With the 4th of July, which is Independence day coming up, I wanted to do some patriotic posts. I decided t start off with one of the traditional as well as patriotic rituals that we observe in this great country we call the United States of America.
In this particular discussion I will discuss how the Star Spangled Banner was written, and what it means to me.
Lets start off by watching one of the best renditions of the Star Spangled Banner I have ever heard:
The Star Spangled Banner is the National Anthem for the UNited States of America. It was written by Francis Scott Key, and is taken from his poem "Defence of Fort McHenry", which he wrote in 1814 as a 35-year-old lawyer and amateur poet.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner)
The Battle of Fort McHenry happened during the War of 1812. Key was on a British Royal Navy ship in the Chesapeake Bay.
The Star Spangled Banner actually has four stanzas, but traditionally, only the first stanza is sung, although during more formal occasions both the first and fourth stanzas are performed.
The Sat Spangled Banner was first recognized for official use by the Navy in in the year of 1889, the President of the UNited States in 1816, and was made the national anthem of the U.S.A. by a congressional resolution on March 03, 1931, and signed by President Herbert Hoover.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner)
Keys witnessed the bombardment on Fort McHenry on a rainy night, observing the fort's small "storm flag" as long as the bombardment continued. Once the shelling stopped, Key was forced to wait until dawn to see what the outcome would be. But before dawn, the "storm flag" had been taken down, and the larger flag was raised. This larger flag is the Star Spangled Banner that the song refers to, and is currently on display at the National Museum of American History at the Smithsonian Institution. The Star Spangled Banner has 15 stars and 15 stripes.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner)
Key began writing the poem "Defence of Fort McHenry" while on the British ship, and was writing on the back of a letter he had been writing.
That is the history of the song. Now I want to break down what it means to me. I will be discussing the first stanza only here.
So to start, lets look at the entire first stanza:
O! say can you see by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
And here we go.
What is the Star Spangled Banner? Some say it is a song or war or battle, and in a way I have to agree, at least a little bit. This is a song about war and battle, but it is not a song about violence. The song was born from violence no question about it, but the song itself is not about violence.
The Star Spangled Banner is a question, more specifically it is a question about whether we have survived the wars and battles we face. And if you break the song down line by line it is easy to see that this song, the whole song is Francis Scott Key asking us in essence, have we prevailed? He isn't asking if we are winning or losing, but if we are still trying. Lets look at what I mean line by line.
1-"O! say can you see by the dawn's early light,"
Key is telling us that the light is coming up, and he is asking if we can see in the early light. It is no longer to dark to see, and he is asking if we can look and see.
2-"What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,"
Key says we could see our flag, and knew we were still fighting as twilight fell. But not only see the flag, but proudly see the flag. He is asking us if we can see our flag with pride, as we saw it before the night fell.
3- "Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,"
Even though there was a fight, our flag was up and was displaying broad stripes and stars. And notice he specifically says broad stripes and bright stars. Not just stars and stripes. He says they were broad and bright. This made them easy to see, even as twilight was falling. I believe he is implying it should be easy for us to see, it should even maybe be obvious to us.
4- "O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?"
This line, more or less, implies to me that these colors don't run. He could only see the flag over the ramparts, but the flag was "gallantly streaming". Gallantly means, "brave, spirited, noble-minded, or chivalrous", which means the flag was bravely, or spiritedly waving. Even in the face of this attack, the flag was bravely waving.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gallant)
5- "And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,"
The previous line adds to this one, and explains what is happening. Despite the battle that is happening, the bombardment that Fort McHenry is going through, the flag still bravely waves. Even in the face of violence and adversity, the flag still bravely flew over America.
6- "Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;"
The bombardment that was meant to destroy Fort McHenry also provided the light Key needed to still be able to see that the flag was still standing. Key also is telling us that through the dark of night, through all the bombs, rockets, trials, and adversity, that our flag is still there.
