GOP to blame / LJWorld.com

Letters to the Editor

GOP to blame

April 24, 2008

To the editor:

In a recent Saturday Column, the editor of the Journal-World seems bewildered and unable to understand the animosity America directed towards George W. Bush. He chastises those who criticize the president claiming they "distort the picture." Just what planet has he been living on for the past seven and a half years?

Republicans controlled the House, Senate and presidency from 2001 to 2006. They are directly responsible for this hostility due to their blatant abuse of power, bullying America into an unnecessary war in Iraq, dividing the country into polarizing camps, tearing up established treaties and conventions, torturing and ignoring international protocol, isolating America from the rest of the world.

Americans have reason to be unhappy with the Republicans and the Bush administration who brought this on themselves with no one else to blame. It was on their watch!

Now that elections are looming, Republicans are scrambling to overcome their sordid, mismanaged, bungling of America's business. They are very aware a majority of voters are extremely unhappy and there will be a big change in November affecting the presidency and Congress. Many congressional Republicans will finally be held responsible, fired. It is called democracy!

With reality sinking in, Republicans are scared and looking for reasons to not be responsible, for not being in charge, for not bungling their jobs, rewriting history and attempting to scapegoat their miserable, lackluster performance by whining about how unfairly they are treated. Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. Grow up!

Curtis Bennett,
Lawrence

Tumblr
Wordpress
Reddit
Copy and paste the link:

More like this story

TopJayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

Don't get too hasty there fella. Most understand that while the GOP didn't do anything to help themselves, and did do some stupid things. A lot of it was to clean up messes left by the Hilly and Billy show. I mean, remember; Hillary was getting shot at at airports long before Bushie came to power....LOL What a crock.

BigAl 6 years, 9 months ago

Not bad. The right wing wack-nuts attacked Bill Clinton with the very first response. You guys are quick this morning. right_thinker/lucky_man says:"Dean, Pelosi and Reid are undeniably three of the most despicable politicians this nation has ever seen."Let me fix that for you:Bush, Rove and Cheney are three of the most despicable politicians this nation has ever seen.There. All fixed up.

georgeofwesternkansas 6 years, 9 months ago

You can sa the republicans drug us into Iraq. You can say the Dems killed thousands of Japanese babies with the A bomb. We can sling mud at each other all day. The truth of the matter is that anything either party has done or not done is our fault. It is still "we the people" wheather or not we are willing to accept responsability for what this country has become, we are still responsable.We are nothing more than a victom of our own damn creation.

BigAl 6 years, 9 months ago

"Democrats have spent more time obsessing over W and conducting investigations than actually trying to show America this "change" that we hear about until our ears are ringing."Give me a break. This is the biggest crock I've seen in a long time. How quick you republicans forget.The despicable republicans wasted 8 years and millions and millions of taxpayer money going after Bill Clinton and now they whine like school girls about people critizing GWB. Speaking of obsession. Even in this post, you people immediately try to deflect off of GWB and attack Clinton. He has been out of office for over 7 years. You really need to get over yourselves.

georgeofwesternkansas 6 years, 9 months ago

Divide and Conquer!! Look at us, we are neighbors and act like children in the school yard. Well one thing is for sure, nothing will change as long as we are divided.

oldvet 6 years, 9 months ago

Curtis, you think the editor was talking to you... he was talking about you!

jafs 6 years, 9 months ago

Wow.Under Reagan and the first Bush, we had recessions and wars.Under Clinton, we had a healthy economy (he left office with a budget surplus!) and diplomacy.Under the second Bush, we have a recession (most likely) and wars.

jafs 6 years, 9 months ago

The current economic problems are almost certainly a result of a lack of regulation/oversight of large companies (a right-wing tradition), and tax cuts for the wealthy (again) combined with out-of-control spending on the war.Democrats cannot overturn the tax cuts until the current term of them expires. If they could have, we might have seen more change on that front already.Also, while they have a majority, they probably don't have the votes to overturn presidential vetoes.

jafs 6 years, 9 months ago

Now. lest everyone thinks I believe Democrats are perfect, I'll be glad to point out some flaws.They seem a little naive about national security.They can't seem to keep it in their pants, or avoid getting caught.They are as beholden to their campaign contributors as any other politicians.Overall, though, they seem like the clearly "lesser evil" than Republicans.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 9 months ago

