Armed Forces Day
Today is Armed Forces Day and I would like to extend a very heartfelt thank you to all of those men and women who are serving and have served this country in the armed forces.
Because of what you are doing and have done, I am able to do what I am doing.
Thank you very much!
I have decided to take a slight departure from the normal tribute videos that I like to post. It isn’t very often– with the exception of “the Nuge”– that we hear of hard rockers writing songs of tribute to the armed forces, but I found a few and here they are for your listening pleasure.
Drowning Pool– Soldiers
Three Doors Down– Citizen/Soldier
Kid Rock– American Warrior
And to top it off, two videos from the Nuge and Godsmack performing Cat Scatch Fever and Stranglehold for the Marines at Camp Pendleton.
Nancy Pelosi tells musicians they can quit their jobs because they will have healthcare
Earlier this week Nancy Pelosi stated that she considers the healthcare reform bill an entrepreneurial bill because it will allow people to quit their jobs. Huh?
This is what she had to say:
We see it as an entrepreneurial bill,” Pelosi said, “a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care
I am not sure if you can call a musician an entrepreneur, but that is just a side note (pardon the pun) to the main issue here. The bigger issue here is that Nancy Pelosi is urging people to quit their jobs to pursue their dreams because the American taxpayer will foot the bill for their healthcare insurance.
There is nothing wrong– of course– with pursuing a dream (I, for example, decided to pull the trigger and buy a drum kit from http://www.kickstartyourdrumming.com/best-drum-machine – which is still in it’s box, ironically), but to encourage people to quit working because those of us who work hard will also support these people as well, is just irresponsible. People have been quitting jobs to better themselves and to follow their dreams since the foundation of America and before, but never before have we had a congressman stand up and tell an audience that if they do so the government– meaning of course, the taxpayer– will take care of them.
Part of going out on your own and following a path in life comes with a little bit of responsibility and self accountability. Many people who go off on their own to live a dream or to start a business do not make it– they fail. That is a part of life and people learn from these experiences and move on.
But Nancy Pelosi’s statement goes beyond the issue of the taxpayer paying for the healthcare of a person who is willingly not working. It promotes a person’s irresponsibility by removing the consequences for a person’s actions and replacing it with government support. She is telling a person that he or she is free to do whatever they want and that the taxpayer will be there to help them if they cannot help themselves.
While she may think that this will give an edge to an entrepreneurial person, the entrepreneurial person is already a motivated person and a person that is likely to take personal risks without an assurance from the government. What this statement does is provide people who are less motivated, and people who are less willing to work, an easy excuse to quit working– after all the government urged them to do so by telling them not to worry because the poor suckers who still work will take care of them.
This will not promote entrepreneurship, it will help to promote a society in which more and more people are dependant on the government to provide people with what they should be providing for themselves. This type of don’t worry, the government will take care of you attitude does not promote a good work ethic, in fact it does just the opposite, it deprives people of a good work ethic. And that might be just what these people want.
The Obama administration authorized the killing by the CIA of Anwar al-Awlaki– an American born radical Muslim who is now believed to be hiding in Yemen. Awlaki has been preaching that it is a moral obligation and a religious duty for Muslims to attack the United States. Because the CIA has targeted him for death he no longer has the constitutional protections guaranteed in the constitution. There was no judicial review in this case, he was targeted for death by the CIA and Barack Obama has authorized his killing.
Make no mistake about it, I have no problem with the CIA targeting Awlaki for death and I give kudos to the Obama administration for authorizing his killing– Awlaki has made it his goal to wage war and to condone and recruit people to wage war against the United States; he has forfeited his rights as a citizen of the United States. But not everyone sees it this way.
The Obama administration is coming under fire from the far left for this decision. They claim that it is un-American to target this man for death based on top secret information and without the benefit of a trial by jury.
Here is some of the fallout from this decision:
“Congress has protected Awlaki’s cellphone calls,” said Vicki Divoll, a former C.I.A. lawyer who now teaches at the United States Naval Academy. “But it has not provided any protections for his life. That makes no sense.”
We are entering a grey area here. What is the difference between Anwar al-Awlaki and Faisal Shahzad– the failed Times Square bomber? After all, Faisal Shahzad is also an American citizen who tried to wage war on American soil. Yet Shahzad was granted his rights under the constitution and read his rights. Both men have decided that America must be attacked; Anwar al-Awaki is trying to entice Muslims to fight against the United States, while Faisal Shahzad actually carried out an attempted attack– with the help of the Taliban– that would have been successful if the bomb had exploded, and he was probably influenced by al-Awaki. The most obvious difference is the fact that Shahzad was an American on American soil while al-Awaki is an American hiding overseas. Yet al-Awaki is not in the war zone and is not actively fighting against the United States. Shouldn’t he then be targeted for arrest, read his rights, and then given a fair trial by jury. This is the argument that the left will make.