7- "O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave"
Once again, Key is asking us if we can see the flag, OUR flag flying and waving over our country. Can we still see our flag? Did the symbol of our country, and thus our country make it through the dark of night?
8- "O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"
This summarizes the stanza. Can you still see our flag, our stars and stripes proudly and bravely flying over the land of the free and the home of the brave? Here in America we are all free, and I believe this means even as we are free we must be brave. We must be both because to only be one or the other means nothing, people must be brave and free.
Francis Scott Key, by writing this, was asking a very simple question. Through all the trials, hardships, wars, and anything that causes dark times in our country, can we, can you still see the flag as it waves? Does the symbol of our country still fly? Are we still free? Are we still proud? Our we still the land of the free and the home of the brave?
The Star Spangled Banner reminds us of who we are, where we come from, what we have, and what we need to be. Is is a song of war? Yes, and it is asking how we are faring each and every day against all the battles we must face and fight.
Sadly, many people do not see our flag. Many people won't stand, they won't take off their hats, they don't place their hand over their heart, and they talk, horse around, laugh, and generally live on when they should be showing respect.
Showing respect to the Star Spangled Banner is not showing respect to the flag and a song. No, it is much more than that. You also show respect to the brave men and women who have fought and died for that flag. For those who serve today for that flag. For those who served and was willing to die, not for a flag, but for what it represents.
The next time you see a flag go by, or hear the Star Spangled Banner, stand up, be quiet, take off your hat and put your right hand over your heart. Then look around. You'll probably be able to easily see those who served. They stand a little taller, and there is a certain pride in their eyes. But there is also sorrow as they watch the Americans they served for disrespecting their flag, their country, and their friends.
Want to see what I mean?
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh182/HAYDENS_MOMMA06/vetsalutesflag.jpg
http://www.navyvets.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/att00086.jpg
http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/2008/05/large_vetwayne.JPG
http://www.defense.gov/dodcmsshare/homepagephoto/2008-04/hires_080426-O-9999R-250A.jpg
If you look, you will see it. They will have teary eyes, they will softly sing the words, because they know them. Even though their voice may not be great, they will sing it. And they sing it with pride.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Real "Two Party System" In American Politics...
Many people argue, and rightfully so, that America has a "Two Party System". And this is absolutely correct. America is a two party system, just not the two party system that people think.
"A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections, at every level. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates endorsed by one of the two major parties"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system)
"A system in which only two political parties have a real chance of acquiring control of the government."
(http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072481218/student_view0/chapter8/glossary.html)
"Two-party system: as the title indicates, this is a state in which just two parties dominate. Other parties might exist but they have no political importance. America has the most obvious two-party political system with the Republicans and Democrats dominating the political scene. For the system to work, one of the parties must obtain a sufficient working majority after an election and it must be in a position to be able to govern without the support from the other party. A rotation of power is expected in this system..."
(http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/party_systems.htm)
There is no arguing that America is truly a "Two Party System". What I plan to argue though is that while being a two party system, the two parties are not the Republican and Democratic parties. Although the dominating political parties are the Democratic and Republican parties, these two parties do not, in my opinion, make up the entire two party system.
It is my belief and position that the true two party system in America is We the People, the actual and legal American Citizens, and politicians. These are the true two parties in this country. There are two main or major political parties, the problem is that both of the parties comprise one side of the two party system. And this style of a two party system in America is failing the American citizens.
"In America, the two party system has failed the people; the politicians feign fighting in front of cameras, while they sleep together at night. Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and now Obama have expressly followed elitist world power orders."
(http://www.infowars.com/the-two-party-system-has-failed-america/)
This quote really sums it all up for me. This shows that both parties are really kind of doing the same thing in Washington DC. Washington DC politicians are the other party regardless of their political affiliations.
Now please understand that I am painting with a very broad brush here, and I am not saying all politicians fall under this broad generalization. For instance, my congressman is Jason Chaffetz, and I really think he is different. I have contacted his office and had real people call me back. And they listened and provided feedback. They listened to me, explained things, took notes, and just made me feel like my voice was heard. There wasn't any general response letter, which I have received many of, no general e-mail, but a real person called me back.
