then as a matter of national security we must continue to listen to that conversation since the conversation would most likely be over or important information missed, if Agents were to stop listening to procure a warrant during that live discussion.

[4] (The American Presidency Project: This website gives a list and link to every presidential executive order ever written. In 1826 Adjutant-General R. Jones writing on behalf of recently deceased John Quincy Adams gave the first Executive Order. The order had instruction to the armed forces about how Mr. Adams would be honored at his funeral. The times have changed; Executive Orders are far more numerous in present time but now they also dictate policy to the American People. Talk about abusing a privilege; the abuse of sick-leave comes to mind, in that the privilege is rarely used for its intended purpose.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

"Are you my Mommy?" Said the Stem Cell to the Scientist.

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then "Save Target As"
Stem Cells.mp3

The debate over embryonic stem cell research boils down to a debate about abortion but with one difference: The difference is, people on the side of continuing this sort of research are bereft of any kind of conscience with regard to the destroying of embryos but may still disagree with or put limits on their support of abortion. Pro-life advocates may appeal to some deep seated realization of the fact that abortion is the taking of a life when we point out the fact that to perform an abortion, one must go inside an actual human being to do so. And so, some kind of connection is made between the baby in the womb and the owner of the womb, by everyone. It is no accident that pro abortion advocates place all their eggs in a basket called, “A woman’s right to choose.” Because deep down in their own hearts they know that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is not a trivial one to be made by anybody (not even the father).

Let me illustrate this further: what would you say to this law: “anyone, without exception, can decide to abort a baby for any reason”? For example, what if I’m a racist and I see a pregnant mixed couple? I then decide that this baby must not live and so I force the couple to perform an abortion. What if a law existed that permitted that sort of thing, what would you say to that? Unless you are a sick individual, you would cry out against such a law, wouldn’t you? I know I would. Well that is what I meant in my earlier statement that all of you, whether you are pro-abortion or pro-life, have a deep seated appreciation for the strong gravity that pulls away from the reckless performing of abortions. And so that decision (by law) is left to the person most deeply attached to the situation: The choice if left up to the woman.

Please note that in the famous case involving Scott Peterson and his murdered pregnant wife, Mr. Peterson was charged with a double homicide because his wife was pregnant.[1] If his wife had taken the life of their baby (during an abortion), it would have been no big deal and Scott would not have had any recourse. I say again, according to the law, no one but the mother can decide to abort her child; otherwise, it’s a murder. Now as I have said earlier, the debate over embryonic stem cell research boils down to a debate over abortion with one distinction; pro-abortion people have a bit of a conscience when it comes to destroying embryos inside of a person but absolutely no conscience when it come to destroying embryos inside a test tube. And I suspect it’s because in an abortion, one must confront the reality of embryos being the offspring of actual people Note: those in the test tube are from actual people too.

Let us now consider embryonic stem cell research, which by the way was never illegal under President Bush. His policy by executive order was to ban federal funding of that research.[2] I tell you the media is becoming more and more obsolete with their sloppy and/or biased reporting by saying over and over again that Barack Obama lifted the ban on stem cell research.[3] But whatever, that’s neither here nor there; the media has sold themselves to the most liberal bidder.

Embryos that are used in stem cell research do not have a mommy or a daddy. Well they do, but they are a distant abstraction. Embryos in research just “magically” show-up in a test tube; so it’s very easy (for some) to think of the subject of the research as simply a collection of cells. But at this time I must ask, “What pray-tell is the difference between a collection of cells in a woman’s womb and a collection of cells in a test tube?” I would argue that there are no important differences. And yet many will protest my argument saying that I’m missing one important similarity between the two scenarios: Women do indeed make the important decision regarding embryos carrying their DNA. No one can force a woman to give up her eggs to research; she must do so without being forced against her will. To this protest I would simply remind all of us of the fact that women give up their eggs and not a fertilized embryo. So the process for all involved is very sterile; the mother of the embryo supplies unfertilized eggs to a bank, the father of the embryo supplies sperm and the scientist who will be conducting the research simply takes material (that is to say the egg and sperm) from both banks and combines them. Life is created in that moment my friends but the people involved never meet each other and the parents never have to contemplate the destruction of their child. I think the sterile nature of embryonic stem cell research is the most disconcerting aspect of the whole process.

But consider one more thing. When he lifted the ban on federal funding for this research, President Obama said the following:
"In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research -- and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."[4]

What do we say to the President’s statements? Remember my story about Scott Peterson and the analogy of the racist who would want to abort the child of a mixed couple? If it would be absurd for a person to abort the child of a complete stranger based on his or her own racial prejudice, then why would replacing the word racist with scientist make all the absurdities go away? And, before you start saying that the scientist is trying to help people, just consider the fact that in my analogy, it would be just as absurd if instead of a racist trying to abort the child of the mixed couple, a stem cell scientist were to do so.