GWB - "The buck shops here!~)"

BigAl 6 years, 9 months ago

You're all over the talking points today lucky_man. It is all the fault of Clinton, Hollywood or the Press. Time to get your collective heads out of your ..................

jonas 6 years, 9 months ago

jafs: The lesser evil would be a divided and paralyzed legislative/executive branch(es).

budwhysir 6 years, 9 months ago

I think the GOP is blamed for everything. This guy is just trying to live in todays world like all of us. Why is everyone so hard on this gop guy? I never have met him, what does he look like. Is he related to a jayhawk?

Oracle_of_Rhode 6 years, 9 months ago

Fantastic letter. Right on!

sfjayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

Anyone else remember when the Republicans stood for states rights, small government, healthy economy, and avoiding costly, expensive foreign entanglements? Oh how I miss the good old days, before we were hijacked by this group of crooks. Can anyone help me pinpoint where the change began? It would be a pretty interesting exercise from a contemporary history perspective.

budwhysir 6 years, 9 months ago

sfjayhawk:Yes I remember when the republicans where able to stand. However, they now have some type of problem and must remain seated. The change began at the point when things changed. This is the best time frame i can give. As you know, by the time we notice something it is too late. This is the fact they are banking on when it comes to politics

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says: "The truth of the matter is that anything either party has done or not done is our fault. It is still "we the people" wheather or not we are willing to accept responsability for what this country has become, we are still responsable."and"Well one thing is for sure, nothing will change as long as we are divided."How true. The LTE writer demonstrates everything that's wrong with our political system. One thing that might help is to eliminate political parties, at least remove the party lever or party-line box on the ballots.Yes, I am a registered Republican. This is because most of the time, most of the Republican candidates agree with my stand on most of the issues. And that's about the best anyone can hope for; unless I run for office myself, it's pretty unlikely that I'm going to find a candidate that agrees with me 100%. But I have never, ever voted the party ticket. I vote for the candidates I believe are most qualified to fix the problems the way I believe they should be fixed. As I said, most of those are Republicans, but I also vote for Democrats and Independents.But too many people haven't got a clue where their candidates stand on the issues, or even what those issues are. They think that just because a candidate is a member of the party they favor (many for no other reason than because it's the party their parents favored), then somehow all the country's problems will be fixed, those that espouse the agenda I believe should be advanced. Early on in the 2000 election, early in the primary season, I went to one of those websites where you can see how you match up with the candidates on a variety of issues. The candidate that came in second, just a single percentage point behind the number one match, was Joe Lieberman, the eventual Democratic VP nominee. Thank the lord that the people of Connecticut re-elected him; he is an example of someone that represents all of his constituents, and he had widespread support over all the political groups in that state. But the Dems kicked him out for not being a pure enough Democrat. [cont]

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

[cont]Some complain that in response to a letter like this one, others throw out Clinton's name. There is nothing wrong with this. The LTE writer says the problems are caused by "Republicans," and there's nothing inappropriate about saying that there are faults with Democratic politicians also. Putting your faith in a politician simply because their name appears on a blue bumper sticker versus a red one will get us nowhere, and only further serve to divide the country. Just an example, and yes, it's a Clinton one: Many supporters of gay rights voted for Clinton believing a Democrat would further their agenda - what they got was "Don't ask, don't tell," and Clinton's signature on the Defense of Marriage Act.How can anyone tell whether Hillary or Obama would be the lesser of evils? Hillary voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq (read the impassioned speech she gave on the Senate floor sometime). Her stance has been impossible to narrow down since, as she changes her position depending on the daily polls. Obama hasn't been around long enough (which isn't necessarily a bad thing in itself), hasn't made his position clear enough on some issues, hasn't explained how he'll accomplish the things he says he will. I'd have a hard time voting for any candidate like that, although given the choice I could probably live with Obama - at least he's not trying to force an unworkable universal healthcare plan down our throats.Whether you agree with the Democrat's rhetoric as opposed to the Republican's rhetoric, one thing to remember: Both sides want what they believe is best for our country. We're obviously not going to agree with what that is or how to get there, but in their own ways, that's what both sides want. One thing we can probably all agree on - having half the country at the throats of the other half all the time is not what's good for the country, and what we need is to find a way to work together, to elect leaders who are going to do represent all of us, not half of us.

