On Thursday, November 5, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan went on a shooting rampage at the Fort Hood Army Base in Fort Hood, Texas, near Killeen. In the process he killed fourteen people (12 soldiers, one civilian, 1 and an unborn child), and he wounded 30 others. Fort Hood is the most populous military base in the world. The incident occurred at 1:34 p.m. CST. According to reports, Hasan entered his workplace, The Soldier Readiness Center, where personnel receive routine medical treatment immediately prior to and from deployment. He took a seat at an empty table, bowed his head for several seconds, and then stood up and opened fire. According to eyewitnesses, he jumped onto a desk and shouted, "Allahu Akbar!" He had two handguns: an FN Five-seven semi-automatic pistol and a .357 Magnum revolver. He fired 100 rounds. He finally was shot by civilian police officers. He is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 accounts of attempted murder under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He may face additional charges at court-martial.
Nidal Malik Hasan is an American-born Muslim of Palestinian descent who on a number of occasions expressed radical beliefs. He is 39 years old and is an army psychiatrist. When his parents died in 1998 and 2001 he became a more devout Muslim. Nader Hasan, one of Nidal's cousins who is a lawyer in Virginia, said that Hasan's opinion turned against both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq upon hearing stories from soldiers who were in that war. He attended Dar Al-Hirjah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia in 2001, at the same time as Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, two of the September 11th hijackers. A review of Hasan's computer revealed visits to websites espousing radical Islamist ideas. He expressed admiration for the Anwar al-Awlaki, imam at Dar al-Hirjah mosque between 2000 and 2002. It's also been revealed that he communicated by email with Anwar al-Awlaki. Once while presenting what was supposed to be a medical lecture to other psychiatrists, he chose to lecture about Islam. He stated that non-believers would be sent to hell, decapitated, set on fire, and have burning oil poured down their throats.
For six years he worked at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C. According to National Public Radio, the supervisors at Walter Reed had met to discuss what to do with Hasan. He received poor evaluations and was said to have performed substandard work. They said he was very strange. The supervisors at Walter Reed said he was disconnected, aloof, paranoid, belligerent, and schizoid. He was transferred to the Fort Hood Army Base. He had expressed admiration for Al-Awlaki's teachings. Al-Awlaki was under surveillance and he was investigated by the FBI after intelligence agencies intercepted 18 emails between Al-Awlaki and Hasan. There was one email where Hasan stated, "I can't wait to join you," in the afterlife. And there was another where Hasan asked Al-Awlaki about when jihad is appropriate. The Army officials were notified by those intercepted emails but they didn't perceive Hasan as a threat. Army officials turned their head the other way. They refused to acknowledge that Hasan could be a potential terrorist.
Nidal Malik Hasan should've been dismissed from the army given his strange behavior as well as his devotion to extreme Islamic teachings. In the midst of all the evidence that was used proving that Hasan believed in jihad should've raised some red flags. He was a potential danger and he proved that. This shooting at Fort Hood should've NEVER TAKEN PLACE! The problem is political correctness run amok. The federal government at all levels has hired and promoted Muslims to influential positioins. They require "sensitivity training" for federal employees, including those working at the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. All this foolishness emboldens our enemies. Our government is giving the okay for radical Islamists to infiltrate all levels of our government, even the military, and refuses to see the danger radical Islam imposes on the safety and security of Americans. Hasan should be tried as a terrorist. He should be interrogated. Our government is in bed with the Middle Eastern world as well as influential Muslims in the U.S. This is suicidal. These Islamists are serious about their religion. They view America and Israel as the infidel which need to be destroyed. The jihadists are seeking to destroy America's way of life. Army General George Casey should be terminated after making the foolish statement that the military is "committed to diversity." It's DIVERSITY THAT'S DESTROYING US! What unifies Americans are those common values that bind us together as a country. The religion of Islam is foreign to the American way of thinking. Islamic jihadists have no place in America. It's time America's borders be secured and we stop allowing Muslims to come to America. We owe no allegiance to the Muslims. While we're on the subject, it's time we drill for our own oil in America so we don't have to import oil from the Middle East. We need to make the Middle East irrevelant when it comes to American interests. THE ISLAMIC JIHADISTS NEED TO BEWARE AND KNOW THEY AREN'T ALLOWED TO COME INTO THIS COUNTRY TO DESTROY IT! THIS IS AMERICA--LAND OF THE FREE, HOME OF THE BRAVE!
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Veterans Day
Today is Veterans Day. We celebrate Veterans Day on November 11th of each year. We should take time each year to remember and honor our veterans in America. We have veterans that have fought in a number of wars over the years. We have veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War of 1991, the war in Afghanistan and the current war in Iraq beginning in 2003. Let's set aside some time today to personally thank each veteran for serving our country and sacrificing their lives for the benefit of America. If it wasn't for the Veterans, we wouldn't be enjoying the freedoms that we dearly enjoy today in America. If you listen to talk radio, you hear a lot of references being made to the freedom of speech being under attack. When we think of America's veterans, we need to remember it's because of them that we have freedom of speech in America. We have the freedom to speak our minds and make statements that are unpopular. Many countries don't allow their citizens the freedom of speech like America does. It's a special privilege that we shouldn't take for granted. One time years ago I was at the local post office in my hometown and I saw a sign on the board there which was giving tribute to the American soldier. It stated that it was because of the American soldier that we have freedom of speech; not protesters. I wholeheartedly agree with that. Our veterans have protected this country from tyranny over the years. When I think of World War II, I think of the veterans that so bravely and valiantly fought that war. It was a crucial time in the history of our world. We had dictators such as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Hirohito on the loom. Hilter was on a quest for world domination. Thanks to God and our brave veterans the forces of Hitler were turned back. I have to agree with Tom Brokaw that the World War II generation was the greatest generation.
Here's a little background of Veterans Day. On November 11, 1918, a treaty was signed with Germany to officially end World War I. It was known as Armistice Day. The hostilities ceased on the 11th hour, the 11th day, and the 11th month of 1918. On November 11, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed November 11th as Armistice Day. The U.S. Congress concurrently passed a resolution seven years later June 4, 1926 proclaiming it Armistice Day (52 Stat. 351; 5 U.S. Code Sec. 87a). On May 13, 1938 Armistice Day was set aside as a legal holiday. It was to be dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be thereafter celebrated and known as "Armistice Day." In 1953 in Emporia, Kansas there was a shoe store owner named Al King who decided to push for an "All" Veterans Day on November 18. He wanted to recognize and honor all veterans from all wars instead of just the veterans from World War I. King was involved with American War Dads during World War II. The Emporia Chamber of Commerce in Kansas took up the cause and on November 11, 1953 90% of Emporia merchants as well as the Board of Education favored closing the doors of businesses that day to celebrate the holiday. U.S. Representative Ed Rees pushed a bill to make Veterans Day a national holiday. President Dwight Eisenhower signed the bill into law on May 26, 1954. On November 8, 1954 Congress amended the act and "Armistice Day" was changed to "Veterans Day". The holiday has been known as Veterans Day ever since.
In 1971 in accordance with the Uniform Monday Holiday Act the holiday was celebrated on the 4th Monday of October. In 1978 the holiday was moved back to its original celebration on November 11. In recent years there's been a trend in many businesses against closing to celebrate the holiday. The Post Office and the banks still close to celebrate Veterans Day.
In these last several years America has been embroiled in two wars in the Middle East. There's been many that have protested America's participation in Iraq for example. Many Americans today feel that our still being in Iraq and Afghanistan is futile. I have been a critic the last several years on how our government has conducted these two wars. I make no bones about that. However, that's not the fault of our soldiers. Our attitude towards America's veterans and soldiers currently fighting these wars shouldn't be based on our thoughts toward America's participation in both wars in the Middle East. The soldiers have done a marvelous job. They're doing what they're instructed to do by their commanders. We have no excuse to vent out our anger towards our troops or veterans because of the foolish decisions that the Pentagon makes. Many of our Vietnam veterans were greeted with hostility and were even spat upon when they returned from Vietnam in the early 70's. That's not right. We should thank and be appreciative of our veterans for what they've done to preserve America's freedom. If we are going to vent our anger towards anyone, it should be toward the Congress and the President, not our soldiers.
