COMMENT:
I started this blog to state my opinions and concerns about the health, welfare, and direction of this country I love. Every day though, I find articles that say it much better than I ever could. Here is another one correctly attributed by snopes.com.
ARTICLE:
Anne Wortham is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University 's Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association. She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.
In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in Bill Moyer's television series, "A World of Ideas." The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in his book, A World of Ideas.
Dr. Wortham is author of "The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness" which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and policy issues.
She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality.
Recently she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness. Shortly after an interview in 2004, she was awarded tenure.
This article (below) by her is something worth your time to read.
Fellow Americans,
Please know: I am Black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul's name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a Black president to know that I am a person of worth and that life is worth living. I do not require a Black president to love the ideal of America .
I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival - all that I know about the history of the United States of America , all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America .
Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depends. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million Blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that Blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them.
I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration - political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
I would have to believe that "fairness" is the equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that a man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.
Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead - and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.
So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a Black man to the office of the president of the United States , the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over - and Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmy Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a Black person.
So, toast yourselves, 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America. Shout your glee, Harvard, Princeton , Yale, Duke, Stanford and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a Black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to - Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left - for the chance to feel good.
There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.
God Help Us all...
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
WW II Battleship sailor tells Obama to shape up or ship out !
COMMENT: How can I NOT post this man's letter on my blog? This has been correctly attributed by snopes.com. What I would really like to see is Obama's response to this letter. This man has obviously been of great service to this country. He is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. He is described as a humble man without a political bone in his body. He has never spoken out before about a government official, until now. He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.
Dear President Obama,
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.
One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.
So here goes.
I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.
I can't figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
" We're no longer a Christian nation"
" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even
announced to the world," America is mean-
spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching
that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who
died for no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
hopelessness.)
I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.
After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."
Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.
I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.
Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.
Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.
And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.
One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.
You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.
And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle...
Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes
COMMENT: I started this blog to determine if I'm "on an island" in my thoughts and concerns about the direction of our country. Letters such as this reaffirm my belief that I am not far off in my thinking. Sure, some of my opinions can be hotly debated, but if even a third of my concerns about Obama prove true, the country is in deep, deep trouble. I'm still amazed that his supporters can't see the facts, and the direction those facts are taking this country.
Dear President Obama,
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.
One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.
So here goes.
I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.
I can't figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
" We're no longer a Christian nation"
" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even
announced to the world," America is mean-
spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching
that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who
died for no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
hopelessness.)
I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.
After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."
Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.
I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.
Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.
Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.
And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.
One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.
You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.
And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle...
Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes
COMMENT: I started this blog to determine if I'm "on an island" in my thoughts and concerns about the direction of our country. Letters such as this reaffirm my belief that I am not far off in my thinking. Sure, some of my opinions can be hotly debated, but if even a third of my concerns about Obama prove true, the country is in deep, deep trouble. I'm still amazed that his supporters can't see the facts, and the direction those facts are taking this country.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Free House (Some Strings Attached)
This comes from a man by the name of Clifford Wright. This may, or may not, have actually happened - you know how trustworthy the internet is these days. Even if not an actual event, it still warrants publication because the message is spot on.
ARTICLE:
I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued:
They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard the young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” The young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. They are all crooks and thieves and don’t deserve all of that money.” Another said, ‘The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.”
At this, I had had enough. I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.
"I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?” They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point. “I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding “Hell Yeah” fills the room.
“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money free bargain.” I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.” Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.” They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.” I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.” They gaped at me for a moment.
“Hell, I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them. “Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. “Oh hell yeah! Where do I sign up?” I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature. “Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.
“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.” I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumb founded.
“Are you out of your freaking mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated. “You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement.” was all I said. The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people. “You can shove that stupid deal up you’re a** old man, I want no part of it” exclaimed the now infuriated young man. “You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.” At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.
After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent. “What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it unto you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom.” With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”
I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an honor to pickup the tab.” I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.
COMMENT:
The Health Care Bill is over 2700 pages long and, by Congress' own admission, it was not read, discerned, and studied. Those voting for it accepted what was written - blind for all practical purposes. We are a country of intelligent, educated people, yet our leaders fell into the "free" trap and blindly signed this into law.
Anyone who has fallen victim to con artists know the key tool used to trick people into buying is the, "now or never, no time to wait" pressure. Wasn't that exactly how the Health Care Bill was rammed through Congress? Obama set an arbitrary deadline of August; when Congress failed to meet it, he simply set another pressing deadline. Then when Scott Brown got elected, ruining the majority vote, the pressure was turned up with reconciliation to ensure it would get passed before anyone had a chance to truly study it. Why? What was so time critical that patience had to be handcuffed and stuffed in the closet? Look at the timetable for implementation of this massive piece of legislature and the question becomes even more vague - the Bill is fraught with dates of 2014, 2018, 2020, and beyond. What really was the rush? I guess we'll find out once the "Master" sets the rules and reveals the real guidelines of this legislation.
ARTICLE:
I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued:
They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard the young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” The young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. They are all crooks and thieves and don’t deserve all of that money.” Another said, ‘The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.”
At this, I had had enough. I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.
"I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?” They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point. “I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding “Hell Yeah” fills the room.
“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money free bargain.” I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.” Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.” They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.” I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.” They gaped at me for a moment.
“Hell, I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them. “Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. “Oh hell yeah! Where do I sign up?” I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature. “Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.
“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.” I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumb founded.
“Are you out of your freaking mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated. “You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement.” was all I said. The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people. “You can shove that stupid deal up you’re a** old man, I want no part of it” exclaimed the now infuriated young man. “You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.” At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.