beatrice 6 years, 9 months ago

What, you mean we put former oil men in charge of the country, and now oil companies are making record profits during a time of war while the rest of the economy goes in the toilet? I'm shocked! Well, I'll be GOP damned.

ndmoderate 6 years, 9 months ago

notajayhawk: A Republican I can respect!

ndmoderate 6 years, 9 months ago

"That's why I am voting for Barack Osama. If the Terrorists see that a muslim is in charge of this country maybe we can all live in loving peace."That statement doesn't even deserve a response from anyone with a modicum of intelligence.But, it brings up an interesting query: What if a presidential candidate was a non-Christian? Feasible electability aside, would that fact somehow make the candidate less of an American, or less deserving of a chance to hold public office?

bearded_gnome 6 years, 9 months ago

Cool lists several "scandals" that are nonscandals, and are simply hype. valerie plame was not "outed" as she was already openly working at the cia, and parking it is public lot! The special prosecutor never charged anybody with outing her. and, there's trouble even with the suit she and her demorat husband have filed. all that list of things, all nothing. the dem controled congress wants nothing to do with impeachment because they know they would sorely lose the contest and look very very bad in the process! this lte proves the accuracy of the editorial it attempts to criticize. and as to the war, hillary/sHrillary voted for it, and most dems in senate did too. apparently saddam had wmd's until a few months before the invasion. clinton missiled iraq in '998 for the same reasons! so, you impeach bush, you impeach clinton too. the downinstreet memos aren't so conclusive, and in the process of claiming british support, you also quickly turn a blind eye to the fact that the head of britains international intel agency, named scarlet (sp?) actually confirmed bush's "sixteen words" in the state of the union speech wherein he said that saddam had tried to acquire african yellowcake uranium. so, look at brit sources, then. finally, this fact published in the jihad times, always really gets you far left crazies: a few days after toppling saddam, we found 250-tons of yellowcake uranium in baghdad! no, he wasn't using that to make glow-in-the-dark garden rocks! ever heard of ricin? saddam succeeded in shipping that to britain with terrorist intent. not an optional war when you don't ignore certain troubling facts.

jumpin_catfish 6 years, 9 months ago

And of course the Dems have no blame, is that what you're saying Curtis? As I recall the current Democratic majority in Congress was elected to bring change, will its worst now then before, so when do I get to start blaming the Dems for their total failure? hummmm I think they are all to blame and every last one of them need to be replaced in the next election but sadly that won't happen.

igby 6 years, 9 months ago

Lets see!If there was no Bush, what would the world look like today?Gore 4 years.Europe would be the New Islamic Republic. Sadam would be the King with Osama as General.No churches and public beatings daily for all the sinful euro-slut people.Kerry four Years!Quote:"I think Americans can learn to accept the diversity of the great Islamic euro change. After all, they are better than Hitlers reich, they at least give the jews a choice about how their going to die.". "Well have to survive as a nation without jews. "

staff04 6 years, 9 months ago

9 out of 10 Americans think we are in a recession...yet yesterday, the President insisted that we were not.This from the guy who "hadn't heard" about the rising gas prices...

igby 6 years, 9 months ago

The Jews first, then the liberal euro-sluts of the west. All will die or convert to Islam. The prophet Mohammad will return to lead them and rule the world. All the wealth of the nations of the world will belong to Islam.Are you not feeling the invisible hand of the prophet of Islam, now.All our wealth will be spent stopping these Islamic terrorist. It doesn't matter who is in power, GOP or Liberal Dems. Their plan will cause Europe and the West to fall into financial ruin.