Here's a little background of Veterans Day. On November 11, 1918, a treaty was signed with Germany to officially end World War I. It was known as Armistice Day. The hostilities ceased on the 11th hour, the 11th day, and the 11th month of 1918. On November 11, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed November 11th as Armistice Day. The U.S. Congress concurrently passed a resolution seven years later June 4, 1926 proclaiming it Armistice Day (52 Stat. 351; 5 U.S. Code Sec. 87a). On May 13, 1938 Armistice Day was set aside as a legal holiday. It was to be dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be thereafter celebrated and known as "Armistice Day." In 1953 in Emporia, Kansas there was a shoe store owner named Al King who decided to push for an "All" Veterans Day on November 18. He wanted to recognize and honor all veterans from all wars instead of just the veterans from World War I. King was involved with American War Dads during World War II. The Emporia Chamber of Commerce in Kansas took up the cause and on November 11, 1953 90% of Emporia merchants as well as the Board of Education favored closing the doors of businesses that day to celebrate the holiday. U.S. Representative Ed Rees pushed a bill to make Veterans Day a national holiday. President Dwight Eisenhower signed the bill into law on May 26, 1954. On November 8, 1954 Congress amended the act and "Armistice Day" was changed to "Veterans Day". The holiday has been known as Veterans Day ever since.
In 1971 in accordance with the Uniform Monday Holiday Act the holiday was celebrated on the 4th Monday of October. In 1978 the holiday was moved back to its original celebration on November 11. In recent years there's been a trend in many businesses against closing to celebrate the holiday. The Post Office and the banks still close to celebrate Veterans Day.
In these last several years America has been embroiled in two wars in the Middle East. There's been many that have protested America's participation in Iraq for example. Many Americans today feel that our still being in Iraq and Afghanistan is futile. I have been a critic the last several years on how our government has conducted these two wars. I make no bones about that. However, that's not the fault of our soldiers. Our attitude towards America's veterans and soldiers currently fighting these wars shouldn't be based on our thoughts toward America's participation in both wars in the Middle East. The soldiers have done a marvelous job. They're doing what they're instructed to do by their commanders. We have no excuse to vent out our anger towards our troops or veterans because of the foolish decisions that the Pentagon makes. Many of our Vietnam veterans were greeted with hostility and were even spat upon when they returned from Vietnam in the early 70's. That's not right. We should thank and be appreciative of our veterans for what they've done to preserve America's freedom. If we are going to vent our anger towards anyone, it should be toward the Congress and the President, not our soldiers.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The 2009 Election
Yesterday was election day. There were elections in a handful of states such as Virginia and New Jersey. There were many mayoral races in different parts of the country such as New York City, Atlanta, Houston, Detroit, etc. Two of the most prominent races were gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia. New Jersey featured gubernatorial candidates Democrat and incumbent Jon Corzine and Republican Chris Christie. They were both in a neck-and neck tie. Virginia featured gubernatorial candidates Bob McDonnell (R) and Creigh Deeds (D). There was also a hotly contested race in New York's 23rd Congressional District. It's a Republican district that's been in Republican hands for over one hundred fifty years. President Obama tapped former Represenative John McHugh as Army Secretary. Therefore it created the need for a special election. The candidates for that district were Bill Owens (D), and Dan Hoffman (CP). Dede Formozzafava suspended her campaign after conservative uproar over her views on abortion and gay rights, for example.
The campaign results from last night are these: In New Jersey Republican Chris Christie defeated Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine by five percentage points. In Virginia Republican Bob McDonnell won handily over Democrat Creigh Deeds by 18 points. In New York's 23rd Congressional district Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative Party Dan Hoffman. In the New York mayoral race Michael Bloomberg won a third term as mayor. Boston and Detroit's mayoral incumbents also won.
With the Republicans winning gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia could this be a harbinger of a Republican turnaround in Congress next year? President Obama has been keeping his eye on this election. He stumped for defeated incumbent Jon Corzine in New Jersey at least three times within a week. Obama also stumped a number of times for Creigh Deeds in Virginia as well. It was all to no avail. I have another question. Could the voter turnout Tuesday be a repudiation of President Obama's agenda, especially his healthcare agenda? Republicans need to be cautious and not assume that Tuesday's vote is a mandate for Republican rule. Election 2010 will be different than the election of 1994. Prior to 1994 Republicans hadn't ruled the House of Representatives for 40 years and only had control of the U.S. Senate a couple of times. Since 1994 the Republicans were in charge of the House for 12 years and the Senate for most of that time. The Republicans in Congress continued the same spending habits as the Democrats before them. The Republicans were in power for 12 years and had nothing to show for it. There was corruption in the Republican Congress just as there was corruption in past Democratic Congresses. Americans also still remember the previous Bush administration and many of them still blame Bush for the worldwide recession. Bush still receives more blame for the recession than President Obama. Many of those independent Americans that attended the tea parties in droves this past year are very unhappy with Obama's socialist agenda, especially his healthcare agenda. It was the independent voters who attended the tea parties that turned out to vote. The independent conservative voters are not only infuriated with the Democrats but the Republicans as well. Many Americans feel both parties are out of touch with mainstream America.
There were polls taken in New Jersey which stated that Tuesday's vote wasn't about President Obama but local issues. Jon Corzine was an unpopular governor in New Jersey. Also New Jersey is bankrupt and feeling the effects of the recession. New Jersey went Republican for the first time in twelve years. Virginia elected its first Republican governor in eight years. Virginia was the same stated that voted for Obama in last year's general election. Whenever there's an economic downturn, the party that's currently in charge is the party that's likely to be voted out. When the Democrats are in control and the economy's sour, the voters will turn them out. When the Republicans are in control and the economy's sour, then the voters will turn them out. Tuesday's vote had nothing to do with party preference. The independent voters don't care about party affiliation. They're concerned with the philosophy our leaders espouse as well as which direction they're taking this country. Right now voters across the country believe this country's headed down the wrong direction. This sums up Tuesday's voter turnout.
The campaign results from last night are these: In New Jersey Republican Chris Christie defeated Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine by five percentage points. In Virginia Republican Bob McDonnell won handily over Democrat Creigh Deeds by 18 points. In New York's 23rd Congressional district Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative Party Dan Hoffman. In the New York mayoral race Michael Bloomberg won a third term as mayor. Boston and Detroit's mayoral incumbents also won.
With the Republicans winning gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia could this be a harbinger of a Republican turnaround in Congress next year? President Obama has been keeping his eye on this election. He stumped for defeated incumbent Jon Corzine in New Jersey at least three times within a week. Obama also stumped a number of times for Creigh Deeds in Virginia as well. It was all to no avail. I have another question. Could the voter turnout Tuesday be a repudiation of President Obama's agenda, especially his healthcare agenda? Republicans need to be cautious and not assume that Tuesday's vote is a mandate for Republican rule. Election 2010 will be different than the election of 1994. Prior to 1994 Republicans hadn't ruled the House of Representatives for 40 years and only had control of the U.S. Senate a couple of times. Since 1994 the Republicans were in charge of the House for 12 years and the Senate for most of that time. The Republicans in Congress continued the same spending habits as the Democrats before them. The Republicans were in power for 12 years and had nothing to show for it. There was corruption in the Republican Congress just as there was corruption in past Democratic Congresses. Americans also still remember the previous Bush administration and many of them still blame Bush for the worldwide recession. Bush still receives more blame for the recession than President Obama. Many of those independent Americans that attended the tea parties in droves this past year are very unhappy with Obama's socialist agenda, especially his healthcare agenda. It was the independent voters who attended the tea parties that turned out to vote. The independent conservative voters are not only infuriated with the Democrats but the Republicans as well. Many Americans feel both parties are out of touch with mainstream America.
There were polls taken in New Jersey which stated that Tuesday's vote wasn't about President Obama but local issues. Jon Corzine was an unpopular governor in New Jersey. Also New Jersey is bankrupt and feeling the effects of the recession. New Jersey went Republican for the first time in twelve years. Virginia elected its first Republican governor in eight years. Virginia was the same stated that voted for Obama in last year's general election. Whenever there's an economic downturn, the party that's currently in charge is the party that's likely to be voted out. When the Democrats are in control and the economy's sour, the voters will turn them out. When the Republicans are in control and the economy's sour, then the voters will turn them out. Tuesday's vote had nothing to do with party preference. The independent voters don't care about party affiliation. They're concerned with the philosophy our leaders espouse as well as which direction they're taking this country. Right now voters across the country believe this country's headed down the wrong direction. This sums up Tuesday's voter turnout.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
The Republican Party Shouldn't be Running Obama-lite Candidates
One of the hotly-contested races taking place on Tuesday November 3, 2009 is the special election in the 23rd Congressional District in New York. The seat was formerly held by Republican John McHugh, whom President Obama appointed as Army Secretary. The candidates for that race were Democrat Bill Owens, Republican Dede Scozzafava, and Conservative Party candidate Dan Hoffman. Yesterday Scozzafava decided to suspend her campaign. She said it was due to both sides outspending her in money. So she dropped out and today she announced she's backing Democrat Bill Owens over third-party candidate Dan Hoffman. Dede Scozzafava is very liberal on social issues. She supports abortion and gay rights. She was endorsed by the teacher's union and she also was supported by ACORN as well. Of the two candidates remaining, the race is too close to call. Congratulations to Scozzafava for dropping out of the race.