After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent. “What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it unto you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom.” With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”
I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an honor to pickup the tab.” I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.
COMMENT:
The Health Care Bill is over 2700 pages long and, by Congress' own admission, it was not read, discerned, and studied. Those voting for it accepted what was written - blind for all practical purposes. We are a country of intelligent, educated people, yet our leaders fell into the "free" trap and blindly signed this into law.
Anyone who has fallen victim to con artists know the key tool used to trick people into buying is the, "now or never, no time to wait" pressure. Wasn't that exactly how the Health Care Bill was rammed through Congress? Obama set an arbitrary deadline of August; when Congress failed to meet it, he simply set another pressing deadline. Then when Scott Brown got elected, ruining the majority vote, the pressure was turned up with reconciliation to ensure it would get passed before anyone had a chance to truly study it. Why? What was so time critical that patience had to be handcuffed and stuffed in the closet? Look at the timetable for implementation of this massive piece of legislature and the question becomes even more vague - the Bill is fraught with dates of 2014, 2018, 2020, and beyond. What really was the rush? I guess we'll find out once the "Master" sets the rules and reveals the real guidelines of this legislation.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill
By PAUL DAVENPORT and JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press Writers Paul Davenport And Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writers – Fri Apr 23, 7:22 pm ET
PHOENIX – Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico.
With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were "overreacting" and that she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling.
"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," Brewer said after signing the law. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."
Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."
"That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," Obama said.
The legislation, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.
The law sends "a clear message that Arizona is unfriendly to undocumented aliens," said Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor and author of the book "Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization."
Brewer signed the bill in a state auditorium about a mile from the Capitol complex where some 2,000 demonstrators booed county Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox when she announced that "the governor did not listen to our prayers."
"It's going to change our lives," said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. "We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants."
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund said it plans a legal challenge to the law, arguing it "launches Arizona into a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions."
Mexico has warned the proposal could affect cross-border relations. On Thursday, Mexico's Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging Brewer to veto the law.
"Police in Arizona already treat migrants worse than animals," said Francisco Loureiro, an activist who runs a migrant shelter in the border town of Nogales, Mexico. "There is already a hunt for migrants, and now it will be open season under the cover of a law."
The bill will take effect in late July or early August, and Brewer ordered the state's law enforcement licensing agency to develop a training course on how to implement it without violating civil rights.
"We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent, or social status," she said. "We must prove the alarmists and the cynics wrong."
Brewer, who faces a tough election battle and growing anger in the state over illegal immigrants, said the law "protects every Arizona citizen."
Anti-immigrant anger has swelled in the past month, after rancher Rob Krentz was found dead on his land north of Douglas, near the Mexico border. Authorities believe he was fatally shot by an illegal immigrant possibly connected to a drug smuggling cartel.
Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants, and its harsh, remote desert serves as the corridor for the majority of illegal immigrants and drugs moving north into the U.S. from Mexico.
U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, said he closed his Arizona offices at noon Friday after his staff in Yuma and Tucson were flooded with calls this week, some from people threatening violent acts and shouting racial slurs. He called on businesses and groups looking for convention and meeting locations to boycott Arizona.
The bill's Republican sponsor, state Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, said Obama and other critics of the bill were "against law enforcement, our citizens and the rule of law."
Pearce said the legislation would remove "political handcuffs" from police and help drive illegal immigrants from the state.
"Illegal is illegal," said Pearce, a driving force on the issue in Arizona. "We'll have less crime. We'll have lower taxes. We'll have safer neighborhoods. We'll have shorter lines in the emergency rooms. We'll have smaller classrooms."
Associated Press Writer Julie Pace in Washington contributed to this report.
COMMENT:
This is an example of the forceful, bold, brave decisions that are needed to reclaim this country. Opponents claim this will result in racial profiling, but from living in Southern California for 17 years I believe many are easily identifiable utilizing indicators police use now.
If the police see a vehicle traveling 10mph or more UNDER the speed limit with the driver being overly cautious, there's a strong suspicion of illegal activity and a traffic stop is warranted to investigate. Is that racial profiling simply because the driver is of Spanish descent?
If the police enter a parking lot and people run away, that's also probable cause of illegal activity and apprehension/questioning seems warranted. Is that racial profiling if the people running are Spanish?
If a person walks through a neighborhood with an INS cap on and people start running, is that an indicator of illegal activity? Would you run if you saw the cap?
Now, let me ask this. If you owned a restaurant and people continually came in and ate without paying, would you correct the situation or simply look away because they're Mexicans and if you take any action it will be called racial profiling? Would it be racial profiling or simply protecting and preserving your business?
'NUFF SAID.
PHOENIX – Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico.
With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were "overreacting" and that she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling.
"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," Brewer said after signing the law. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."
Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."
"That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," Obama said.
The legislation, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.
The law sends "a clear message that Arizona is unfriendly to undocumented aliens," said Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor and author of the book "Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization."
Brewer signed the bill in a state auditorium about a mile from the Capitol complex where some 2,000 demonstrators booed county Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox when she announced that "the governor did not listen to our prayers."
"It's going to change our lives," said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. "We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants."
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund said it plans a legal challenge to the law, arguing it "launches Arizona into a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions."
Mexico has warned the proposal could affect cross-border relations. On Thursday, Mexico's Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging Brewer to veto the law.
"Police in Arizona already treat migrants worse than animals," said Francisco Loureiro, an activist who runs a migrant shelter in the border town of Nogales, Mexico. "There is already a hunt for migrants, and now it will be open season under the cover of a law."