We do have a two party system in America, It is the American citizens on one side, and politicians on the other. And until we get educated, and start being active and taking part, the smaller side, the politician side, will continue to dominate the two party system. It is a shame that the majority party, the citizens, sit back a feel useless and powerless against the smaller party who we can fire!
"A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections, at every level. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates endorsed by one of the two major parties"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system)
"A system in which only two political parties have a real chance of acquiring control of the government."
(http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072481218/student_view0/chapter8/glossary.html)
"Two-party system: as the title indicates, this is a state in which just two parties dominate. Other parties might exist but they have no political importance. America has the most obvious two-party political system with the Republicans and Democrats dominating the political scene. For the system to work, one of the parties must obtain a sufficient working majority after an election and it must be in a position to be able to govern without the support from the other party. A rotation of power is expected in this system..."
(http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/party_systems.htm)
There is no arguing that America is truly a "Two Party System". What I plan to argue though is that while being a two party system, the two parties are not the Republican and Democratic parties. Although the dominating political parties are the Democratic and Republican parties, these two parties do not, in my opinion, make up the entire two party system.
It is my belief and position that the true two party system in America is We the People, the actual and legal American Citizens, and politicians. These are the true two parties in this country. There are two main or major political parties, the problem is that both of the parties comprise one side of the two party system. And this style of a two party system in America is failing the American citizens.
"In America, the two party system has failed the people; the politicians feign fighting in front of cameras, while they sleep together at night. Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and now Obama have expressly followed elitist world power orders."
(http://www.infowars.com/the-two-party-system-has-failed-america/)
This quote really sums it all up for me. This shows that both parties are really kind of doing the same thing in Washington DC. Washington DC politicians are the other party regardless of their political affiliations.
Now please understand that I am painting with a very broad brush here, and I am not saying all politicians fall under this broad generalization. For instance, my congressman is Jason Chaffetz, and I really think he is different. I have contacted his office and had real people call me back. And they listened and provided feedback. They listened to me, explained things, took notes, and just made me feel like my voice was heard. There wasn't any general response letter, which I have received many of, no general e-mail, but a real person called me back.
We do have a two party system in America, It is the American citizens on one side, and politicians on the other. And until we get educated, and start being active and taking part, the smaller side, the politician side, will continue to dominate the two party system. It is a shame that the majority party, the citizens, sit back a feel useless and powerless against the smaller party who we can fire!
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
So the big health care refom bill passed, so now what?
On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the Constitution, our liberties, and our government as we have known them had a big hole punched through it to the applause of the Democratic Party. Many Americans have been fighting against this insane bill with all their might, mind, heart, and soul. And for what? The Democrats in charge of the House of Representatives turned their back on those who elected them in a defiant act that said, "We know more than you, we know what you need, we know how to fix it, and we don't care what you say about it."
My friends this is the elitism that we have been hearing about in some areas of the media for so long. Don't believe me that politicians in Washington think they know better than you? On Sunday, March 21, 2010 the latest Rasmussen Reports from a national telephone poll conducted on Friday and Saturday nights, shows that 41% of likely voters favor the health care plan, while 54% are opposed to the current plan.
(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform)
That is a 13 point difference. That is not even close man. That is a clear majority saying no to a bill. But that doesn't matter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi had this to say in her speech before the vote on Sunday Night, "In doing so, we will honor the vows of our founders, who in the Declaration of Independence said that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This legislation will lead to healthier lives, more liberty to pursue hopes and dreams and happiness for the American people. This is an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country."
So Speaker Pelosi thinks that forcing a bill on the American people honors the founding fathers? Let us take a closer look and really see.
Thomas Jefferson said, "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
Thomas Jefferson when elected president had this to say, "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.