The district has been a Republican-leaning district for years. What I found interesting was Newt Gingrich (former House Speaker) supporting Scozzafava as the candidate prior to dropping out of the race. I found it disappointing someone like Gingrich who claims to be a conservative having supported a candidate who doesn't represent conservative values nor is anything similar to Ronald Reagan. Many of today's "conservatives" like to refer to themselves as "Reagan Republicans". However, Scozzafava doesn't even come close. She's a Democrat with a Republican name. It disturbs me that that "conservative" Republicans like Newt Gingrich will endorse candidates that by no means uphold conservative values. It's all about affiliation with a party. I used to hear an old statement years ago that some people would vote for a Democrat if it was a snake. I'm seeing the same thing with some Republicans. No Republican that's a conservative should be endorsing "Republican" candidates that are very similar to Barack Obama or liberal, progressive Democrats. You hear the old adage that we must vote for either the Republican or the Democratic candidate. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you're throwing your vote away. Even talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has made that statement. NONSENSE!
The last thing that we need is to replace the current Democrats we have in political positions around the country with Obama-lite Republicans. We have too many of those kinds of Republicans right now in Congress. Senators such as Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), John McCain (R-AZ), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), etc. are just a few examples of Obama-lite Republicans. What are Obama-lite Republicans? It's a term depicting Republicans to be very similar to Democrats in their political philosophy and actions. For the last fourteen or fifteen years the upper echelons in the Republican Party have been promoting this idea of a "big tent" in the Republican Party. This started after George H.W. Bush lost the presidential election to Bill Clinton in 1992. They claimed the Republican Party platform in 1992 was too conservative and it was alienating voters in the Republican Party. They were running on a party platform consisting of family values. Ever since Bush's loss in the election the Republican Party heads decided they needed to moderate their positions on abortion, gay rights, and other social conservative issues. They heads of the Republican Party failed to recognize it was Bush's abandonment on conservative values that cost him the election to Bill Clinton. Bush won on Reagan's coattails in 1988 and he proved to be nothing close to Ronald Reagan. He broke his "no-new taxes" pledges he made while campaigning in 1988. He wasn't much different from the Democrats except his pro-life position. I believe the American people are tired of Republicans that have nothing distinctly different to offer than the Democrats. That's what's scary about the Republicans right now. They have no agenda to counter Obama's. They need to challenge President Obama on his socialist positions and they need to offer their own agenda. That's what's needed if the Republicans are to take back Congress in 2010.
I am a conservative in orientation that believes in nationalism. I believe in supporting American values. I believe we should uphold the U.S. Constitution. That's what the Republican Party should be doing. The agenda that the Democrats uphold is anti-God, anti-America, and anti-family. The Republicans are trying to mirror themselves as Democrats except they're a little more to the right. That won't work. We don't need Republicans running for political offices next year that resemble the Democrats in their platform. They need to be polar opposites when it comes to the Democrats' agenda for America. We need patriots running for office that will stand against the move toward socialism America is headed. We need Republicans that are pro-life, pro-family, anti-illegal immigration, pro-limited government, etc. We need Republicans that believe in controlling spending and in re-negotiating the trade agreements that have shifted millions of American jobs overseas. We need Republicans that will have an agenda that if American soldiers go to war, then the soldiers will receive the equipment they need to fight the war and that the war won't last a day longer than it should. Those are the kind of Republicans we need. If not, then we don't need them to run. Some people believe it's wrong to vote for a third-party candidate. I have no issue voting for a third-party candidate. I did it in last year's election. I don't believe in being loyal to a political party that won't stand for what's right. The American public is tired of Obama-lite Republicans. That's why the Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008. If they want to win Congress and statewide races next year, then they'll have to adopt an agenda that's unique and distinctly nationalist and pro-America.
The district has been a Republican-leaning district for years. What I found interesting was Newt Gingrich (former House Speaker) supporting Scozzafava as the candidate prior to dropping out of the race. I found it disappointing someone like Gingrich who claims to be a conservative having supported a candidate who doesn't represent conservative values nor is anything similar to Ronald Reagan. Many of today's "conservatives" like to refer to themselves as "Reagan Republicans". However, Scozzafava doesn't even come close. She's a Democrat with a Republican name. It disturbs me that that "conservative" Republicans like Newt Gingrich will endorse candidates that by no means uphold conservative values. It's all about affiliation with a party. I used to hear an old statement years ago that some people would vote for a Democrat if it was a snake. I'm seeing the same thing with some Republicans. No Republican that's a conservative should be endorsing "Republican" candidates that are very similar to Barack Obama or liberal, progressive Democrats. You hear the old adage that we must vote for either the Republican or the Democratic candidate. If you vote for a third-party candidate, you're throwing your vote away. Even talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has made that statement. NONSENSE!
The last thing that we need is to replace the current Democrats we have in political positions around the country with Obama-lite Republicans. We have too many of those kinds of Republicans right now in Congress. Senators such as Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), John McCain (R-AZ), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), etc. are just a few examples of Obama-lite Republicans. What are Obama-lite Republicans? It's a term depicting Republicans to be very similar to Democrats in their political philosophy and actions. For the last fourteen or fifteen years the upper echelons in the Republican Party have been promoting this idea of a "big tent" in the Republican Party. This started after George H.W. Bush lost the presidential election to Bill Clinton in 1992. They claimed the Republican Party platform in 1992 was too conservative and it was alienating voters in the Republican Party. They were running on a party platform consisting of family values. Ever since Bush's loss in the election the Republican Party heads decided they needed to moderate their positions on abortion, gay rights, and other social conservative issues. They heads of the Republican Party failed to recognize it was Bush's abandonment on conservative values that cost him the election to Bill Clinton. Bush won on Reagan's coattails in 1988 and he proved to be nothing close to Ronald Reagan. He broke his "no-new taxes" pledges he made while campaigning in 1988. He wasn't much different from the Democrats except his pro-life position. I believe the American people are tired of Republicans that have nothing distinctly different to offer than the Democrats. That's what's scary about the Republicans right now. They have no agenda to counter Obama's. They need to challenge President Obama on his socialist positions and they need to offer their own agenda. That's what's needed if the Republicans are to take back Congress in 2010.
I am a conservative in orientation that believes in nationalism. I believe in supporting American values. I believe we should uphold the U.S. Constitution. That's what the Republican Party should be doing. The agenda that the Democrats uphold is anti-God, anti-America, and anti-family. The Republicans are trying to mirror themselves as Democrats except they're a little more to the right. That won't work. We don't need Republicans running for political offices next year that resemble the Democrats in their platform. They need to be polar opposites when it comes to the Democrats' agenda for America. We need patriots running for office that will stand against the move toward socialism America is headed. We need Republicans that are pro-life, pro-family, anti-illegal immigration, pro-limited government, etc. We need Republicans that believe in controlling spending and in re-negotiating the trade agreements that have shifted millions of American jobs overseas. We need Republicans that will have an agenda that if American soldiers go to war, then the soldiers will receive the equipment they need to fight the war and that the war won't last a day longer than it should. Those are the kind of Republicans we need. If not, then we don't need them to run. Some people believe it's wrong to vote for a third-party candidate. I have no issue voting for a third-party candidate. I did it in last year's election. I don't believe in being loyal to a political party that won't stand for what's right. The American public is tired of Obama-lite Republicans. That's why the Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008. If they want to win Congress and statewide races next year, then they'll have to adopt an agenda that's unique and distinctly nationalist and pro-America.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Dick Cheney Says President Obama Should Stop Dithering
On October 21, 2009 former Vice-president Dick Cheney became the 20th recipient of the "Keeper of the Flame" award from a Neoconservative Washington, D.C. based think tank from the Center for Security Policy. (CSP). Other such notables that have received this award was former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former President Ronald Reagan. Cheney gave a speech that night and during that speech he criticized President Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan. He criticized the Obama administration of "dithering" and "waffling" with regards to America's war on and occupation of Afghanistan. He stated President Obama should stop dithering and make a decisive decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan. Back in August General Stanley McChrystal had made a request that the administration send 144,000 additional U.S. troops to counter the resurgence of the Taliban. President Obama as of yet hasn't made a decision in regards to that matter.