The bill will take effect in late July or early August, and Brewer ordered the state's law enforcement licensing agency to develop a training course on how to implement it without violating civil rights.
"We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent, or social status," she said. "We must prove the alarmists and the cynics wrong."
Brewer, who faces a tough election battle and growing anger in the state over illegal immigrants, said the law "protects every Arizona citizen."
Anti-immigrant anger has swelled in the past month, after rancher Rob Krentz was found dead on his land north of Douglas, near the Mexico border. Authorities believe he was fatally shot by an illegal immigrant possibly connected to a drug smuggling cartel.
Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants, and its harsh, remote desert serves as the corridor for the majority of illegal immigrants and drugs moving north into the U.S. from Mexico.
U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, said he closed his Arizona offices at noon Friday after his staff in Yuma and Tucson were flooded with calls this week, some from people threatening violent acts and shouting racial slurs. He called on businesses and groups looking for convention and meeting locations to boycott Arizona.
The bill's Republican sponsor, state Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, said Obama and other critics of the bill were "against law enforcement, our citizens and the rule of law."
Pearce said the legislation would remove "political handcuffs" from police and help drive illegal immigrants from the state.
"Illegal is illegal," said Pearce, a driving force on the issue in Arizona. "We'll have less crime. We'll have lower taxes. We'll have safer neighborhoods. We'll have shorter lines in the emergency rooms. We'll have smaller classrooms."
Associated Press Writer Julie Pace in Washington contributed to this report.
COMMENT:
This is an example of the forceful, bold, brave decisions that are needed to reclaim this country. Opponents claim this will result in racial profiling, but from living in Southern California for 17 years I believe many are easily identifiable utilizing indicators police use now.
If the police see a vehicle traveling 10mph or more UNDER the speed limit with the driver being overly cautious, there's a strong suspicion of illegal activity and a traffic stop is warranted to investigate. Is that racial profiling simply because the driver is of Spanish descent?
If the police enter a parking lot and people run away, that's also probable cause of illegal activity and apprehension/questioning seems warranted. Is that racial profiling if the people running are Spanish?
If a person walks through a neighborhood with an INS cap on and people start running, is that an indicator of illegal activity? Would you run if you saw the cap?
Now, let me ask this. If you owned a restaurant and people continually came in and ate without paying, would you correct the situation or simply look away because they're Mexicans and if you take any action it will be called racial profiling? Would it be racial profiling or simply protecting and preserving your business?
'NUFF SAID.
Report says health care will cover more, cost more
COMMENT: Now isn't that surprising? Opponents to the Bill have been saying this all during the debate, and protesters have continually claimed that the numbers are flawed. I, personally, have not been able to figure the math out on this (cost $1Trillion but will reduce the Federal deficit), but I know many great plans fail because of counting money that has not been banked. Projections are not realized unless the projections are correct - will this Bill fix a Medicare/Medicaid problem that has plagued it since its inception? Highly unlikely. Why not plug the holes FIRST, then implement plans AFTER the projections prove correct? Anyway, enough from me - here's the article from the AP:
ARTICLE
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 23, 5:58 am ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.
In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.
The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.
The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.
COMMENT: This should've have been the biggest "red flag" - how many govt programs do you know that start out without cost savings, but then magically save money after 10 years? Why not take measures to plug the holes (no cost except for wages of oversight personnel) and implement the program when it can be done WITH cost savings from the start? (back to the article)
"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.
Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.
"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.
In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.
"The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said.
Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.
The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.
The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.
Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.
The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.
In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.
In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.
COMMENT:
I sincerely hope this report is troubling enough to force the Administration to at least seek adjustments, or modified time tables, for this Bill. If a report uses phrases such as, "mixed verdict," "unrealistic," "unsustainable," "worrisome," "drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red," "little hope for progress in the first decade," and "flashing yellow light," doesn't it deserve at least another evaluation before implementation?
Most plans would be reevaluated with only a few of these concerns - the first comprehensive look at the Bill (because the 2700 pages weren't studied before passage) reflects all of these PLUS what I consider the most realistic result of the Bill...the "reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage programs will result in a mass exodus, with enrollment dropping by about 50%." I believe a similar result will occur, with private doctors and hospitals refusing Medicare/Medicaid because they simply cannot afford to operate under the reduced payments of this Bill. The only option at that point is for government to force them to provide care, which will result in unprofitable business structures. End result? Doctors shuttering their practices, hospitals closing, more Americans with coverage but less doctors and hospital beds for the patients, longer waits for care, extinction of second opinions, reduced options for patients, etc. If this sounds familiar, you can find these same consequences in those countries with nationalized health care. Need I remind anyone of Canadian comments regarding their health care system?
Contact your Senators and Representatives and plead for a modification of the implementation of this Bill. If we don't, I believe future news headlines will read, "President Runs Out of Options, Takes Over Failing Health Care System"
ARTICLE
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 23, 5:58 am ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.
In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.
The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.
The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.
COMMENT: This should've have been the biggest "red flag" - how many govt programs do you know that start out without cost savings, but then magically save money after 10 years? Why not take measures to plug the holes (no cost except for wages of oversight personnel) and implement the program when it can be done WITH cost savings from the start? (back to the article)
"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.
Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.
"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.
In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.
"The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said.
Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.
The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.
The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.
Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.
The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.
In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.
In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.
COMMENT:
I sincerely hope this report is troubling enough to force the Administration to at least seek adjustments, or modified time tables, for this Bill. If a report uses phrases such as, "mixed verdict," "unrealistic," "unsustainable," "worrisome," "drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red," "little hope for progress in the first decade," and "flashing yellow light," doesn't it deserve at least another evaluation before implementation?