Jason Bailey 6 years, 9 months ago

Personally, I have become disillusioned with both sides. Career politicians was not what the Founding Fathers had in mind at all and now that we have that mindset so deeply entrenched in our government, it is ultimately hurting us because both sides cater to their special interests to keep them in power. They don't care about the people any further than what it will do to help them aggregate power.What we need is a Revolution; one to take the lessons learned over the past 200 hundred years and make an even more perfect union. This is going to sound radical but I believe the government is out of control and needs to be dissolved. We should use the Constitution as a starting point for a new Constitution but remove the junk (Amendment that empowers the Feds to collect taxes) and return to the States calling the shots with the Feds doing nothing more than handling Foreign Relations and coordinating national defense and general regulations of commerce. Term limits on all public offices should be called out clearly and accountability at the judgeship level should be set in the hands of the people -- not politicians.Jefferson himself wrote that "every once in a while, a nation must have the blood of tyrants and the blood of patriots spilled in order to preserve liberty" - David McCullough's American Sphinx.I'm not advocating a bloody revolution but a bloodless one where we invoke our Constitutional mandate to dissolve the current form of government and hold another Constitutional convention to get it right this time.

Jason Bailey 6 years, 9 months ago

All we really need is someone to pull a Thomas Paine and write a new "Common Sense" to start the ball rolling....any takers?

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 9 months ago

I recently read a figure in Rolling Stone that said 2/3 of modern historians believe W is the worst president in history. Take it for what it is worth, if a stat in Rolling Stone has any. It's probably more right than wrong, though.

JohnBrown 6 years, 9 months ago

The facts are that since GW took office oil went from $20 a barrel to $116 a barrel; the federal government grew more than 40%...by a party that CLAIMS DURING ELECTIONS they are for reducing the government footprint (liars). This growth let to a $4 trillion increase in our debt (all 42 previous presidents combined had only created $5 trillion in debt!), and most importantly...9/11 happened on his watch. And we STILL have no alternative energy plan.Some here want to "blame" (aka 'spin') what's happened in the past 2 years on the Democrats "because they were in charge". Only since then has GW used his veto, and he's still making all the appointments, and his appointees are still running the government (including STILL not overseeing the mortgage crisis or the lack of oversight that created it).The best part is how those in power can run this country into the ground (including our military) but yet claim they are the 'true' Americans because they still have their lapel pin flags waving.Maybe God did damn America...by allowing the Supreme Court to give us GW.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

Well, I knew it was wasted breath when I wrote it, and I'll pretty much rest my case.

BrianR 6 years, 9 months ago

'The recession of the early 1980s was an after-shock of the Carter years. And Bush 43 inherited the Clinton-Gore recession."You are a comedic genius. This is the same tired tactic of repeating lies until (stupid) people believe them. If you really want to get at one of the core reasons this country is spinning, check out the 1980 Religious Roundtable's National Affairs Briefing. That is where Reagan sold out the GOP to the Religious Right.

jafs 6 years, 9 months ago

Again, a majority in Congress is not sufficient to override presidential vetoes unless it is substantial.Therefore, when Congress passes legislation and the president vetoes it, if Congress cannot override the veto, the legislation is dead.Bush has vetoed and/or threatened to veto many of the Democratic attempts to create new legislation.We haven't had a healthy economy for quite a long time, in my experience.The combination of tax cuts for the rich and outsourcing of jobs to other countries has created a situation in which it is good to be wealthy in America, but difficult to find a good job if you are not.Huge deficits are not a sign of a healthy economy.And, it bears repeating that liberals don't "hate America", but may take issue with some of the actions we are taking, both domestically and internationally, and may seek to improve those.Thomas Paine wrote - "It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from his government:"

beatrice 6 years, 9 months ago

When it comes to entertainment media -- music, movies, literature -- I think this form of media is liberal. Creativity isn't a strength of conservatives. When it comes to news media, however, especially given the coporations that own most news outlets -- think Rupert Murdoch and his media empire -- the news media is certainly conservative. There might be exceptions here and there, but by and large the new media is conservative.

jafs 6 years, 9 months ago

Re: The Iraq invasion:It has been reported that intelligence gathered was spun, and some important information withheld from Congress.Based on what they knew, some Democrats may have honestly believed Hussein was an imminent threat.A high-level member of the administration brought information to the president that there was no evidence of collusion between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. The president's response was to dismiss this as not relevant.If the Republicans and Bush are serious about terrorism, why haven't we "gotten" Bin Laden yet? Why are we so concerned about Iraq and not Afghanistan? What about Pakistan?