Ever since President Obama has been inaugurated, Dick Cheney has been one of Obama's chief critics when it comes to the handling of national security issues such as enahanced interrogations and on how Obama has handled both of the wars in the Middle East. I will say up front that President Obama is dithering when it comes to fulfilling McChrystal's request to send additional troops to Afghanistan. I haven't approved of how President Obama has handled both the wars in the Middle East as well as how he's handled national security issues affecting America. However, much of Obama's agenda when it comes to both the wars in the Middle East has been nothing but a continuation of the policies of the previous administration. The only thing that's different is Obama deployed troops from Iraq and sent them to Afghanistan. Even though Obama is at fault for how he's handled this war in Afghanistan, the ultimate blame lies with the Bush administration. President Obama inherited these wars from the Bush administration. Even though I don't approve of Obama's handling the situation, I also disapproved of how the Bush administration handled both of the wars. Those wars could've been won under the Bush administration. I don't believe there was any excuse for President Bush to have handed down these two wars to President Obama.
One of the problems that is apparently evident in politics is hypocrisy. I've seen it with the Democrats and I've also seen it with the Republicans. Neither side is immune from it. I remember back in 2005 and 2006 when the situation in Iraq was very grave. The commanders in Iraq along with some senators such as John McCain stated that the U.S. needed to send additioinal troops to Iraq to stabilize the country. I can remember Rumsfeld and Bush dithering on that issue. It wasn't until 2007 after Bob Gates had been named the new Defense Secretary and the Iraq report had been written that Bush finally agreed to send additional troops to Iraq. At last count our troops are still in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan started in 2001 when Bush was president. Even though U.S. and NATO troops supposedly "routed" the Taliban from power, the job was not completed. We never did destroy the poppy fields in Afghanistan nor stabilize that area. The situation was deteriorating in Afghanistan toward the end of the Bush administration. We had troops in Afghanistan all those years but Bush didn't do what needed to be done to win that war. Al-Qaeda is also still loose in Afghanistan.
How does Dick Cheney have the nerve to criticize President Obama for his handling the war in Afghanistan when the Bush administration didn't finish the job? How can Dick Cheney criticize Obama when the previous administration failed to end both of the wars in the Middle East? I've stated before when it came to the issue of the Gitmo detainees the Bush administration could've set up a military tribunal to have tried all the detainees from Gitmo. Obama wouldn't have had to deal with that issue if the previous administration had properly executed the war on terror. The Bush administration didn't properly execute the war on terror. It was a joke in a number of ways. To hand it over to a socialist like Obama was very foolish. I'm not a fan of Obama but I'm not going to criticize him when he's not at fault either. Obama is at fault for how he's handled the situation since his watch began in January. But the war began under the Bush administration and they're the ones that deserve the bulk of the blame.
I can remember in 2001 after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks how the media wanted to blame the Bush administration for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks. There was a failure in the breakdown of intelligence during the Bill Clinton administration. Clinton deserves most of the blame for 9/11. Bush deserves a measure of the blame, but he was only in office for eight months when the attacks took place. The 9/11 plot was in the planning stages before Bush took the oath of office. In the case with Afghanistan, this war was ongoing for almost eight years before Obama took office. Therefore, the majority of the blame belongs to the Bush administration. It was nothing but pure hypocrisy on Cheney's part to take potshots at Obama when the Bush administration could've ended the wars under Bush's tenure.
Ever since President Obama has been inaugurated, Dick Cheney has been one of Obama's chief critics when it comes to the handling of national security issues such as enahanced interrogations and on how Obama has handled both of the wars in the Middle East. I will say up front that President Obama is dithering when it comes to fulfilling McChrystal's request to send additional troops to Afghanistan. I haven't approved of how President Obama has handled both the wars in the Middle East as well as how he's handled national security issues affecting America. However, much of Obama's agenda when it comes to both the wars in the Middle East has been nothing but a continuation of the policies of the previous administration. The only thing that's different is Obama deployed troops from Iraq and sent them to Afghanistan. Even though Obama is at fault for how he's handled this war in Afghanistan, the ultimate blame lies with the Bush administration. President Obama inherited these wars from the Bush administration. Even though I don't approve of Obama's handling the situation, I also disapproved of how the Bush administration handled both of the wars. Those wars could've been won under the Bush administration. I don't believe there was any excuse for President Bush to have handed down these two wars to President Obama.
One of the problems that is apparently evident in politics is hypocrisy. I've seen it with the Democrats and I've also seen it with the Republicans. Neither side is immune from it. I remember back in 2005 and 2006 when the situation in Iraq was very grave. The commanders in Iraq along with some senators such as John McCain stated that the U.S. needed to send additioinal troops to Iraq to stabilize the country. I can remember Rumsfeld and Bush dithering on that issue. It wasn't until 2007 after Bob Gates had been named the new Defense Secretary and the Iraq report had been written that Bush finally agreed to send additional troops to Iraq. At last count our troops are still in Iraq. The war in Afghanistan started in 2001 when Bush was president. Even though U.S. and NATO troops supposedly "routed" the Taliban from power, the job was not completed. We never did destroy the poppy fields in Afghanistan nor stabilize that area. The situation was deteriorating in Afghanistan toward the end of the Bush administration. We had troops in Afghanistan all those years but Bush didn't do what needed to be done to win that war. Al-Qaeda is also still loose in Afghanistan.
How does Dick Cheney have the nerve to criticize President Obama for his handling the war in Afghanistan when the Bush administration didn't finish the job? How can Dick Cheney criticize Obama when the previous administration failed to end both of the wars in the Middle East? I've stated before when it came to the issue of the Gitmo detainees the Bush administration could've set up a military tribunal to have tried all the detainees from Gitmo. Obama wouldn't have had to deal with that issue if the previous administration had properly executed the war on terror. The Bush administration didn't properly execute the war on terror. It was a joke in a number of ways. To hand it over to a socialist like Obama was very foolish. I'm not a fan of Obama but I'm not going to criticize him when he's not at fault either. Obama is at fault for how he's handled the situation since his watch began in January. But the war began under the Bush administration and they're the ones that deserve the bulk of the blame.
I can remember in 2001 after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks how the media wanted to blame the Bush administration for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks. There was a failure in the breakdown of intelligence during the Bill Clinton administration. Clinton deserves most of the blame for 9/11. Bush deserves a measure of the blame, but he was only in office for eight months when the attacks took place. The 9/11 plot was in the planning stages before Bush took the oath of office. In the case with Afghanistan, this war was ongoing for almost eight years before Obama took office. Therefore, the majority of the blame belongs to the Bush administration. It was nothing but pure hypocrisy on Cheney's part to take potshots at Obama when the Bush administration could've ended the wars under Bush's tenure.
The White House At War With FOX News
The White House has lately been engaging in a war of words with Fox News Network. On September 20, 2009, President Obama refused to appear on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Obama snubbed Fox partially because of the unfavorable coverage Fox gave to Obama's healthcare plan. Wallace responded by saying that these were the " biggest bunch of crybabies he had seen from Washington." In October White House Communication Czar Anita Dunn called Fox News "A wing of the Republican Party." "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air."
Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente, who likenss the Fox News Channel to a newspaper with separate sections on straight news and commentary suggested the White House officials were intentionally conflating opinion show hosts like Glenn Beck with news reporters like Major Garrett." "It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming." I find it astounding the criticisms that the Obama administration uses against Fox news. CNN and MSNBC have their own opinionated television personalities as well such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, and Anderson Cooper. ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN are all very liberal in their orientation and have been very supportive of President Obama's administration. MSNBC has undoubtedly been pro-Obama ever since he ran for president. There's no fair and objective news coverage on MSNBC. He has all the other news networks in his back pocket. Why criticize Fox? I believe Obama feels Fox is a threat to his agenda, especially in their coverage of the healthcare bill that's currently being considered before Congress. Also, conservative commentators such as Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck have been hammering away at President Obama concerning his governance of the nation.