I do not have a problem with the handling of the Shahzad case to this point. I understand fully that as a United States citizen who was arrested on American soil he will receive the full rights granted in the United States constitution, including the reading of those rights. But the news that Anwar al-Awaki has been denied those rights has got to draw fire from the far left in this country, after all Barack Obama railed against President Bush and his war policies during the campaign and promised to end the controversial policies of the Bush administration, yet now he is willing to target an American citizen for death with no trial by jury and no reading of his Miranda rights.
This is the conundrum that Barack Obama finds himself in because of the promises he made to the left to bring the war to a quick ending, to end the Bush administration’s “un-American” policies, and to wage a smarter and more humane war against our enemies. He has nobody to blame but himself for the controversy which may arise from the government’s authorization to kill one of her own citizens.
Again, I agree with both the targeted killing of al-Awaki and the handling of Shahzad after his arrest, but the left has to be wondering what is going on here. Is this what they voted for when they went to the polls and voted for the most anti-war candidate that they could find?
Barack Obama made promises that he could not keep– promises that he knew he could not keep, but many people bought into them and there will be many people on the left who feel that Barack Obama is no better than George W Bush for his authorization of the assassination of al-Awaki. Or at least there should be; if the left condones the authorization of the assassination of an American citizen without a trial it will prove once and for all that they are nothing more than hypocrites when it comes to the war on terror.
The legal wrangling has begun, it will be interesting to see which politicians who opposed George W Bush’s handling of the war on terror come out to defend Barack Obama’s decision to allow the killing of an American citizen in Yemen.
Autistic boy charged with terrorism for a drawing
The details are still sketchy, but an autistic 14 year old Georgia boy is facing terror charges and a tribunal for a drawing that he made. The sketch is a stick figure drawing that shows himself shooting one of his teachers.
I am not going to defend this boy for the picture that he drew, he obviously has mental problem on top of his autism, but charging this boy– who has the mental capacity of a 3rd grader– with terrorism in front of a tribunal seems to be going just a little bit too far to me. This boy has no idea what he did wrong– that is a problem in itself and the boy needs help, but let’s get real here. This boy may have problems, and action must be taken to ensure that he never acts upon what he drew, and he probably needs therapy, Does that make him a terrorist who should be subjected to a tribunal?
I do find it telling however that this boy will face a tribunal while terrorists who are being held at GITMO are going to get full legal rights under the United States constitution and will not be faced with the prospects of a military tribunal. It make you wonder what the hell is going on in our government.
Have you heard the joke about the senior citizens who were told they could no longer pray before they ate their meals because the meals were provided by the government? What? Wait a minute…this is no joke. This is a true story.
I first read this story at Conservative Hideout, so a hat tip is in order. Props go out to Matt for finding this story.
Senior Citizens Inc. provides meals for senior citizens at a discount rate; a meal that would normally cost $6 only costs the seniors at Port Wentworth’s Ed Young Senior Citizens Center in Georgia $.55, the government picks up the tab for the rest of the bill. Because the federal government foots the rest of the bill, Senior Citizens Inc. has instituted a policy that there can be no prayer before the meals are served. They have instituted a moment of silence instead. Their defense is that they are not telling the seniors that they cannot pray before they eat, but rather that they must use the moment of silence to pray to themselves so that nobody else can hear them.
It’s interpreted that we’re telling people that they can’t pray, but we aren’t saying that,” he said. “We’re asking them to pray to themselves. Have that moment of silence
Naturally this all comes back to the whole separation of church and state argument; a concept that appears not in the constitution but was taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. It would be worthwhile to note here that Thomas Jefferson was lukewarm at best to the constitution upon first reading it, fearing that it gave too much power to the federal government– specifically in regards to the presidency– and took too much power away from the states. It is also true that he was a fierce defender of the theory of the “seperation of church and state” and even set up one of the first– if not the first– secular universities in the country, but the fact remains that the “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the constitution. He believed that all Americans had the right to worship– or not worship– in any manner that they saw fit.