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 9 months ago

Perhaps they haven't found bin Laden because they need him at large for strategic reasons. Maybe he's the hanging carrot.

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 9 months ago

The GOP likes to distract the public from important national security issues by throwing up social issue smokescreens. They get people all worked up about things like gay marriage and secularism.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 9 months ago

balikbalik (Anonymous) says: "I think it would be worthwhile for you to look at who runs CBS Corporation..."Please don't try to give facts to beatrice, she confuses so easily. And it's kind of a waste of time ... it's a relativism issue: You can't see the slant when you're leaning in the same direction.Funny how nobody sees a problem with Ted Truner's media empire. An American would be hard pressed to avoid being influenced on a daily basis by the former Mr. Hanoi Jane.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -jafs (Anonymous) says: "Why are we so concerned about Iraq and not Afghanistan?"My nephew, preparing for a deployment to that very spot, and the thousands of others who have served there, might disagree that we are "not concerned" about Afghanistan. Perhaps it doesn't draw as much media attention because it's harder for the Democrats to claim after the fact that they opposed our presence there.

beatrice 6 years, 9 months ago

Did anyone catch that John McCain gave a talk today where he criticized Bush for the response to Katrina? How about that, McCain recognizes where Bush screwed up even if Dolph doesn't. I wonder if the right will say McCain is playing the "blame game"? I admire McCain for pointing out the obvious here, but too bad his "leadership" didn't present itself earlier when it could have been of help. If he could see that things weren't going right, why didn't he speak up then? This is just a sad attempt at distancing himself from Bush, but I don't think people will be buying it.

Corey Williams 6 years, 9 months ago

this venom comes from balikbalik"I would venture that the average bin Laden is a better person than the average Bush basher."Wow. Really? Do you hate your fellow Americans who don't hold your political views that much? Do you really hate dissenting views that much? Would it be better for you if everyone thought the same way, believed the same things? Then why don't you move to China...or Cuba...or Saudi...or Iran?When you say that one of the family of a known terrorist, who probably orchestrated deadly attacks on American soil and elsewhere around the world, is better than one of your fellow citizens just because they can't stand Bush...that is one of the most repugnant things I have ever read. Why do you use your first amendment rights to put down others who use theirs just because they don't agree with you? Why do you excrete fluids over the flag and the lives of all who fought to give you that right? Why do you hate America so much?

jhawks22 6 years, 9 months ago

But why male models?

pisafromthewest 6 years, 9 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says: "This is just a sad attempt at distancing himself from Bush, but I don't think people will be buying it."Or maybe beatrice just wasn't listening when he said this ... literally ... from day one of the campaign.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/us/politics/26mccain.html?hp=&pagewanted=allAnd the things he said (and did) before.http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2006/2006-07-19-10.asp

Corey Williams 6 years, 9 months ago

"It's sad that you believe it's all right for Bush-bashers to hit young women in wheel chairs."Wow. Did I even say that? Did I even infer that? Are you really so simpleminded as to reduce your arguments to this? Is this what you use your master debater skills for? And then you put up a link from the New York Post? The Enquirer didn't have anything? Did you check the News of the World? And then to say that anyone who doesn't agree with you concerning Bush (or anything else) is the same as someone who hits someone in a wheelchair? Have you no sense of decency? Have you no shame?I won't bite. I won't play your game. You can sit all night and think that you "won" this. That's ok. That's fine. Maybe someday you can "balik balik" to a more reasonable state of mind. This is all you have and I don't want to take it away from you. I, on the other hand, have a life outside of petty postings like yours. That's me, walking out of this.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 9 months ago

cool (Anonymous) says: "how the high court hijacked the 2000 election:"Ah, poor, desperate little koolaid. It's always so amusing when the liberals claim to be so tired of anyone bringing up their hero Clinton, yet they keep throwing this same old tired cr*p around. It's amazing that people like koolaid can consistently forget ... well, not actually forget, since I seriously doubt that koolaid ever read the SCOTUS decision, or the reports from the media consortium that actually completed the recounts, let alone actually understood the issue ... that if the recount had continued, Bush would still have won. If it had been recounted the way Gore requested, or the way Bush requested, or the way the Florida courts requested, the result would have been the same. There is no way the recount could have had a different result ... NO way ... without inclusion of the over-votes, those ballots that had more than one vote cast, and these have never been allowable in any election for any office anywhere. But since the over-votes, and those ballots where people claimed they got confused (like the butterfly ballots) tended to favor the Dems, at least we know that more stupid people vote Democratic.