Fox news was founded in 1996 by Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Roger Ailes is the CEO of Fox News. Fox New's slogan is "Fair and Balanced." I will venture to say that Fox news isn't a conservative channel. Bill O'Reilly, Greta Van Susteran, Geraldo Rivera, and Shepherd Smith aren't conservatives to name a few. The most outspoken conservatives on the news channel are Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. However, they are commentators and they possess the right to express their opinions in a similar manner as Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman do on MSNBC. Fox News is more "fair and balanced" than all the other news networks. President Obama wants to criticize Fox News for not being very objective in their reporting. Fox is no less objective in its reporting than CNN and MSNBC. However, Obama isn't critical of those news channels because they're very supportive of President Obama's agenda. President Obama is surrounded by czars in his administration that desire to silence free speech. They want to silence those that dissent with the Obama administration. President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela himself took control of the media in 2007. In 2006 Chavez announced that the terrestrial broadcast license for RCTV would not be renewed. It ended on May 28, 2007 and was replaced with a state network. Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wants to control the type of information that's broadcast over the airwaves. Our First Amendment freedoms are under attack.
The Fox News Network is more supportive of Republicans than all the other cable news channels. However there are those on Fox that are liberal on some of their viewpoints. They're not all conservatives. Also, Democrats have been invited to appear on many of the programs and some refused to come. Whose fault is that? Just recently Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg appeared on the other news networks but wouldn't appear on Fox. And the Democrats want to complain about Fox catering to the Republican Party.
There are some topics that Fox won't cover such as the eligibility issue of President Obama. They won't delve into the issue of whether or not Obama is a natural-born citizen. They refer to those that dispute Obama's eligibility as "Birthers" just like the other pundits do. Fox news also won't cover topics relating to the North American Union or the New World Order for example. Also when an entertainment star dies such as Michael Jackson and Anna Nicole Smith, to name a few, they'll spend endless hours of airtime covering the details surrounding the deaths of these media superstars. Personally I believe the news channel shouldn't be the place to televise continuous coverage of entertainment stars. Those types of news items should be relegated to the entertainment channels.
Bill O'Reilly in his Talking Points memo was mentioning reasons why he believed President Obama was so critical of the Fox News Channel. Some of the reasons why O'Reilly believes Obama is critical of Fox is because of Fox exposing Obama's associations with various radicals. Last year when Obama was running for president his associations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers was revealed. Jeremiah Wright was Obama's pastor and he blamed America for 9/11 and was racist in his attitudes. Bill Ayers was a former "Weather Underground" terrorist and he was part of a communist terrorist group that bombed the Pentagon and other buildings in the 60's and 70's. Obama had ties with Bill Ayers back in the 90's and both served on the board of an anti-poverty group called "Woods Forest." Fox has also reported on all the radical czars that serve at the behest of President Obama such as Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, John Holdren, and Anita Dunn. Anita Dunn said two of her heroes were Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa. Mao was a communist who took control of China. Another reason why Obama's probably critical of the news channel is the coverage Fox news did on ACORN. Fox news did an undercover videotape of ACORN employees giving advice on how to break the law to a pair of journalists disguised as a pimp and prostitute. Megyn Kelly taped a whole show uncovering the corruption that took place at ACORN a few weeks ago. Obama had ties with ACORN and ACORN even contributed to his presidential campaign. Then on top of that there are conservative critics such as Hannity and Beck continually hammering away at Obama's policies. Also much of the coverage on Obamacare hasn't been too favorable. I concur with O'Reilly's talking points.
I believe the Obama administration desires to silence all forms of dissent. Talk radio and Fox news are two of the targets that Obama is aiming at. I believe he wants to bridle them. In a fascist country, the dictator will seize control of the news media. That's what the communists in Obama's administration desires. They desire to silence all opposition. America is becoming a fascist country. It's very crucial during next year's election that we send home our Congressmen and Senators in droves. We need to drive these communists out of the White House and Congress. Time is running short. If we're going to reclaim America, we must do it now. America also needs to repent and turn to God. God is our only hope!
Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente, who likenss the Fox News Channel to a newspaper with separate sections on straight news and commentary suggested the White House officials were intentionally conflating opinion show hosts like Glenn Beck with news reporters like Major Garrett." "It's astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming." I find it astounding the criticisms that the Obama administration uses against Fox news. CNN and MSNBC have their own opinionated television personalities as well such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, and Anderson Cooper. ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN are all very liberal in their orientation and have been very supportive of President Obama's administration. MSNBC has undoubtedly been pro-Obama ever since he ran for president. There's no fair and objective news coverage on MSNBC. He has all the other news networks in his back pocket. Why criticize Fox? I believe Obama feels Fox is a threat to his agenda, especially in their coverage of the healthcare bill that's currently being considered before Congress. Also, conservative commentators such as Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck have been hammering away at President Obama concerning his governance of the nation.
Fox news was founded in 1996 by Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Roger Ailes is the CEO of Fox News. Fox New's slogan is "Fair and Balanced." I will venture to say that Fox news isn't a conservative channel. Bill O'Reilly, Greta Van Susteran, Geraldo Rivera, and Shepherd Smith aren't conservatives to name a few. The most outspoken conservatives on the news channel are Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. However, they are commentators and they possess the right to express their opinions in a similar manner as Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman do on MSNBC. Fox News is more "fair and balanced" than all the other news networks. President Obama wants to criticize Fox News for not being very objective in their reporting. Fox is no less objective in its reporting than CNN and MSNBC. However, Obama isn't critical of those news channels because they're very supportive of President Obama's agenda. President Obama is surrounded by czars in his administration that desire to silence free speech. They want to silence those that dissent with the Obama administration. President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela himself took control of the media in 2007. In 2006 Chavez announced that the terrestrial broadcast license for RCTV would not be renewed. It ended on May 28, 2007 and was replaced with a state network. Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wants to control the type of information that's broadcast over the airwaves. Our First Amendment freedoms are under attack.
The Fox News Network is more supportive of Republicans than all the other cable news channels. However there are those on Fox that are liberal on some of their viewpoints. They're not all conservatives. Also, Democrats have been invited to appear on many of the programs and some refused to come. Whose fault is that? Just recently Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg appeared on the other news networks but wouldn't appear on Fox. And the Democrats want to complain about Fox catering to the Republican Party.
There are some topics that Fox won't cover such as the eligibility issue of President Obama. They won't delve into the issue of whether or not Obama is a natural-born citizen. They refer to those that dispute Obama's eligibility as "Birthers" just like the other pundits do. Fox news also won't cover topics relating to the North American Union or the New World Order for example. Also when an entertainment star dies such as Michael Jackson and Anna Nicole Smith, to name a few, they'll spend endless hours of airtime covering the details surrounding the deaths of these media superstars. Personally I believe the news channel shouldn't be the place to televise continuous coverage of entertainment stars. Those types of news items should be relegated to the entertainment channels.
Bill O'Reilly in his Talking Points memo was mentioning reasons why he believed President Obama was so critical of the Fox News Channel. Some of the reasons why O'Reilly believes Obama is critical of Fox is because of Fox exposing Obama's associations with various radicals. Last year when Obama was running for president his associations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers was revealed. Jeremiah Wright was Obama's pastor and he blamed America for 9/11 and was racist in his attitudes. Bill Ayers was a former "Weather Underground" terrorist and he was part of a communist terrorist group that bombed the Pentagon and other buildings in the 60's and 70's. Obama had ties with Bill Ayers back in the 90's and both served on the board of an anti-poverty group called "Woods Forest." Fox has also reported on all the radical czars that serve at the behest of President Obama such as Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, John Holdren, and Anita Dunn. Anita Dunn said two of her heroes were Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa. Mao was a communist who took control of China. Another reason why Obama's probably critical of the news channel is the coverage Fox news did on ACORN. Fox news did an undercover videotape of ACORN employees giving advice on how to break the law to a pair of journalists disguised as a pimp and prostitute. Megyn Kelly taped a whole show uncovering the corruption that took place at ACORN a few weeks ago. Obama had ties with ACORN and ACORN even contributed to his presidential campaign. Then on top of that there are conservative critics such as Hannity and Beck continually hammering away at Obama's policies. Also much of the coverage on Obamacare hasn't been too favorable. I concur with O'Reilly's talking points.
I believe the Obama administration desires to silence all forms of dissent. Talk radio and Fox news are two of the targets that Obama is aiming at. I believe he wants to bridle them. In a fascist country, the dictator will seize control of the news media. That's what the communists in Obama's administration desires. They desire to silence all opposition. America is becoming a fascist country. It's very crucial during next year's election that we send home our Congressmen and Senators in droves. We need to drive these communists out of the White House and Congress. Time is running short. If we're going to reclaim America, we must do it now. America also needs to repent and turn to God. God is our only hope!