And here is another great point, "The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent....To let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations..... The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally. The Counties with the local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman's farm by himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best." Thomas Jefferson
George Washington said, ""(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has
ordained..." George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789"
George Washington also said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
Patrick Henry once said, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Here is a nice little quote from William Pitt,"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
I don't know what founding fathers Speaker Pelosi was talking about, but I don't think is was the founders of America. Speaker Pelosi also said, "It is with great humility and with great pride that we tonight will make history for our country and progress for the American people. Just think -- we will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare, and now tonight health care for all Americans." Thanks for bringing that up Speaker Pelosi. Now that you went, and mentioned it... "The media do not want to admit that the jointly operated Social Security program and Medicare program are going to bankrupt the Federal government if they are not cut back drastically." (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article15639.html)
Actually this same web site says that if not for the actions of Presidents Carter and Reagan the system would already have become bankrupt. Carter implemented gradual increases to the taxes helped to keep funding the Social Security and Medicare programs. Unfortunately that didn't solve the problem and Reagan had to speed up the rate of the increases to keep the programs afloat this long. So if I were Speaker Pelosi, I wouldn't be claiming that you are joining those who established these flawed, and going bankrupt programs. In fact, to me Social Security is like a house I am paying a mortgage on with every check I make, but it is a house I will never set foot in. IN fact to be honest, I will never even get to touch the doorknob. And if you want to be brutally honest, I won't even get to park in the driveway.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, WAIT!!!! Speaker Pelosi is right. She is taking us with this lame duck health care bill into the same realm as Social Security and Medicare! I am going to wind up paying for even more programs while not reaping any of their rewards! Thanks for explaining it to me Speaker Pelosi!
Listen to me everyone who reads this. now is not the time to sit back down and accept this huge ball of silliness as our fate. This country was born from people saying that we weren't just going to lie down anymore. That we were sick of some pompous windbag who knows nothing about us dictating what we can and can't do. We have to have laws, but we don't need nay laws that tell us we have to buy something! What comes next? Is the government going to make us all buy a Ford or Chevy to help the struggling auto industry?
If you have stumbled on this blog, and have read this far, take a bit farther. Get active. Call your senators and representatives. Tell them this bill sucks and we don't want it. Call them and remind them that We the People voted them into office. This government answers to us. We are not the servant of the government, that the government is meant to serve us. That just because you got elected and moved to Washington, you aren't any smarter or better than the rest of us. Remind them that this is till a government of, by, and for the people just as President Lincoln said.
Now is the time when we raise up together with one voice and hold Washington and the slick trick politicians accountable! You may say, "But I am only one person what can I do?" My answer to that is that one people can make a ripple across the surface of the pond. Be proud of who you are, and be proud to state your opinion. We live in a country where you are free to express your feelings. Exercise that right! Tell your family and friends how you feel, and encourage them to do the same. Call your elected officials and tell them how you feel. Whether you support this piece of trash or not, call and tell them. make them know we are here watching and listening. Tell your friends and family members to also call and e-mail their elected officials. All of a sudden that one person is 5, 10, 15, or 20 people. And if they also encourage people there are now hundreds of pebbles. But don't feel defeated, don't give up. You are an American, this is your country, these are your elected officials. Stand up and let them know we are sitting down no more. Be proud. Be loud. Take your country back!
My friends this is the elitism that we have been hearing about in some areas of the media for so long. Don't believe me that politicians in Washington think they know better than you? On Sunday, March 21, 2010 the latest Rasmussen Reports from a national telephone poll conducted on Friday and Saturday nights, shows that 41% of likely voters favor the health care plan, while 54% are opposed to the current plan.
(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform)
That is a 13 point difference. That is not even close man. That is a clear majority saying no to a bill. But that doesn't matter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi had this to say in her speech before the vote on Sunday Night, "In doing so, we will honor the vows of our founders, who in the Declaration of Independence said that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This legislation will lead to healthier lives, more liberty to pursue hopes and dreams and happiness for the American people. This is an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country."
So Speaker Pelosi thinks that forcing a bill on the American people honors the founding fathers? Let us take a closer look and really see.