Most plans would be reevaluated with only a few of these concerns - the first comprehensive look at the Bill (because the 2700 pages weren't studied before passage) reflects all of these PLUS what I consider the most realistic result of the Bill...the "reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage programs will result in a mass exodus, with enrollment dropping by about 50%." I believe a similar result will occur, with private doctors and hospitals refusing Medicare/Medicaid because they simply cannot afford to operate under the reduced payments of this Bill. The only option at that point is for government to force them to provide care, which will result in unprofitable business structures. End result? Doctors shuttering their practices, hospitals closing, more Americans with coverage but less doctors and hospital beds for the patients, longer waits for care, extinction of second opinions, reduced options for patients, etc. If this sounds familiar, you can find these same consequences in those countries with nationalized health care. Need I remind anyone of Canadian comments regarding their health care system?
Contact your Senators and Representatives and plead for a modification of the implementation of this Bill. If we don't, I believe future news headlines will read, "President Runs Out of Options, Takes Over Failing Health Care System"
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Obama "Amused" by the Tea Party
One of the most conservative members of Congress says President Obama must be completely out of touch with reality for making light of the recent Tea Party gatherings around the country.
President Obama said during a Democratic fundraiser in Miami that he was "amused" by anti-tax Tea Party rallies that took place prior to and on Tax Day (April 15). The president told the gathering that he has cut taxes, contrary to the claims of the protestors, and he commented, "You would think they'd be saying 'thank you.'"
Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) attended two Tea Party rallies in Washington, DC, on April 15, and he contends the president's comments are amusing.
Steve King, "The president has to be completely out of touch with America if he's amused by what's going on here," King argues. "We are not amused by what he is doing. [For] the President of the United States to be amused and to say that we all ought to say 'thank you' for what he's done to our economy in this country, the best way to respond to that, I guess, is to laugh."
The congressman wonders if the president will be amused by the results of the upcoming mid-term elections. END QUOTE
COMMENT: Is there really anything else to say about this, except that I've never seen a sitting President be so flippant and unconcerned about what is troubling fellow Americans. Maybe they're not fellow Americans to him.
President Obama said during a Democratic fundraiser in Miami that he was "amused" by anti-tax Tea Party rallies that took place prior to and on Tax Day (April 15). The president told the gathering that he has cut taxes, contrary to the claims of the protestors, and he commented, "You would think they'd be saying 'thank you.'"
Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) attended two Tea Party rallies in Washington, DC, on April 15, and he contends the president's comments are amusing.
Steve King, "The president has to be completely out of touch with America if he's amused by what's going on here," King argues. "We are not amused by what he is doing. [For] the President of the United States to be amused and to say that we all ought to say 'thank you' for what he's done to our economy in this country, the best way to respond to that, I guess, is to laugh."
The congressman wonders if the president will be amused by the results of the upcoming mid-term elections. END QUOTE
COMMENT: Is there really anything else to say about this, except that I've never seen a sitting President be so flippant and unconcerned about what is troubling fellow Americans. Maybe they're not fellow Americans to him.
Colonel Allen West speaks about Islam Feb 19
Now this is what our country needs! This man has it right, this man is patriotic, this man calls it like it is, this man knows the enemy, this man knows what must be done to the enemy, this man knows what's wrong with our leadership, this man knows the wrong person is sitting as President.....AND....this man is African-American so the race card cannot be used.
Check out his speech on YouTube (title is subject above). It's 10 minutes well spent and, if you're like me, the question that comes to mind is, "Are Americans brave enough to take the stand he states must be taken?" I am and I hope there are many more like me because I strongly believe the consequences of inaction, as stated by him.
I also must correct an assertion I made in an earlier blog post about Islam. I divided Islam into 2 factions - Islam and Islamic Extremists. It is not correct to divide and define them...they are one and the same. Muslims claim Islam to be a peaceful religion but, as Col West stated, Muhammad's teachings, journeys, and assertions were not about peace, but rather about submission to Islam. The key difference between our beliefs and Islam is tolerance - it's zero for Islam.
What we mistake in their religion for tolerance is actually patience. For decades, they have been posturing for dominance by migrating to free democracies, instilling their doctrine into these countries while completely isolating their culture so as not to be "defiled" by the country in which they live. It doesn't seem to me that they come to the USA for the opportunities, freedoms, and way of life - they bring all of that with them. So what's their purpose for doing this? What's the motivation? Why would families leave their homeland, their friends and family, everything they know, to come to America or Europe where the land is full of nothing but "infidels?"
Think of our present situation in the United States. How many Muslims live here today? Very difficult to say because accurate records are not kept. The CIA Fact Book as of 2009, reflects our Muslim population at 1.8 million, only 0.6% of total population. This number only represents actual immigration statistics and does not factor in Islamic converts in the US, nor does it take into account children born into Muslim families in the US. Still, imagine a religious revolt in this country of 1.8 million people - that's quite an army. There's 1.6M in the United Kingdom, but that represents 2.6% of their population, France holds 6.4M - 10% of their total population. Israel? 16% of their population is Muslim...roughly 1 in 6. Are you getting the picture?
I agree with Col West that action must be taken soon, but is the world brave enough for a religious war on this scale? What are the choices? What price are we willing to pay for our freedom? Tough decisions are ahead, but no decision is a decision in itself.
If you believe in the Bible, as I do, then you believe a war is coming. Many signposts point to this war being waged between a mighty nation and the world - sounds right to me. The nation of Islam is a mighty nation (over 1.6B out of total population of 6.8B according to 2009 CIA Fact Book), roughly 24% of the total world population.