Saturday, October 24, 2009
In All Labor There is Profit
Proverbs 14:23 says,"In all labor there is profit: but the talk of the lips tendeth only to penury." We live in a society today that doesn't like the thought of having to work. We live in a lazy generation. People today aren't motivated when it comes to getting off their stool of do-nothing and work. The Bible says that if we don't labor, then we will be in poverty. That's what the scripture in Proverbs says. Some people like to sit around and socialize but never accomplish anything much. There is a place and time for socializing. However, there's also a time when we need to be busy fulfilling the call that God has given us in our lives. If a person will labor diligently regardless of their calling or the setting in which they might be in, they will profit from it. I know of people who have been diligent in their labors and they have profited mightily from it.
When one sees or hears the word "profit" we tend to think of it in terms of financial gain or benefit. That is one aspect of profit. However, you cannot limit the profit that you receive from labor solely in financial terms. It's broader than that. There have been people that have profited greatly from a hard day's labor, but they didn't become wealthy as a result. But the joy that's inside of them is immeasurable. Why? Because they understood the principle of labor. They recognized in order to succeed, you must put your hand to the plow and do it with all your might. The Bible says we are to accomplish whatever we place our hands on with all our might. If you're going to start something, then continue that work until its completion. We shouldn't start something and not complete it. Many of us including myself have been guilty of starting tasks and not completing them to their entirety. However, the profit comes from that labor when we start something and be faithful with it until it's completed. That's when we profit from it. You won't profit from your labors if you don't complete what you started.
There are different forms of profit that result from diligent labor. One of them is financial or monetary gain. Another form is a sense of satisfaction due to success. Success is also a form of profit when you complete the task and are accurate with it. One form of profit that came to my mind this week was opportunities that become available as a result of your faithfulness in your calling. New opportunities will spring forth to serve in areas that are unimaginable simply because you were faithful to labor in your vocation. Also, you can profit from labor in other settings besides the workplace. The place where you labor can be in a number of settings such as school or university, church, an organization, to name a few. There have been people that have started a particular endeavor and as a result of their labors there were new doors of opportunities that awaited them. They had the opportunity to serve in areas they couldn't even imagine. I think of the late Gospel singer and songwriter Dottie Rambo. She started out singing in local churches and writing music. She wasn't very famous at first. But as a result of her diligence, she was noticed by the governor of Louisiana at the time Jimmie Davis. He helped her in her rise to stardom in the Gospel music industry. She got to participate in areas she wouldn't have dreamed of when she was a teenager or in her twenties. Due to her diligence, new opportunities awaited her that gave her the opportunity to use her gift in other areas.
There's a young man in my church that comes to my mind when it comes to new doors of opportunities springing up for him. His name is Dr. Aaron Wells. (I refer to him as Dr.) He's in his second year in college at the University of Louisville. Since he's started college, new doors of opportunity have opened up for him at the university. He participated in a work study program and he works in student affairs. This past summer he worked on campus full-time in the Department of Student Affairs. He has an opportunity of a possible internship in Frankfort, Kentucky working at the state legislature. I'm certain there will be more doors of opportunity for him there in the future. At the church we attend, he is a former Bible quiz student. He excelled in Bible quizzing. He now helps assist in Bible quizzing at the church and even attends some Bible quiz competitions. He exemplifies what Proverbs 14:23 says when it says there is profit in labor.
Proverbs 14:23 applies to both saved and lost people alike. There have been many businessmen that are an exemplification of that verse. They started out small with an old buiding and not much capital. But later their business grew and as a result of their labors new doors of opportunity have opened up for them. They are now very successful in their corporation. They are people such as Bill Gates, the late Dave Thomas, Warren Buffet, and others. God says that if we will labor diligently, there will be profit that results from it.
When one sees or hears the word "profit" we tend to think of it in terms of financial gain or benefit. That is one aspect of profit. However, you cannot limit the profit that you receive from labor solely in financial terms. It's broader than that. There have been people that have profited greatly from a hard day's labor, but they didn't become wealthy as a result. But the joy that's inside of them is immeasurable. Why? Because they understood the principle of labor. They recognized in order to succeed, you must put your hand to the plow and do it with all your might. The Bible says we are to accomplish whatever we place our hands on with all our might. If you're going to start something, then continue that work until its completion. We shouldn't start something and not complete it. Many of us including myself have been guilty of starting tasks and not completing them to their entirety. However, the profit comes from that labor when we start something and be faithful with it until it's completed. That's when we profit from it. You won't profit from your labors if you don't complete what you started.
There are different forms of profit that result from diligent labor. One of them is financial or monetary gain. Another form is a sense of satisfaction due to success. Success is also a form of profit when you complete the task and are accurate with it. One form of profit that came to my mind this week was opportunities that become available as a result of your faithfulness in your calling. New opportunities will spring forth to serve in areas that are unimaginable simply because you were faithful to labor in your vocation. Also, you can profit from labor in other settings besides the workplace. The place where you labor can be in a number of settings such as school or university, church, an organization, to name a few. There have been people that have started a particular endeavor and as a result of their labors there were new doors of opportunities that awaited them. They had the opportunity to serve in areas they couldn't even imagine. I think of the late Gospel singer and songwriter Dottie Rambo. She started out singing in local churches and writing music. She wasn't very famous at first. But as a result of her diligence, she was noticed by the governor of Louisiana at the time Jimmie Davis. He helped her in her rise to stardom in the Gospel music industry. She got to participate in areas she wouldn't have dreamed of when she was a teenager or in her twenties. Due to her diligence, new opportunities awaited her that gave her the opportunity to use her gift in other areas.
There's a young man in my church that comes to my mind when it comes to new doors of opportunities springing up for him. His name is Dr. Aaron Wells. (I refer to him as Dr.) He's in his second year in college at the University of Louisville. Since he's started college, new doors of opportunity have opened up for him at the university. He participated in a work study program and he works in student affairs. This past summer he worked on campus full-time in the Department of Student Affairs. He has an opportunity of a possible internship in Frankfort, Kentucky working at the state legislature. I'm certain there will be more doors of opportunity for him there in the future. At the church we attend, he is a former Bible quiz student. He excelled in Bible quizzing. He now helps assist in Bible quizzing at the church and even attends some Bible quiz competitions. He exemplifies what Proverbs 14:23 says when it says there is profit in labor.
Proverbs 14:23 applies to both saved and lost people alike. There have been many businessmen that are an exemplification of that verse. They started out small with an old buiding and not much capital. But later their business grew and as a result of their labors new doors of opportunity have opened up for them. They are now very successful in their corporation. They are people such as Bill Gates, the late Dave Thomas, Warren Buffet, and others. God says that if we will labor diligently, there will be profit that results from it.
Friday, October 23, 2009
He Who has the Gold Makes the Rules
Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg has ordered the executives of the seven companies that received federal bailout fund to steeply cut their salaries by around 90% of what it was last year. He said the executives of these troubled companies must trim their pay packages, according to a FOX news report. Feinberg reviewed the pay packages (stock, salary, perks, and other compensation) of 136 executives. They were the top 25 staffers at seven bailed-out firms. Feinberg's order to trim executive pay was the same thing that President Obama told executives during February. There are many critics of Feinberg's actions especially those that tout themselves as free-market capitalists. FOX analyst Andrew Napolitano says Feinberg's action leads America down a "slippery slope." Neil Cavuto was on the O'Reilly Factor Thursday evening and Cavuto disagreed with Feinberg ordering top executives of those firms that received bailout money to steeply reduce their compensation.
I can predict the response of conservative radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin to name a few on Feinberg's actions. All of these radio talk show hosts claim to espouse free market principles. All three of them would say that Feinberg's actions are unconstitutional and the the government has no business whatsoever dictating the pay scale of the top executives in the private sector. They would all say that's unconstitutional. Let's take a glimpse at this scenario real closely.
I agree under ideal situations that it's unconstitutional for the U.S. government to be stepping into the private sector and dictating the compensation of either the executives or the common laborer. To take it a step further, Feinberg's position as pay czar is unconstitutional. There's no call under the U.S. Constitution to appoint a czar. A czar doesn't belong in American government. They aren't elected by the American people nor are they accountable to Congress or the American people. That's a Russian office. I just mentioned under ideal circumstances that the federal government has no business dictating to executives in the private sector what their compensation should consist of. The question that should be asked is it ever appropriate for the federal government to dictate the pay of top executives?