Thomas Jefferson said, "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
Thomas Jefferson when elected president had this to say, "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.
And here is another great point, "The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent....To let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations..... The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally. The Counties with the local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman's farm by himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best." Thomas Jefferson
George Washington said, ""(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has
ordained..." George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789"
George Washington also said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington
Patrick Henry once said, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Here is a nice little quote from William Pitt,"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
I don't know what founding fathers Speaker Pelosi was talking about, but I don't think is was the founders of America. Speaker Pelosi also said, "It is with great humility and with great pride that we tonight will make history for our country and progress for the American people. Just think -- we will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare, and now tonight health care for all Americans." Thanks for bringing that up Speaker Pelosi. Now that you went, and mentioned it... "The media do not want to admit that the jointly operated Social Security program and Medicare program are going to bankrupt the Federal government if they are not cut back drastically." (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article15639.html)
Actually this same web site says that if not for the actions of Presidents Carter and Reagan the system would already have become bankrupt. Carter implemented gradual increases to the taxes helped to keep funding the Social Security and Medicare programs. Unfortunately that didn't solve the problem and Reagan had to speed up the rate of the increases to keep the programs afloat this long. So if I were Speaker Pelosi, I wouldn't be claiming that you are joining those who established these flawed, and going bankrupt programs. In fact, to me Social Security is like a house I am paying a mortgage on with every check I make, but it is a house I will never set foot in. IN fact to be honest, I will never even get to touch the doorknob. And if you want to be brutally honest, I won't even get to park in the driveway.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, WAIT!!!! Speaker Pelosi is right. She is taking us with this lame duck health care bill into the same realm as Social Security and Medicare! I am going to wind up paying for even more programs while not reaping any of their rewards! Thanks for explaining it to me Speaker Pelosi!
Listen to me everyone who reads this. now is not the time to sit back down and accept this huge ball of silliness as our fate. This country was born from people saying that we weren't just going to lie down anymore. That we were sick of some pompous windbag who knows nothing about us dictating what we can and can't do. We have to have laws, but we don't need nay laws that tell us we have to buy something! What comes next? Is the government going to make us all buy a Ford or Chevy to help the struggling auto industry?
If you have stumbled on this blog, and have read this far, take a bit farther. Get active. Call your senators and representatives. Tell them this bill sucks and we don't want it. Call them and remind them that We the People voted them into office. This government answers to us. We are not the servant of the government, that the government is meant to serve us. That just because you got elected and moved to Washington, you aren't any smarter or better than the rest of us. Remind them that this is till a government of, by, and for the people just as President Lincoln said.
Now is the time when we raise up together with one voice and hold Washington and the slick trick politicians accountable! You may say, "But I am only one person what can I do?" My answer to that is that one people can make a ripple across the surface of the pond. Be proud of who you are, and be proud to state your opinion. We live in a country where you are free to express your feelings. Exercise that right! Tell your family and friends how you feel, and encourage them to do the same. Call your elected officials and tell them how you feel. Whether you support this piece of trash or not, call and tell them. make them know we are here watching and listening. Tell your friends and family members to also call and e-mail their elected officials. All of a sudden that one person is 5, 10, 15, or 20 people. And if they also encourage people there are now hundreds of pebbles. But don't feel defeated, don't give up. You are an American, this is your country, these are your elected officials. Stand up and let them know we are sitting down no more. Be proud. Be loud. Take your country back!
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Remeber when we lived by the code, ifyou want it, workfor it?
When I was a little boy I wanted a skateboard, I asked for one many times. One day the parents came home and they told me that my grandma had bought my younger brother and I skateboards, but if we wanted them we would have to work off the cost of the skateboards by mowing her lawn over the summer. My brother and I had a decision to make. We could 1) keep the skateboards and spend time each week doing yard work, or, 2) give the skateboards back and have our whole summer free for ourselves. We both chose to keep the skateboards and gave up time each week to go do yard work. Even a skateboard has a cost, and I knew if I wanted the skateboard, then I would be paying for the skateboard. No one else was going to mow that lawn for me, if I wanted to have the skateboard I was going to have to work for it.