Check out his speech on YouTube (title is subject above). It's 10 minutes well spent and, if you're like me, the question that comes to mind is, "Are Americans brave enough to take the stand he states must be taken?" I am and I hope there are many more like me because I strongly believe the consequences of inaction, as stated by him.
I also must correct an assertion I made in an earlier blog post about Islam. I divided Islam into 2 factions - Islam and Islamic Extremists. It is not correct to divide and define them...they are one and the same. Muslims claim Islam to be a peaceful religion but, as Col West stated, Muhammad's teachings, journeys, and assertions were not about peace, but rather about submission to Islam. The key difference between our beliefs and Islam is tolerance - it's zero for Islam.
What we mistake in their religion for tolerance is actually patience. For decades, they have been posturing for dominance by migrating to free democracies, instilling their doctrine into these countries while completely isolating their culture so as not to be "defiled" by the country in which they live. It doesn't seem to me that they come to the USA for the opportunities, freedoms, and way of life - they bring all of that with them. So what's their purpose for doing this? What's the motivation? Why would families leave their homeland, their friends and family, everything they know, to come to America or Europe where the land is full of nothing but "infidels?"
Think of our present situation in the United States. How many Muslims live here today? Very difficult to say because accurate records are not kept. The CIA Fact Book as of 2009, reflects our Muslim population at 1.8 million, only 0.6% of total population. This number only represents actual immigration statistics and does not factor in Islamic converts in the US, nor does it take into account children born into Muslim families in the US. Still, imagine a religious revolt in this country of 1.8 million people - that's quite an army. There's 1.6M in the United Kingdom, but that represents 2.6% of their population, France holds 6.4M - 10% of their total population. Israel? 16% of their population is Muslim...roughly 1 in 6. Are you getting the picture?
I agree with Col West that action must be taken soon, but is the world brave enough for a religious war on this scale? What are the choices? What price are we willing to pay for our freedom? Tough decisions are ahead, but no decision is a decision in itself.
If you believe in the Bible, as I do, then you believe a war is coming. Many signposts point to this war being waged between a mighty nation and the world - sounds right to me. The nation of Islam is a mighty nation (over 1.6B out of total population of 6.8B according to 2009 CIA Fact Book), roughly 24% of the total world population.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Judge Declares Prayer Unconstitutional
Last week, Barbara Crabb, a federal judge appointed by former president Jimmy Carter, declared that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. Bizarrely, she said it is a violation of the First Amendment.
Yet the tradition of national days of prayer goes back to our very first congress and our first president. Just two days after members of Congress passed the First Amendment, they asked President George Washington to declare a national day of thanksgiving and prayer. In response to this request from Congress, President Washington, less than a week after passage of the First Amendment, issued just such a proclamation on October 3, 1789.
From a merely historical point of view, this makes it clear that it is preposterous to suggest that there is anything unconstitutional about a national day of prayer. Judge Crabb seems dangerously unaware of American history and the true meaning of the First Amendment, which was designed to protect freedom of religious expression, not stamp it out.
On Thursday, May 6, I invite you to participate in Meet At City Hall from 12:20 pm to 12:40 pm during the National Day Of Prayer. At thousands of city halls across the country, individuals will gather to pray for a moral rebirth in our country. The National Day of Prayer is an annual event established by an act of Congress which encourages Americans to pray for our nation, its people and its leaders. END QUOTE.
COMMENT:
I will be at the El Segundo City Hall Thursday, May 6th, at 12:00pm for this event. I encourage everyone to plan their lunch hour around this event to show our officials that prayer is a vital part of this country's health and prosperity. We must stop letting the minority (atheists) dictate the direction of this country.
Yet the tradition of national days of prayer goes back to our very first congress and our first president. Just two days after members of Congress passed the First Amendment, they asked President George Washington to declare a national day of thanksgiving and prayer. In response to this request from Congress, President Washington, less than a week after passage of the First Amendment, issued just such a proclamation on October 3, 1789.
From a merely historical point of view, this makes it clear that it is preposterous to suggest that there is anything unconstitutional about a national day of prayer. Judge Crabb seems dangerously unaware of American history and the true meaning of the First Amendment, which was designed to protect freedom of religious expression, not stamp it out.
On Thursday, May 6, I invite you to participate in Meet At City Hall from 12:20 pm to 12:40 pm during the National Day Of Prayer. At thousands of city halls across the country, individuals will gather to pray for a moral rebirth in our country. The National Day of Prayer is an annual event established by an act of Congress which encourages Americans to pray for our nation, its people and its leaders. END QUOTE.
COMMENT:
I will be at the El Segundo City Hall Thursday, May 6th, at 12:00pm for this event. I encourage everyone to plan their lunch hour around this event to show our officials that prayer is a vital part of this country's health and prosperity. We must stop letting the minority (atheists) dictate the direction of this country.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Is a Strong America a Bad Thing?
Asked this week about his faltering efforts to advance the Middle East peace process, President Obama did something remarkable. In front of some 47 foreign leaders and hundreds of reporters from all over the world, President Obama said that “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.”
Whether we like it or not? Most Americans do like it. America’s military may be one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever seen, liberating countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan and kept authoritarian powers like Russian and China in check.
It is in America’s and the world’s interests for our country to remain a dominant military superpower, but under our great country’s new leadership that dominance seems to be slipping away. President Obama has ended production of the F-22, the most advanced fighter jet this country has ever built. He’s gutted our missile defense program by eliminating shield resources in strategic places including Alaska. And he’s ended the program to build a new generation of nuclear weapons that would have ensured the reliability of our nuclear deterrent well into the future. All this is in the context of the country’s unsustainable debt that could further limit defense spending. As one defense expert recently explained:
The president is looking to eliminate the last vestiges of the Reagan-era buildup. Once the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are “ended” (not “won”), the arms control treaties signed, and defense budgets held at historic lows while social entitlements and debt service rise to near-European levels, the era of American superpower will have passed.