If I was to pose this question to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin they would all say that it's always unconstitutional and never appropriate for the government to dictate the salaries of these executives. However, there's nothing constitutional about these giant corporations receiving bailout money from the American taxpayer. When did Congress ever receive the authority to bailout these corporations? Congress bailing out these corporations violates the principles of a free market. Under a free market a business has just as much of a right to fail as it does to succeed. If a business doesn't have the means or know-how to compete in the marketplace, then they should fail. No questions asked. Therefore the constitution was violated when the government stepped in and granted TARP money to these bankrupt firms. What right does Congress have in using taxpayer money to bailout these troubled firms? These huge corporations should've been broken up into smaller businesses, according to my view. The old adage still remains: He who has the gold makes the rules. When these troubled corporations stick their hands out asking for TARP money, then they're in essence asking for handcuffs to be placed on them. They waive their rights to run their corporation as they see fit when they ask for bailout money. It's their fault. They're saying to the government they can't run their own economic affairs when they ask the government for money.
I know some of the arguments that will be made in regards to Feinberg's actions. The argument will be made that if Feinberg will regulate executive pay from those firms that received bailout money, then he'll regulate other firms that didn't receive any TARP money. Another huge argument against Feinberg regulating executive pay is that "big money attracts big talent." Well, I'm sorry about that one. When a corporation receives bailout money from the government they have no business paying their executives huge bonuses until they've paid back all the bailout money in full. The executives should be paid handsomely when their companies are financially profitable. They shouldn't enjoy the privilege of handsome salaries when the American taxpayer is footing the bill. That's not right! I don't enjoy the thought of the government stepping in to regulate executive compensation in the private sector. However, those firms had no right to come to the government with their hat in their hand asking for money. If these corporations don't want the federal government dictating to them how much they can pay their executives, then they shouldn't be asking for bailout money from the government. That's plain and simple! I refuse to stand by and support top executives deciding their own compensation when they violated free market principles and asked the American taxpayer to bail them out. They should have their salaries trimmed back as long as the American people are footing their bills.
I can predict the response of conservative radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin to name a few on Feinberg's actions. All of these radio talk show hosts claim to espouse free market principles. All three of them would say that Feinberg's actions are unconstitutional and the the government has no business whatsoever dictating the pay scale of the top executives in the private sector. They would all say that's unconstitutional. Let's take a glimpse at this scenario real closely.
I agree under ideal situations that it's unconstitutional for the U.S. government to be stepping into the private sector and dictating the compensation of either the executives or the common laborer. To take it a step further, Feinberg's position as pay czar is unconstitutional. There's no call under the U.S. Constitution to appoint a czar. A czar doesn't belong in American government. They aren't elected by the American people nor are they accountable to Congress or the American people. That's a Russian office. I just mentioned under ideal circumstances that the federal government has no business dictating to executives in the private sector what their compensation should consist of. The question that should be asked is it ever appropriate for the federal government to dictate the pay of top executives?
If I was to pose this question to Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin they would all say that it's always unconstitutional and never appropriate for the government to dictate the salaries of these executives. However, there's nothing constitutional about these giant corporations receiving bailout money from the American taxpayer. When did Congress ever receive the authority to bailout these corporations? Congress bailing out these corporations violates the principles of a free market. Under a free market a business has just as much of a right to fail as it does to succeed. If a business doesn't have the means or know-how to compete in the marketplace, then they should fail. No questions asked. Therefore the constitution was violated when the government stepped in and granted TARP money to these bankrupt firms. What right does Congress have in using taxpayer money to bailout these troubled firms? These huge corporations should've been broken up into smaller businesses, according to my view. The old adage still remains: He who has the gold makes the rules. When these troubled corporations stick their hands out asking for TARP money, then they're in essence asking for handcuffs to be placed on them. They waive their rights to run their corporation as they see fit when they ask for bailout money. It's their fault. They're saying to the government they can't run their own economic affairs when they ask the government for money.
I know some of the arguments that will be made in regards to Feinberg's actions. The argument will be made that if Feinberg will regulate executive pay from those firms that received bailout money, then he'll regulate other firms that didn't receive any TARP money. Another huge argument against Feinberg regulating executive pay is that "big money attracts big talent." Well, I'm sorry about that one. When a corporation receives bailout money from the government they have no business paying their executives huge bonuses until they've paid back all the bailout money in full. The executives should be paid handsomely when their companies are financially profitable. They shouldn't enjoy the privilege of handsome salaries when the American taxpayer is footing the bill. That's not right! I don't enjoy the thought of the government stepping in to regulate executive compensation in the private sector. However, those firms had no right to come to the government with their hat in their hand asking for money. If these corporations don't want the federal government dictating to them how much they can pay their executives, then they shouldn't be asking for bailout money from the government. That's plain and simple! I refuse to stand by and support top executives deciding their own compensation when they violated free market principles and asked the American taxpayer to bail them out. They should have their salaries trimmed back as long as the American people are footing their bills.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Where are All the War Protesters?
Last night I was listening to the Dennis Miller show on radio and the guest he had on his radio program was Cindy Sheehan, the mother of slain soldier Casey Sheehan in Iraq. After her son was killed she went out and protested vehemently against the Iraq War and stated that the Iraqis and our soldiers were getting killed for nothing. Back in August 2005 when Bush was on a five-week vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Cindy Sheehan established a protest camp called "Camp Casey". She would camp out as close to Bush's Crawford ranch as she could in hopes of having a second meeting with him. Sheehan wanted Bush to give an explanation of why he sent American troops to fight in Iraq. She stated the intended purpose in fighting in Iraq was based on fabrications. She has spent the last few years protesting across the country against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sheehan even went to Martha's Vineyard this past August when President Obama was on vacation to protest against the ongoing wars in the Middle East.
Cindy Sheehan was on the Dennis Miller show speaking about the life of her son when he was alive. She didn't spend too much time speaking about Casey as a soldier but rather about him growing up and being an Eagle Scout. Casey was Sheehan's eldest son. It was a polite radio interview. It wasn't terse. I for one disagree with Cindy Sheehan on many of her political views. I do sympathize with her on the death of her son. I know she is deeply hurt over that and I believe it has clouded her thinking and judgment as a result of her son's death. The Left used her to fulfill their political agenda. I will say in observing Sheehan since President Obama's inauguration I do have an element of respect for the woman. The area where I respect her is that she hasn't changed her mind about the wars simply because Barack Obama is president. I respect that. She believes in her heart these two wars are wrong, rightly or wrongly. The sad part about the whole incident is that she does have a point. The U.S. has been in both Afghanistan and Iraq a number of years and both the Bush and Obama administrations haven't had a strategy for winning. Our troops have been engaged in two no-win wars. That's no way to fight wars. Sheehan's misguided on her viewpoints but I don't believe her speaking out on the wars was politically motivated. She even stated on the Dennis Miller Show that she wasn't even thinking about politics when she stood against the Iraq War. I believe that.
I can remember during the Bush administration all the anti-war protests that took place over the war in Iraq. I can remember many of our politicians such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and others criticizing the war stating it was based on fabrications and that there wasn't any way the war was winnable. I vividly remember the Left using John Murtha (D-PA, chairman of Appropriations Committee) back in November 2005. He stated that our troops needed to be pulled from Iraq. He stated that the situation was too perilous in Iraq. Now you don't hear anymore out of him and our troops are still in Iraq. The Democrats used him to speak out against the war because the Democrats knew they had an issue they could use against the Republicans for the next two elections. They were looking to regain control of both houses of Congress and the White House. The Democrats have achieved their goals. They no longer need Murtha as their mouthpiece since they have the radical socialist they desire in the White House. Both Democrats and Republicans throw issues against one another in elections for the purposes of obtaining power. That's what I feel for the most part about all those that have protested against the war in Iraq. I believe it was mostly done for political purposes.
Ever since President Obama's been elected, you hardly hear all the virulent rhetoric that came from the antiwar left during the Bush administration. The reason for that was their man wasn't in office. Those that belong to the antiwar or peace movement are liberal in their politics and they tend to vote Democrat. They didn't like Bush because he wasn't their kind of president. So they used the war in Iraq as an issue against the Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Since President Obama represents many of the Left's views, then the war in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't such a huge deal anymore. Most of the protesting that took place was a farce. The Obama administration is still continuing the same policies in both wars that the Bush administration used. The Left wanted someone like Obama for president, so they protested vehemently against the wars in order to bolster the Democrats' chances. That's one man's opinion. You definitely don't hear as much negative rhetoric from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid about the wars like you did when Bush was president. Both Pelosi and Reid aren't favorable to increasing the troop levels in Afghanistan. However, I don't think they'll make much of an issue out of it if Obama decides to send the number of troops that General McChrystal has called for.