But that has all changed now, Americans can get whatever they want and they never have to even leave the house. Actually… Let me rephrase that because there are people who work out of their homes now. You can get whatever you want and you can sit and do nothing in your home. But how is this even possible you may ask. The answer lies in our countries many Social Programs, or more simply put, Welfare.
Welfare is a set of government run programs that are meant to provide benefits and economic assistance to American families with either no or low income. Simply put, Welfare is financial assistance which is funded through taxes which are paid by the American working class. Welfare is meant to improve the quality of life and living standards for poor and underprivileged families, but is also extended to groups of other people such as the elderly, the disabled, students, and unpaid workers, such as mothers and caregivers (http://www.welfareinfo.org/state/). This is where the problems start to arise for me.
You see, I am a student. I am paying my way through school by using my GI Bill that I got from serving my country in the Army. I also work full time. I have been going to school for about 7 years now because I half to go to school part-time in order to hold a job. And I have to have a job to pay for things like my mortgage, clothes, utilities, food, car, insurance, gas, etc. etc. Now if I am capable of going to school and working enough to provide for myself then why am I helping to provide for other students who won’t work? Why should I lose part of the check that I work to earn to someone who is not willing to work? I served my country for three years to help me pay for my college, why can’t people who want to go to college do the same?
In addition to the above, I work full time, and go to school part time so that I can provide for myself, and hopefully make a better future for myself, hence going to school. So if I am willing to work, to provide for myself, and go to school, correction pay for myself to go to school, then why should I give up the money I earn from working to help pay for someone to sit at home and do nothing?
I do understand that there are exceptions. I do not think that all of the elderly need to be holding down regular jobs, and I know that there are people who are disabled and can not work. But you can not tell me that a healthy 28 year old female needs a lot of assistance. You can’t because she doesn’t!
Let me support this claim with an example. We will say that there is a local community college, and there is a 20 year old male who attends this college. This male lives in the dorms and is a full time student. He does not have a job, and is not seriously looking for one. This male comes from a single parent home, where his mom raised him by herself. His mom can not afford to pay for his schooling. The young man applies for assistance and gets it. Now for the sake of our discussion here, the amount he gets is completely irrelevant. For the sake of this discussion the only thing we need to be concerned with is the fact that he gets some form of State Assistance. What we need to do is look at where this assistance is coming from, and this is an easy answer. The assistance is coming from the taxes collected from the working people, which includes me. So in essence, I am helping this kid have somewhere to live, eat, and go to school. His mother who is working is also helping her son, but then being he is her son isn’t it kind of her responsibility? It is certainly more her responsibility than mine, I don’t even know the guy. And it is only slightly her responsibility, because he is 20 years old, and he should be supporting himself. So if this kid isn’t willing to work for his own education, and his parents can not provide his education, then why should I? I am working trying to provide for myself, why should I also be working to provide for you? Is this selfish? Perhaps it is, but on the flip side of the coin, isn’t the 20 year old male being even more selfish? I am saying let me keep what I earned, he is saying let me have some of what you earned. And isn’t that irresponsible on top of being selfish?
I know there are special situations, and I know that I am painting with broad brush strokes here, but I think you see what I am saying. I have never been, and never will be opposed to giving someone a hand up, but I think it is silly, irresponsible, and really quite rude to be giving hand outs. Lets go back to our analogy above. What is wrong with telling the 20 year old male, “You will receive no assistance of any kind until you have some kind of work.”? Anything he puts in is better than nothing.
This is an example of some of the dangers created by the welfare state. If you can go to school and never pay anything for it, why work? Why put forth any effort to earn your own way?