pisafromthewest 6 years, 9 months ago

cool (Anonymous) says: "the votes were not 'fully recounted':.."Well, maybe you're too young to remember. Which I'm pretty sure is the case, since you can't possibly be even 8 years old.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recountYeah, I know, it's only wikipedia - as opposed to your source of all your political expertise, Youtube.But then, who could expect much from someone who names Jimmy Carter as one of his modern day heroes?

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 9 months ago

Windlass (Anonymous) says: The GOP likes to distract the public from important national security issues by throwing up social issue smokescreens. They get people all worked up about things like gay marriage and secularism.Especially in ruby-red Kansas where these have never even been issues------------------------------------That's exactly my point; they know they're issues, so they throw gas on the fire. We have much bigger issues facing us that Bush and the GOP have royally messed up. They fire up these social issues so that people focus on those issues and not the ones that are really important, like the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, bin Laden, etc.

Corey Williams 6 years, 9 months ago

If you're a fan of KU, then you don't like MU or KSU. There are those who can't stand either of the latter universities. And the feeling is reciprocated. When KU was playing Memphis, the KC Star had people in Columbia and Manhattan. In both cities, people bad mouthed the KU team and Lawrence in general. Some people can't stand the team, but can recognize great players. Beasley in particular. Some people hated him because he played for KSU, others respected his skill. This is sports in general. Whether your KU/MU, Chiefs/Raiders; this is how it is. Politics shouldn't be that way.When morons on the left make a bad decision, like voting for the Iraq war, then they should be ridiculed. When morons on the right make a bad decision, like letting the debt grow out of control, they should be ridiculed. When you stick with either party, no matter what they do, there is something wrong. When you can't see that your chosen party has done stupid things, there is something wrong. When all you can do is point out the other side's mistakes, there is something wrong. America is a good country. Not the best, but one of the best in the world. The past 7 years has seen it's name get dragged through the mud, with members of both parties too caught up in politics to stand up for what they know is right. Bush and Pelosi, Cheney and Reed; everyone--except for those who voted against the Iraq war resolution--has a hand in what has happened to this country. The country that stood for justice, liberty, and freedom. When you people from either side continually bad mouth the other party instead of trying to make this country better, that is what will bring America's downfall. Not abortion. Not gay rights. Not Bush bashing. This infantile bickering across party lines. When all you can do is call each other names or blame problems on one president or another, that is what will ruin the republic. Not honest, open political discussion like adults, but playground disputes with playground language. Like children.

Mkh 6 years, 9 months ago

The Republicans and the Democrats are each criminals are both to blame. Anyone who thinks one is better than the other needs to be kicked in the head. Idiots.

jayhawklawrence 6 years, 9 months ago

I think we need to be careful not to get caught up in the hype of politics and rhetoric. We were taken advantage of in the emotional atmosphere following 9-11. The same thing could happen in the emotional resentment toward Bush.Too bad we can't turn off the radio on some of these talk shows where the lies and misdirects run deep and wide.It's hard to find good candidates to vote for.

storm 6 years, 9 months ago

No need to be bewildered and unable to understand anymore! The answer is obvious. Remember in both elections, seventy-five percent of US citizens did not vote for Bush. Fifty percent didn't vote at all, and the remaining 25 percent voted for Gore or Kerry. The majority of US citizens have never ever liked Bush.

JHOK32 6 years, 9 months ago

To all Reds: Bush said he invaded Iraq because: 1. Saddam had WMD's & he was a tyrant. 2. We now know there never were any WMD's (even though the UN already told him that) & we killed Saddam. 3. So why are we still there? 4. Hint: It's a 3 letter word. It starts with an "O" and ends with "L." Bush represents the Big Oil companies......they have got filthy rich under him, so have the Big Defense companies. They put him in office...........Duh! It is so blatant! I can't believe there's anyone alive out there that still buys his bull_, and he claims to be a Christian? GIVE US A BREAK!!!