I believe if President Obama was to renew his commitment in Iraq and add more troops there I don't believe he would hear much of an outcry from the Democrats in Congress or the far Left. It's all politics. I believe most of the protesting that took place against the Iraq war wasn't geniune to begin with. I especially believe that since the outcry has dwindled down considerably. The Left have what they desire. They have a liberal, Democratic Congress and a socialist president.
Cindy Sheehan was on the Dennis Miller show speaking about the life of her son when he was alive. She didn't spend too much time speaking about Casey as a soldier but rather about him growing up and being an Eagle Scout. Casey was Sheehan's eldest son. It was a polite radio interview. It wasn't terse. I for one disagree with Cindy Sheehan on many of her political views. I do sympathize with her on the death of her son. I know she is deeply hurt over that and I believe it has clouded her thinking and judgment as a result of her son's death. The Left used her to fulfill their political agenda. I will say in observing Sheehan since President Obama's inauguration I do have an element of respect for the woman. The area where I respect her is that she hasn't changed her mind about the wars simply because Barack Obama is president. I respect that. She believes in her heart these two wars are wrong, rightly or wrongly. The sad part about the whole incident is that she does have a point. The U.S. has been in both Afghanistan and Iraq a number of years and both the Bush and Obama administrations haven't had a strategy for winning. Our troops have been engaged in two no-win wars. That's no way to fight wars. Sheehan's misguided on her viewpoints but I don't believe her speaking out on the wars was politically motivated. She even stated on the Dennis Miller Show that she wasn't even thinking about politics when she stood against the Iraq War. I believe that.
I can remember during the Bush administration all the anti-war protests that took place over the war in Iraq. I can remember many of our politicians such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and others criticizing the war stating it was based on fabrications and that there wasn't any way the war was winnable. I vividly remember the Left using John Murtha (D-PA, chairman of Appropriations Committee) back in November 2005. He stated that our troops needed to be pulled from Iraq. He stated that the situation was too perilous in Iraq. Now you don't hear anymore out of him and our troops are still in Iraq. The Democrats used him to speak out against the war because the Democrats knew they had an issue they could use against the Republicans for the next two elections. They were looking to regain control of both houses of Congress and the White House. The Democrats have achieved their goals. They no longer need Murtha as their mouthpiece since they have the radical socialist they desire in the White House. Both Democrats and Republicans throw issues against one another in elections for the purposes of obtaining power. That's what I feel for the most part about all those that have protested against the war in Iraq. I believe it was mostly done for political purposes.
Ever since President Obama's been elected, you hardly hear all the virulent rhetoric that came from the antiwar left during the Bush administration. The reason for that was their man wasn't in office. Those that belong to the antiwar or peace movement are liberal in their politics and they tend to vote Democrat. They didn't like Bush because he wasn't their kind of president. So they used the war in Iraq as an issue against the Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Since President Obama represents many of the Left's views, then the war in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't such a huge deal anymore. Most of the protesting that took place was a farce. The Obama administration is still continuing the same policies in both wars that the Bush administration used. The Left wanted someone like Obama for president, so they protested vehemently against the wars in order to bolster the Democrats' chances. That's one man's opinion. You definitely don't hear as much negative rhetoric from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid about the wars like you did when Bush was president. Both Pelosi and Reid aren't favorable to increasing the troop levels in Afghanistan. However, I don't think they'll make much of an issue out of it if Obama decides to send the number of troops that General McChrystal has called for.
I believe if President Obama was to renew his commitment in Iraq and add more troops there I don't believe he would hear much of an outcry from the Democrats in Congress or the far Left. It's all politics. I believe most of the protesting that took place against the Iraq war wasn't geniune to begin with. I especially believe that since the outcry has dwindled down considerably. The Left have what they desire. They have a liberal, Democratic Congress and a socialist president.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Lack of Temperance
Proverbs 25: "He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls". We live in a society today that lacks temperance or self-control. We find that with young children, teenagers, and even adults. There's no particular age group that's an exception. People that don't get their away express their outrage through temper tantrums, pouting, or more violent measures as all the school shootings that have taken place in America for the last 12 years or better. People have no self-control? Why? They have no temperance. They didn't receive proper discipline as a child. What is the definition of temperance? Temperance is self-restraint in conduct, indulgence of the appetites, etc., moderation. In the particular example I just mentioned, I'm making reference to a lack of temperance when it comes to behavior. I'm referring to people who become easily angered when things don't go the way they desire. Proverbs also says that those who become angry easily lack understanding. People that fly off the handle don't know how to possess their vessel.
The lack of temperance isn't just limited to becoming angry and acting irrational. The lack of temperance can be demonstrated in a number of facets. We see Americans that are intemperate when it comes to managing finances, keeping their weight under control, slothfulness when it comes to work, students not being diligent in completing their homework, and the list continues. It's a very serious problem in today's society. That's apparent as well with our lawmakers in Washington, D.C. When it comes to the issue of spending taxpayer dollars, our politicians waste money like we waste food or even worse. Today's parents have failed in properly instilling temperance in their children's lives. Today we're seeing those results manifested in our society with today's young adults. We have an impatient society that's out of control, that wants things accomplished in "microwave time", and doesn't want to exert themselves to achieve genuine success in certain fields. We're a slothful, lazy, and obese society. We postpone things for tomorrow which should've been accomplished today. We have students graduating from our public schools that can't hardly read or spell. We have young people entering the work force that lack skills necessary to be successful on a job. As a result, the turnover rate is high in many places of employment because they can't handle the stress on a job.
The Bible says a lot about temperance. Temperance is one of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:23). A Christian should live a balanced, temperate lifestyle. Many Christians today struggle in that area. A lack of self-control, regardless of what area in a person's life it is, is not a good testimony on behalf of the Christian. The world lacks balance. We as Christians should be leaders when it comes to living a temperate lifestyle. Our lives should reflect Christ and we should live a temperate life. A lot of unnecessary words have been spoken due to a lack of temperance when it comes to speech. Many Christian homes have faced undue stress due to being undisciplined in handling our finances. Every part of our lives should exhibit self-control. I appreciate Dave Ramsey and the work he does when it comes to promoting "Financial Peace". I appreciate all those that promote living a balanced healthy lifestyle. Without temperance, life will be very stressful, difficult, and complicated.
The lack of temperance isn't just limited to becoming angry and acting irrational. The lack of temperance can be demonstrated in a number of facets. We see Americans that are intemperate when it comes to managing finances, keeping their weight under control, slothfulness when it comes to work, students not being diligent in completing their homework, and the list continues. It's a very serious problem in today's society. That's apparent as well with our lawmakers in Washington, D.C. When it comes to the issue of spending taxpayer dollars, our politicians waste money like we waste food or even worse. Today's parents have failed in properly instilling temperance in their children's lives. Today we're seeing those results manifested in our society with today's young adults. We have an impatient society that's out of control, that wants things accomplished in "microwave time", and doesn't want to exert themselves to achieve genuine success in certain fields. We're a slothful, lazy, and obese society. We postpone things for tomorrow which should've been accomplished today. We have students graduating from our public schools that can't hardly read or spell. We have young people entering the work force that lack skills necessary to be successful on a job. As a result, the turnover rate is high in many places of employment because they can't handle the stress on a job.
The Bible says a lot about temperance. Temperance is one of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:23). A Christian should live a balanced, temperate lifestyle. Many Christians today struggle in that area. A lack of self-control, regardless of what area in a person's life it is, is not a good testimony on behalf of the Christian. The world lacks balance. We as Christians should be leaders when it comes to living a temperate lifestyle. Our lives should reflect Christ and we should live a temperate life. A lot of unnecessary words have been spoken due to a lack of temperance when it comes to speech. Many Christian homes have faced undue stress due to being undisciplined in handling our finances. Every part of our lives should exhibit self-control. I appreciate Dave Ramsey and the work he does when it comes to promoting "Financial Peace". I appreciate all those that promote living a balanced healthy lifestyle. Without temperance, life will be very stressful, difficult, and complicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)