The truth is this: by his actions we see a president who seems to be much more comfortable with an American military that isn’t quite so dominant and who feels the need to apologize for America when he travels overseas. Could it be a lack of faith in American exceptionalism? The fact is that America and our allies are safer when we are a dominant military superpower – whether President Obama likes it or not.
- Sarah Palin
END QUOTE
COMMENT: The "pebbles" just keep getting bigger. When will all true Americans stand up, whether they voted for Obama or not, and say "enough?" This great nation of ours should never take the apologetic, subservient, placating role adopted by the current Administration. History has proven repeatedly that successful negotiation and global teamwork occurs when the United States is a mighty nation and one whose leadership is strong and well-respected.
Carter was a placating President who believed in unilateral arms reduction and representing to the world a kinder, gentler, more humanitarian-based America. Under his leadership, our defense capabilities were diminished with him hinting that we were wrong to have so much power (sound familiar?). Islamic Extremists (yes, I called them what they are) took over our Embassy in Iran and held 53 Americans hostage for 444 days. When did they finally release them?
That's right, within days after a strong President Reagan took office - coincidence? I think not. President Reagan IMMEDIATELY changed our status in the world and made it very clear that we were strengthening our military and once again taking our dominant role as the "Freedom Fighters" for the world. Look at events during his Administration in comparison to President Carter and it's very clear to me that a strong America is better for the world than an apologetic one. It was also MUCH better within our borders...just compare our economy and Federal deficit during those Administrations for proof.
One only needs to revisit history to clearly see that this country needs, and must demand, a strong President - not one who bows to other world leaders (bowing is not an American tradition, so is not viewed as respect but rather weakness) and apologizes for the strength and dominance of this wonderful country I love.
Whether we like it or not? Most Americans do like it. America’s military may be one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever seen, liberating countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan and kept authoritarian powers like Russian and China in check.
It is in America’s and the world’s interests for our country to remain a dominant military superpower, but under our great country’s new leadership that dominance seems to be slipping away. President Obama has ended production of the F-22, the most advanced fighter jet this country has ever built. He’s gutted our missile defense program by eliminating shield resources in strategic places including Alaska. And he’s ended the program to build a new generation of nuclear weapons that would have ensured the reliability of our nuclear deterrent well into the future. All this is in the context of the country’s unsustainable debt that could further limit defense spending. As one defense expert recently explained:
The president is looking to eliminate the last vestiges of the Reagan-era buildup. Once the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are “ended” (not “won”), the arms control treaties signed, and defense budgets held at historic lows while social entitlements and debt service rise to near-European levels, the era of American superpower will have passed.
The truth is this: by his actions we see a president who seems to be much more comfortable with an American military that isn’t quite so dominant and who feels the need to apologize for America when he travels overseas. Could it be a lack of faith in American exceptionalism? The fact is that America and our allies are safer when we are a dominant military superpower – whether President Obama likes it or not.
- Sarah Palin
END QUOTE
COMMENT: The "pebbles" just keep getting bigger. When will all true Americans stand up, whether they voted for Obama or not, and say "enough?" This great nation of ours should never take the apologetic, subservient, placating role adopted by the current Administration. History has proven repeatedly that successful negotiation and global teamwork occurs when the United States is a mighty nation and one whose leadership is strong and well-respected.
Carter was a placating President who believed in unilateral arms reduction and representing to the world a kinder, gentler, more humanitarian-based America. Under his leadership, our defense capabilities were diminished with him hinting that we were wrong to have so much power (sound familiar?). Islamic Extremists (yes, I called them what they are) took over our Embassy in Iran and held 53 Americans hostage for 444 days. When did they finally release them?
That's right, within days after a strong President Reagan took office - coincidence? I think not. President Reagan IMMEDIATELY changed our status in the world and made it very clear that we were strengthening our military and once again taking our dominant role as the "Freedom Fighters" for the world. Look at events during his Administration in comparison to President Carter and it's very clear to me that a strong America is better for the world than an apologetic one. It was also MUCH better within our borders...just compare our economy and Federal deficit during those Administrations for proof.
One only needs to revisit history to clearly see that this country needs, and must demand, a strong President - not one who bows to other world leaders (bowing is not an American tradition, so is not viewed as respect but rather weakness) and apologizes for the strength and dominance of this wonderful country I love.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Tea Party Foes Infiltrate To Destroy
ALBANY, NY - Opponents of the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement say they plan to infiltrate and dismantle the political group by trying to make its members appear to be racist, homophobic, and moronic.
Jason Levin, creator of CrashTheTeaParty.org, says the group has 65 leaders in major cities across the country who are trying to recruit members to infiltrate Tea Party events for April 15 -- tax filing day.
He says they want to exaggerate the group's least appealing qualities, further distance the Tea Party from mainstream America, and damage the public's opinion of them.
The Tea Party movement generally unites on the fiscally conservative principles of small government, lower taxes, and less spending. Beyond that, the ideology of the people involved tends to vary dramatically.
COMMENT: Is this the American Way? Does this seem to honor our Constitutional rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression?
OR...Does this seem repressive, coercive, dishonest? It's another "pebble" in the stream of change to our way of life. Just like A.C.O.R.N. openly admitted to an agenda of destroying our electoral process, this group now openly states their desire is to discredit and dismantle the movement by whatever means necessary. What is happening to honesty, integrity, and the "Golden Rule" in this country?!?!?!