The actual text of the constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Can someone explain to me how a senior who says Grace before he or she eats a meal that was mostly paid for by the government constitutes the “establishment of religion” by the congress? Can someone explain to me how telling a senior that he or she cannot say Grace before eating the same meal is not being prohibited from the free exercise thereof?
While one may argue that congress has not passed this law, the fact remains that a company working in conjunction with the federal government is telling a person how and when they can pray, and any way you cut it, their freedom to exercise their religion is being violated.
The constitution does not say that a person may not pray if there is a chance that someone in the vicinity may be offended. Likewise, the constitution does not include a “right to never be offended.”
This is a clear cut case of political correctness run amuck, and a clear misunderstanding of what the “freedom of religion” amendment in the constitution means.
Representative Emanuel Cleaver has said that the reason that people are becoming skeptical about the global warming hoax is because we are too stupid to understand it, and that the argument needs to be “dumbed down” in order for the unwashed masses to understand it. Okay, that isn’t exactly what he said, but that is what can be taken from these comments that he made in regards to the this issue.
I think the newspapers are supposed to be printed at the sixth grade level and I think with something as important as (global warming), we’ve got to figure out how to simplify the language for the public, because otherwise they’re going to get a headache and bail out because they — not because they’re not concerned, but because they don’t get it
According to this man, the newspapers are supposed to write at a sixth grade level so that the American people can understand what is written in the paper. This man gives us true insight to what many of us have said about liberals for quite a while; that they feel they know what is best for us, and that we are too stupid to know that what they are doing is for our own good. The arrogance, condescension, and contempt that this man feels for his constituents– and for the American people in general– is something that politicians don’t often put into words. But put it into words he did. We need to be spoken to at sixth grade levels according to this man, we just aren’t smart enough to understand the complex issues that the congress has to deal with on a daily basis. Thank God that we have people as smart as Emanuel Cleaver to take care of us, otherwise the human race would already be extinct. Sometimes I wonder if he is correct, how else could you explain that someone like this could be elected by the people in the first place?
Nancy Pelosi has gone on record as saying that she has talked to Catholic leaders about immigration reform and has asked them to speak from the pulpit in favor of passing amnesty for illegal aliens because it “is a manifestation of our living the gospels.”
I would hope that there’s one thing that we can do working together as we go forward that speaks to what the Bible tells us about the dignity and worth of every person — and that is on the subject of immigration,” Pelosi said in her remarks. “Because I think the Church is going to have to play a very major role in how we, in how people are treated.”
“The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, ‘We want you to pass immigration reform,’” disclosed Pelosi. “And I say, ‘But I want you to speak about it from the pulpit.’
“I want you to instruct your, whatever the communication is — the people, some of them, oppose immigration reform are sitting in those pews and you have to tell them that this is a ‘manifestation of our living the gospels,’” said Pelosi. “Our patron saint of San Francisco, St. Francis of Assisi, he said, ‘preach the gospel –sometimes use words.’ We need the words to be said because it isn’t being picked up automatically.”
I don’t want to spend too much time on this, so I just have a couple of questions about Nancy Pelosi’s “suggestions” to the Catholic church, whatever happened to the separation of church and state that the liberals have somehow written into the constitution? And, does she think that the Catholic church should be quiet in their opposition to gay marriage? If so, it shows that the “separation of church and state” only applies when liberals think it should apply.
Could this be Barack Obama’s Harriet Miers moment? When President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court the backlash was immediate and swift. But the reaction came from the right, as conservatives warned that her conservative credentials were in question. There was no paper trail for Harriet Miers, and President Bush was accused of cronyism as he asked Americans to trust him on Miers’ conservative views. Eventually Harriet Miers was forced to decline the nomination and Samual Alito was soon confirmed as President Bush’s second Supreme Court appointee.
The parallels here are intriguing to say the least.
Now we have the president of the United States appointing a person that he calls a friend– without much of a paper trail– and he is basically asking liberals to trust him on his judgement. There seems to be more backlash from the liberals on Elena Kagan’s nomination than there is from conservatives. The liberals’ theory goes something like this: Justice John Paul Stevens was considered one of the more liberal justices on the Supreme Court, and since Republicans are going to oppose any nomination that Barack Obama makes, he should have nominated a far leftist to replace Justice Stevens. Because he did not appear to do so– at least on the surface- he is facing backlash from his liberal base. In one respect, I understand their position. Why didn’t he nominate a tried and true liberal to the court? There is no doubt in my mind that Elena Kagan will prove to be the liberal that he claims she will be, but that is not enough for the left who want proof that Kagan is who they hope she is.