If you want to go to school, then you should be willing to pay for it. If you want food, clothes, a house, a car, if you want anything you should be willing to pay for it. Why should I pay for it? I am trying to pay for my own way, why can’t you? We now live in a society, in my opinion, that has come to embrace the “welfare state”, and some of the people just feel like they are entitled to something for nothing. The problem is nothing, NOTHING is ever free. It is going to cost someone, and the people it is costing now is the American working class who are paying taxes. I for one say that the time has come to completely revamp the entire welfare system. If you are not putting anything into the system, then you get nothing out of the system. I understand that some people may not be able to find a job. But at least get up off the couch and go try! I understand that some people may not be able to work a full time job, or a full time shift. That is fine, but get some kind of job and do something to help yourself. I think that we should be able to tell any person in this great country, that if you are not willing to do anything for yourself, then the hard working people will not be so willing to do it for you. I know that this is contrary to a lot of liberal beliefs and to them I have this advice. If you are so sure that the welfare state works, then ante up more of your salary to pay for it. If people are not abusing the system, and we aren’t just throwing money at a problem that we are making worse by our own actions, then give up more of your money. You could also help lower some of the welfare costs by having some of these “needy” families move in with you. I am willing to give4 a hand up to any American who is willing to at least try. But I am sick and tired of giving a hand out to people who feel like they deserve something for nothing, and are willing to try and get a free ride form me.
But that has all changed now, Americans can get whatever they want and they never have to even leave the house. Actually… Let me rephrase that because there are people who work out of their homes now. You can get whatever you want and you can sit and do nothing in your home. But how is this even possible you may ask. The answer lies in our countries many Social Programs, or more simply put, Welfare.
Welfare is a set of government run programs that are meant to provide benefits and economic assistance to American families with either no or low income. Simply put, Welfare is financial assistance which is funded through taxes which are paid by the American working class. Welfare is meant to improve the quality of life and living standards for poor and underprivileged families, but is also extended to groups of other people such as the elderly, the disabled, students, and unpaid workers, such as mothers and caregivers (http://www.welfareinfo.org/state/). This is where the problems start to arise for me.
You see, I am a student. I am paying my way through school by using my GI Bill that I got from serving my country in the Army. I also work full time. I have been going to school for about 7 years now because I half to go to school part-time in order to hold a job. And I have to have a job to pay for things like my mortgage, clothes, utilities, food, car, insurance, gas, etc. etc. Now if I am capable of going to school and working enough to provide for myself then why am I helping to provide for other students who won’t work? Why should I lose part of the check that I work to earn to someone who is not willing to work? I served my country for three years to help me pay for my college, why can’t people who want to go to college do the same?
In addition to the above, I work full time, and go to school part time so that I can provide for myself, and hopefully make a better future for myself, hence going to school. So if I am willing to work, to provide for myself, and go to school, correction pay for myself to go to school, then why should I give up the money I earn from working to help pay for someone to sit at home and do nothing?
I do understand that there are exceptions. I do not think that all of the elderly need to be holding down regular jobs, and I know that there are people who are disabled and can not work. But you can not tell me that a healthy 28 year old female needs a lot of assistance. You can’t because she doesn’t!
Let me support this claim with an example. We will say that there is a local community college, and there is a 20 year old male who attends this college. This male lives in the dorms and is a full time student. He does not have a job, and is not seriously looking for one. This male comes from a single parent home, where his mom raised him by herself. His mom can not afford to pay for his schooling. The young man applies for assistance and gets it. Now for the sake of our discussion here, the amount he gets is completely irrelevant. For the sake of this discussion the only thing we need to be concerned with is the fact that he gets some form of State Assistance. What we need to do is look at where this assistance is coming from, and this is an easy answer. The assistance is coming from the taxes collected from the working people, which includes me. So in essence, I am helping this kid have somewhere to live, eat, and go to school. His mother who is working is also helping her son, but then being he is her son isn’t it kind of her responsibility? It is certainly more her responsibility than mine, I don’t even know the guy. And it is only slightly her responsibility, because he is 20 years old, and he should be supporting himself. So if this kid isn’t willing to work for his own education, and his parents can not provide his education, then why should I? I am working trying to provide for myself, why should I also be working to provide for you? Is this selfish? Perhaps it is, but on the flip side of the coin, isn’t the 20 year old male being even more selfish? I am saying let me keep what I earned, he is saying let me have some of what you earned. And isn’t that irresponsible on top of being selfish?