Everyone needs to wake up quickly and realize that the Tea Party is NOT about race, discrimination, or selfish goals...it arose out of a real, patriotic concern for the health, well-being, and future of this great country! It arose to defend the US Constitution against the present attacks on the very fibers which made this country great.
The root cause of the Boston Tea Party was "no taxation without representation" because America had no voice in the British Parliament. The present day Tea Party gained momentum because of the parallel Health Care Reform - the majority did not want it, yet it was forced upon all Americans and the people are revolting.
But don't think that "ObamaCare" is the only reason for the Tea Party Movement because concerns about our future go far deeper. It's a movement by Americans --- from EVERY race, belief, and background --- to tell government they're getting it wrong on almost every front. That is why the Movement is not Republican, Democrat, Independent, or any other affiliation. DO NOT BELIEVE THE RHETORIC!!!
Jason Levin, creator of CrashTheTeaParty.org, says the group has 65 leaders in major cities across the country who are trying to recruit members to infiltrate Tea Party events for April 15 -- tax filing day.
He says they want to exaggerate the group's least appealing qualities, further distance the Tea Party from mainstream America, and damage the public's opinion of them.
The Tea Party movement generally unites on the fiscally conservative principles of small government, lower taxes, and less spending. Beyond that, the ideology of the people involved tends to vary dramatically.
COMMENT: Is this the American Way? Does this seem to honor our Constitutional rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression?
OR...Does this seem repressive, coercive, dishonest? It's another "pebble" in the stream of change to our way of life. Just like A.C.O.R.N. openly admitted to an agenda of destroying our electoral process, this group now openly states their desire is to discredit and dismantle the movement by whatever means necessary. What is happening to honesty, integrity, and the "Golden Rule" in this country?!?!?!
Everyone needs to wake up quickly and realize that the Tea Party is NOT about race, discrimination, or selfish goals...it arose out of a real, patriotic concern for the health, well-being, and future of this great country! It arose to defend the US Constitution against the present attacks on the very fibers which made this country great.
The root cause of the Boston Tea Party was "no taxation without representation" because America had no voice in the British Parliament. The present day Tea Party gained momentum because of the parallel Health Care Reform - the majority did not want it, yet it was forced upon all Americans and the people are revolting.
But don't think that "ObamaCare" is the only reason for the Tea Party Movement because concerns about our future go far deeper. It's a movement by Americans --- from EVERY race, belief, and background --- to tell government they're getting it wrong on almost every front. That is why the Movement is not Republican, Democrat, Independent, or any other affiliation. DO NOT BELIEVE THE RHETORIC!!!
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Religious terms being removed from security document
WASHINGTON - Officials say President Barack Obama's advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror.
COMMENT:
Does anyone else think this might actually alienate Muslims? I lived in Egypt for a year and was very impressed with the peaceful, generous, uncontentious, accepting nature of the average Muslim. With them knowing my faith as a Born-Again Christian, we still had very enlightening discussions about our faiths. Most troubling to them was their faith being grouped with that very small aberration of their religion - the extremists. The recurring mantra was, "Islam is a religion of peace. Muhammad is a prophet of peace, not of death."
I view this latest move by Obama as another "pebble" to change the course of our nation. Don't be surprised if this language shift comes across to the Islamic countries as an insult. When it does, you can look for it to be followed by another American (Obama) apology to the Muslims. This action will once again posture us more subservient to those nations than we already are as a result of has bowing to Saudi Arabia, proclaiming America not to be a Christian nation, isolation of Israel, and failure to deal decisively with Iran.
COMMENT:
Does anyone else think this might actually alienate Muslims? I lived in Egypt for a year and was very impressed with the peaceful, generous, uncontentious, accepting nature of the average Muslim. With them knowing my faith as a Born-Again Christian, we still had very enlightening discussions about our faiths. Most troubling to them was their faith being grouped with that very small aberration of their religion - the extremists. The recurring mantra was, "Islam is a religion of peace. Muhammad is a prophet of peace, not of death."
I view this latest move by Obama as another "pebble" to change the course of our nation. Don't be surprised if this language shift comes across to the Islamic countries as an insult. When it does, you can look for it to be followed by another American (Obama) apology to the Muslims. This action will once again posture us more subservient to those nations than we already are as a result of has bowing to Saudi Arabia, proclaiming America not to be a Christian nation, isolation of Israel, and failure to deal decisively with Iran.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Good Friday To Easter To Vegas - What A Strange Trip
Happy Good Friday to all! If you're a nonbeliever, it can still be good Friday (just take the capitalization off the "good"). "Happy Easter" is a little more difficult; in fact, it's impossible to make it nonreligious (sorry guys, something you accept living in the good ole' U.S.A. where Believers are still the majority). It can be a weekend of renewal and rededication for everyone though, atheist as well as Pentacostals and everyone else who don't fall into either of those categories.
Christians (of which I am the Born-Again type) celebrate the risen Saviour and reflect on our lives over the past year and work to renew and rededicate our lives to better lift up His name and be better disciples. Nonbelievers would do well to view this weekend as a "Second New Year," and make or revisit those resolutions made - in other words, "renew and rededicate" (see, we're not that different after all).
What I find fascinating, and honestly have never drilled down to discover another source beside the Bible, is that the Ten Commandments (most of them anyway) are essentially followed by everyone, regardless of their religious upbringing, affiliation or non-affiliation. Moreso, they are the minimum acceptable levels of courtesy, respect, and conduct in most nations of people.