As news trickles out, it appears as if this is also an act of cronyism as she is an old friend of Obama’s and also has ties to him from his Chicago days. But that is not the main issue here, the problem that Obama faces from the left is the uncertanty of her liberal credentials. Barack Obama has been forced to play defense for this pick; not from the right , but from the left.
It appears as if Barack Obama chose what he thought would be the path of least resistance, hoping to nominate a candidate that would draw little Republican resistance and assure a quick nomination so that he could pursue his liberal domestic agenda without the distraction of a Supreme Court confermation hearing, but he may have been “misguided” as to the extent liberals would be unhappy.
In the end I believe that liberals will fall in line with the president and will support Elena Kagan in the nomination process; this will not end up being a Harriet Miers moment, but if it does, we have to be careful for what we wish for. Elena Kagan may be the best that conservatives can hope for. If this turns into a Harriet Miers moment and we end up with a replacement nominee that turns out to be the liberal equivalent of Samuel Alito, while it may be amusing, we may rue the day that the left sabotaged the nomination of Elena Kagan.
It looks as though Barack Obama has made his choice to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court that was left by the retirement of Justice Stevens. According to this article that choice will be Elena Kagan.
I am not going to sit here and pretend that I know anything about her, but according to the article I linked to, she seems to be a well qualified candidate, although she has never served as a justice before. This means that we really do not know much about her judicial philosophy because she doesn’t have a record on the issues that we can use to judge her by. Perhaps that is one reason that Barack Obama chose her over some of the other candidates that did have judicial experience. We know what Barack Obama’s philosophy on the Supreme Court is, so we can expect him to nominate someone who agrees with that philosophy– and much like Obama didn’t have a record of votes when he was in the state senate, so that he would not leave a trail– he probably sees it as a plus that there will not be much in Kagan’s own hand that could give us insight into her positions on the issues.
The article claims that Barack Obama chose her because she is a consensus builder. This means he is hoping that she can sway the conservative members over to the liberal side of the issues. Consensus to people like Barack Obama means to reverse your opinions and agree with him.
I don’t see any way, unless something drastic and unforeseen happens, that Elena Kagan will not be confirmed as the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States, but it is going to be interesting to see how the Republicans play this in an election year.
Is this a battle that the Republicans are going to want to fight with the elections right around the corner? Or is this an issue that they will give in on in order to focus on other issues? Will they be afraid of being painted as obstructionists before the election or will they see this as a chance for them to take a stand? These are all interesting questions that will be answered in time as the hearings unwind.
If the Republicans choose to, it would seem to me that they could use this confirmation process to slow down Barack Obama’s domestic agenda on other contentious issues. And that would be a good thing for the country, but will they see it that way?
It is going to be very interesting to watch this take shape over the Summer.
Barack Obama is now lamenting the emergence of new technology in the political system. While giving a speech at Hampton University in Virginia he stated that:
With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation
Information becomes a distraction and a diversion according to Barack Obama. How scary is it that the idea of an informed public is seen by the president of the United States as a distraction? What is it about the easy access to information that Barack Obama finds threatening? Is it the fact that we can find people who oppose the president’s policies on the internet, while by and large the mainstream media has bought into his lies?
But he continued, and said something that I find even more alarming:
All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy
Our Democracy (Republic) is being subjected to new pressures because people who differ with the president are free to offer their disagreements on a forum that might actually get other people to view their complaints with the president.
Many bloggers– like myself– read the news online and write our opinions of the news. We do not claim to be news sources or even journalists, we are just people who follow politics closely and write about our opinions on the issues. You may agree or disagree with what we write, but that does not mean that writing about political issues should be considered a distraction or a threat to Democracy. In fact, the idea that ordinary Americans now have a voice to offer our opinions and debate the issues should be considered a plus for our REPUBLIC, but people like Barack Obama are used to having the press in their back pocket, so naturally they consider the “citizen journalists” a threat to their vision of Democracy where the mainstream media reports a story exactly as the administration wants it reported. The new media has presented a problem for Barack Obama because he cannot use it as a propaganda arm for his leftist ideals. That is why he finds technology to be a threat rather than a liberating force.
Make no mistake about it; Barack Obama didn’t casually make these statements, he made the for a reason. And the reason very well could be that he will be coming after those of us who speak out against him in the near future. The FCC is poised to start regulating the internet, the question is, how far will they go?
America's Watchtower 