Where's the Anger?

Update: Federal Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans, today lifted Mr. Obama's drilling ban as well as issuing a separate order preventing the US from enforcing that ban. The ruling was as a result of a law suit filed by several offshore service and supply companies in Louisiana. BP was not a part of this suit. (H/T The Maritime Sentry)

I keep hearing about how Americans are angry at BP over this oil spill. I look around and the only folks I see being actively angry about it are the talking heads in the MSM and ones who get their news almost exclusively from those same talking heads.

I am not angry at BP. It was an accident. How should anyone be angry about an accident? I will admit to being a bit upset about the way Mr. Obama and his administration are bungling and hampering the clean up efforts. I am also flabbergasted at how anyone thinks it is legal or Constitutional for Mr. Obama to demand that BP not pay dividends to it's shareholders or to command them to put 20 billion dollars in an independently administered fund for reparations. Where exactly are Mr. Obama and his administration finding the authority to do these things?

The message here isn't that BP shouldn't make appropriate reparations, they should. But rather that those reparations should be in accordance with the law, not whatever Mr. Obama says. Last time I checked, the president doesn't make the law, they may only approve or veto laws proposed and approved by the Congress. Has that changed since Mr. Obama was elected? What am I missing here?

In addition, I would like to know what those actions on the part of Mr. Obama and BP are saying to the business world in general. To me it appears that the message is, you are no longer working for yourselves, but rather for the government. Your profits are no longer your own, the government will tell you how that money is to be used.

"They encourage themselves in an evil matter: they commune of laying snares privily; they say, Who shall see them? "~ Psalm 64:5

An Interesting Encounter

I had planned to post today on the BP oil spill. On my thought that the spill was an accident and that we have liability laws in place already to deal with those affected by the spill, so why is it necessary for BP to agree to put 20 billion dollars into an "independently" managed account for that purpose? Would 20 billion be more or less that BP's liability under current law? And why is this administration actively hampering local efforts to minimize the impact of the spill? But I had to go to the post office.

As I approached the post office, I saw several very large signs saying "Impeach Obama". Many of the signs had a large photo of Mr. Obama with a little Hitler type mustache. I thought, this looks interesting, but as the post office was almost closed, I went inside to buy my stamps first.

When I came back out, I approached the booth to ask about what they were doing. I discovered this was a booth staffed by followers of Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. Now, Mr. LaRouche has been running for president since nearly before I was of voting age. He has been derided by both liberals and conservatives of my acquaintance, and upon reading some of his literature, I can see why, he has some rather unique views. But that's not the point of this post either.

While I was speaking to the gentleman at the booth, an older woman (by which I mean a woman in her 50's or early 60's , I would guess) came up to the woman at the booth and tried to remove some of the materials from the booth, while declaring that the photo of Mr. Obama was wrong and should be taken down. The woman at the booth reacted strongly and soon they were yelling at each other. When the yelling turned to swearing, I told the man to whom I was speaking -"that's it, I'm done here." At which the two women ended their confrontation, both threatening to call the police on each other.

I did stick around a bit to talk to the woman. She said she had been nearly run down by someone in a car while manning the booth in a similar situation less than a week ago and someone else had attempted to tear down her signs earlier that day. She was very passionate about her opposition to what this president and administration are doing to this nation with regard to debt and a few other things, as am I.

I have always viewed swearing as indicative of a lack of self control. It occurred to me that this woman, having had her life threatened less than a week ago for doing this same thing was very brave to continue, but also that she was not in any condition to man such a booth. Instead of asking the objector exactly what it was to which the older woman objected, she escalated into a shouting match, accusing the older woman of being a Nazi. Was this because she has now associated all dissent with her own position as a threat, or because she has always associated all dissent as a threat? She owned to having been a hippie on the 60's.

Perhaps the older woman was simply objecting to the photo on the grounds that it was disrespectful to the office of the president. In that I would agree. I would have also agreed that the folks at the booth had the right to display it, but would have asked them politely to respect the office by removing it. Perhaps not, since at one point the woman manning the booth yelled:"Yeah, well I was out here trying to impeach George Bush every week for the last 8 years, where were you then?" but the point is we'll never know. She wasn't given the chance to calm down and state her objections in a civil manner.

Here is the point of this post. There are good reasons to oppose the current administration, from their profligate spending to their openly socialistic agenda. We don't have to be conservatives or liberals to oppose either of those things because they are detrimental to either side, but we cannot become so used to seeing opposition that we cannot find those points of common interest around which to rally.

We, as Americans are better than that. We must be. If we are to regain our freedoms, and restore our Constitution, self control is an absolute requirement of the folks doing the ground work. Stern resolve and self control can accomplish what the most impassioned rhetoric cannot. We must, as a nation, reject the greed of the entitlement mentality along with the security offered by the "nanny state" mentality. We must embrace the philosophy of personal responsibility and stand for the individual freedom promised by the republic founded these 200+ years ago with all it's attendant risks.

In the words of "America the Beautiful: "Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law."

"Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?
He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.
He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.
In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved."~ Psalm 15

TEA Partier attacked for protesting government spending

Who do you think is the most likely to be acting in good faith? The TEA partiers or those who oppose them?
I think that good manners are an indicator of character. (Not proof of good character, but an indicator) This sort of thing is yet one more clear indication of who is possessed of good character in this national debate. Another indicator, in my opinion, is who leaves the protest area clean.

" Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. "~ Matthew 7:15-17