We must not allow ourselves to think lightly of life. What if a scientist or a doctor took eight eggs from a woman and combined them with sperm in a test tube? What if the doctor instead of destroying these eight embryos, placed them inside the womb of an irresponsible woman with no job, who lives with her mom and who already has 6 children? Well if you have no problem with embryonic stem cell research, then you have no problem with the “Octo-mom.”[5] Think about that!

Danian Michael
Political Agenda


[1] ( The law, officially the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” signed into law by President George Bush, makes killing or injuring a fetus in the midst of a federal crime a separate offense. That would cover, for example, an assault on a pregnant woman in a national park. California already has such a law, which is why Peterson was charged with two murders.

[2] On August 9, 2001 President George Bush by executive order banned the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research but not the research itself.

[3] Multiple news outlets including Fox News incorrectly stated the policies set by President George Bush as a Ban on Stem cell research. This probably only amounts to sloppy reporting (in most case), yet it feeds into the silly notion that Christians (since George Bush is a professing Christian) are driven only by ideology and lack true compassion or the ability to think.

[4] The New York Times. ( – President Obama made the statement at the signing ceremony that lifted the ban on the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

[5] The Octo-Mom ( Nadya Suleman, a single mom of 6 children paid a doctor to impregnate her with 8 live embryos. She is now the mother of 14 children.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

"Let's Dig a Hole!"

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then "Save Target As"

We are in unchartered territory as a country and by unchartered territory I mean unchartered in recent times. Our country has obviously gone through a lot worse. We all feel like we are walking down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood, and wondering, “how will we get out of this?” As a relatively young person, I know nothing about surviving a serious economic downturn, let alone a recession. And I suspect there are many like me out there. Over and over again I hear people saying they have never seen anything like this before and I’m talking about people old enough to be my parents. Hearing the previous generation say things like, “I have never seen our economy this bad before,” makes me feel a bit uneasy. We are all asking the question, “when will we hit the bottom and how will we get going in the opposite direction?”

Well, may I suggest that President Obama’s policies are having the effect of lowering the bottom? Isn’t it amazing that every time the administration declares something, the stock market reaches a new record low? Here’s a true story that happened in Jamaica when I was about 14 years old. In Jamaica we didn’t have ice cream vans; what we had were ice cream motor cycles. The drivers would make a wooden box, pack it with dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide), then fill it with ice cream, ice cream cones, popsicles and all kinds of goodies. They would then strap this box to the back of their motor cycles, which were just a bit bigger than a moped. Yes, even in Jamaica, the spirit of the small business entrepreneur endures. Well one day, some friends of mine and I (about 5 of us altogether) concocted a plan to steal from one of these ice-cream guys. I hate to admit this but yes I was a part of this plan; this heist. The following was the plan:

First we were going to wait for a rainy day (talk about being patient, it hardly rained in this part of Jamaica). Next we dug a big hole in the path of this unfortunate ice cream man. We then filled the hole with water so that it resembled a regular puddle. When the ice cream man falls into this hole, two guys will help the poor victim out of the hole while the rest of us will take his ice cream. Well the plan worked and it worked so well that the ice cream man thanked us for our help, even though hitting the rut bent his front rim. I think back on this dark event in my life and I wish I could find this man today so that I could apologize for what I did and pay him today’s equivalent of his loss. I also hope my parents won’t read this particular article as my Dad would most certainly introduce me to his belt again. Yes, even at 38 years old (soon to be 39) I still have a respectful fear of my parents.

Fast-forward to today and think about all the people who are the backbone of our economy; all the people who get up everyday and go to work; all the people who try everyday to make money by providing a service for their fellow man. Now tell me if President Obama isn’t doing to those people what my friends and I did to that ice cream man. I’m contending that he is doing the same thing; premeditated, purposeful theft? He did the same thing that we did by using a rainy day to dig a hole for the American entrepreneur and “stealing” from him through rising taxes. Know this about my story of the ice cream man: he never returned to our community, he took his business elsewhere. And President Obama with his smooth talk has somehow tricked a large number of my countrymen into thanking him for robbing them. Will someone explain to me how the action of punishing success is stimulative? Isn’t it more logical to expect businesses to close up shop or take their business elsewhere?

Also Consider this: By punishing the hardest working people in our society and propping up the non-contributors, President Obama is not only sowing the seeds of bad behavior, he’s also sowing the seeds of our country’s demise. A dependent class of Americans is just not what we need right now. As a matter of fact, we never need a dependent class. What we need are fighters who expect nothing apart from an honest days pay for a honest days work. I’m reminded of the 761st tank battalion from my last presentation and their tenacity in fighting for what they wanted and for what they loved. I have an idea; instead of tracking the unemployment percentage, “what if we tracked the dependent class percentage and worked to minimize that group of people?”

The answer to our problems isn’t big government, it’s you and me. Because, let’s face it, the government can not hire 20 million people. But you know who can; the American entrepreneur. So instead of flocking to president Obama to save us from all this, find your employer and show him or her your support by doing the best darn job you have ever done in your entire life. And you would do well Mr. President to not dig a hole for the American Businessman.

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.