Granted, you can say all people but that's not exactly true. When you get away from ALL Christian influence, you can find entire races of people who don't follow these tenets at all. And you're right in what you're thinking right now: "Yes, but those are isolated, uncivilized peoples in remote areas of the world." Exactly my point! You can disagree and dislike Christianity all you want (it's your right in this great country we live), but you cannot ignore the positive influence of God on our nation as a people. Sure, there are terrible things done for religion as well, but don't you find it ironic that those "terrible" things are always in direct conflict with the most basic of His teachings - the Ten Commandments.
I can even simplify it by quoting Jesus' answer to the Pharisees regarding the Ten Commandments. They attempted to trick him by asking which one of the Commandments was the most important. His response? "That we should love each other even as we love ourselves." Wait, that's not one of the Ten Commandments! True it is not, but that statement encapsulates and perfects the Commandments. AND, that statement is basically the "Golden Rule" by which we as a nation live and treat each other, no matter what religion or nonreligion you ascribe to be. Okay, I'm stepping down from my "pulpit." Didn't meant to go that deep into Easter.
Anyway, so why mention Vegas in this conversation? That, my friends, was a "teaser" to get you all the way to the bottom of this rant, and to let everyone know I will be out of town for the next week. I probably will not post a blog update until I return - I say this just in case anyone cares. :-)
Happy Easter (or Second New Year)
Christians (of which I am the Born-Again type) celebrate the risen Saviour and reflect on our lives over the past year and work to renew and rededicate our lives to better lift up His name and be better disciples. Nonbelievers would do well to view this weekend as a "Second New Year," and make or revisit those resolutions made - in other words, "renew and rededicate" (see, we're not that different after all).
What I find fascinating, and honestly have never drilled down to discover another source beside the Bible, is that the Ten Commandments (most of them anyway) are essentially followed by everyone, regardless of their religious upbringing, affiliation or non-affiliation. Moreso, they are the minimum acceptable levels of courtesy, respect, and conduct in most nations of people.
Granted, you can say all people but that's not exactly true. When you get away from ALL Christian influence, you can find entire races of people who don't follow these tenets at all. And you're right in what you're thinking right now: "Yes, but those are isolated, uncivilized peoples in remote areas of the world." Exactly my point! You can disagree and dislike Christianity all you want (it's your right in this great country we live), but you cannot ignore the positive influence of God on our nation as a people. Sure, there are terrible things done for religion as well, but don't you find it ironic that those "terrible" things are always in direct conflict with the most basic of His teachings - the Ten Commandments.
I can even simplify it by quoting Jesus' answer to the Pharisees regarding the Ten Commandments. They attempted to trick him by asking which one of the Commandments was the most important. His response? "That we should love each other even as we love ourselves." Wait, that's not one of the Ten Commandments! True it is not, but that statement encapsulates and perfects the Commandments. AND, that statement is basically the "Golden Rule" by which we as a nation live and treat each other, no matter what religion or nonreligion you ascribe to be. Okay, I'm stepping down from my "pulpit." Didn't meant to go that deep into Easter.
Anyway, so why mention Vegas in this conversation? That, my friends, was a "teaser" to get you all the way to the bottom of this rant, and to let everyone know I will be out of town for the next week. I probably will not post a blog update until I return - I say this just in case anyone cares. :-)
Happy Easter (or Second New Year)
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Sometimes We Remind Them Why They Shouldn't Attack Us
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A US warship operating in the Indian Ocean captured five suspected pirates Thursday after an exchange of gunfire in international waters near the Seychelles, the Pentagon said.
The frigate USS Nicholas took the piracy suspects into custody after the warship sank a skiff, and confiscated a suspected mother ship, said a statement from US Naval Forces.
"While operating west of the Seychelles in international waters, Nicholas reported taking fire at 12:27 am local time from a suspected pirate skiff and returned fire before commencing pursuit of the vessel until the disabled skiff stopped," the statement said.
"At 1:59 am personnel from Nicholas boarded the disabled skiff and detained three personnel. The boarding team found ammunition and multiple cans of fuel on board."
After taking the suspected pirates on board, the Nicholas sank the disabled skiff and captured two additional suspected pirates on the confiscated mother ship.
"The suspected pirates will remain in US custody on board Nicholas until a determination is made regarding their disposition," the statement said. (END QUOTED ARTICLE)
While the U.S. surely cannot afford another war front, I fear that's the only way to overcome this latest brand of terrorism. I don't think we can actually call this terrorism though as the definition includes instilling fear for political reasons. These hoodlums aren't about anything but the "booty," same as the pirates of old. Still, chalk up one for the good guys.
The frigate USS Nicholas took the piracy suspects into custody after the warship sank a skiff, and confiscated a suspected mother ship, said a statement from US Naval Forces.
"While operating west of the Seychelles in international waters, Nicholas reported taking fire at 12:27 am local time from a suspected pirate skiff and returned fire before commencing pursuit of the vessel until the disabled skiff stopped," the statement said.
"At 1:59 am personnel from Nicholas boarded the disabled skiff and detained three personnel. The boarding team found ammunition and multiple cans of fuel on board."
After taking the suspected pirates on board, the Nicholas sank the disabled skiff and captured two additional suspected pirates on the confiscated mother ship.
"The suspected pirates will remain in US custody on board Nicholas until a determination is made regarding their disposition," the statement said. (END QUOTED ARTICLE)
While the U.S. surely cannot afford another war front, I fear that's the only way to overcome this latest brand of terrorism. I don't think we can actually call this terrorism though as the definition includes instilling fear for political reasons. These hoodlums aren't about anything but the "booty," same as the pirates of old. Still, chalk up one for the good guys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)