I know there are special situations, and I know that I am painting with broad brush strokes here, but I think you see what I am saying. I have never been, and never will be opposed to giving someone a hand up, but I think it is silly, irresponsible, and really quite rude to be giving hand outs. Lets go back to our analogy above. What is wrong with telling the 20 year old male, “You will receive no assistance of any kind until you have some kind of work.”? Anything he puts in is better than nothing.
This is an example of some of the dangers created by the welfare state. If you can go to school and never pay anything for it, why work? Why put forth any effort to earn your own way?
If you want to go to school, then you should be willing to pay for it. If you want food, clothes, a house, a car, if you want anything you should be willing to pay for it. Why should I pay for it? I am trying to pay for my own way, why can’t you? We now live in a society, in my opinion, that has come to embrace the “welfare state”, and some of the people just feel like they are entitled to something for nothing. The problem is nothing, NOTHING is ever free. It is going to cost someone, and the people it is costing now is the American working class who are paying taxes. I for one say that the time has come to completely revamp the entire welfare system. If you are not putting anything into the system, then you get nothing out of the system. I understand that some people may not be able to find a job. But at least get up off the couch and go try! I understand that some people may not be able to work a full time job, or a full time shift. That is fine, but get some kind of job and do something to help yourself. I think that we should be able to tell any person in this great country, that if you are not willing to do anything for yourself, then the hard working people will not be so willing to do it for you. I know that this is contrary to a lot of liberal beliefs and to them I have this advice. If you are so sure that the welfare state works, then ante up more of your salary to pay for it. If people are not abusing the system, and we aren’t just throwing money at a problem that we are making worse by our own actions, then give up more of your money. You could also help lower some of the welfare costs by having some of these “needy” families move in with you. I am willing to give4 a hand up to any American who is willing to at least try. But I am sick and tired of giving a hand out to people who feel like they deserve something for nothing, and are willing to try and get a free ride form me.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
So here is a big question of the day type thing.
So I am a fan of Mitt Romney on facebook.com. There is a recent post from the Mitt group that states, "Thanks to you and thousands of others, Scott Brown's money bomb yesterday was a giant success. Total raised: $1.3 million! With a week to go, he's one step closer to victory on Jan. 19th."
My question is this...
How does helping a person raise money equate with victory? How does raising $1.3 million get a candidate one step closer to winning?
Now I understand that a campaign needs money for things like TV and radio advertisements, to help the candidate go out and campaign and have room and board type stuff, money for gas and other necessities, and things like that. And I know that if you are campaigning you just can not work a full time job, unless you have a lot of time off so you need money for that. A candidate has to have another source of income besides a job, and that is where donations come in.
But how does more donations mean victory? And how does victory equate to success? Let me clarify, victory does not equal success, and money does not equal victory. Here is an example of what I mean, President Obama won the 2008 Presidential election, but his time in the Oval Office has been a huge failure in my eyes. In fact I don't think he has had much success at anything yet. lets taka look at some examples of what I mean.
1- One of the biggest failures right off the bat is his attempt to close Guantanamo Bay down. Guantanamo is where we have incarcerated suspected terrorists, or in Obama'ese, "enemy combatants". President Obama made bold statements about how he was going to have Guantanamo closed within the year (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/obama.gitmo/index.html). This would have been a very bad thing in my opinion because, a) It makes our country less safe by allowing suspected terrorists to either be set free or moved onto American soil which makes our country more vulnerable, b) It places our troops in more danger. The more terrorists we allow to leave Guantanamo Bay the more terrorists are allowed to go back out and join the fight, c) It places unnecessary restrictions on our troops when they are detaining suspected terrorists. Now if the troops don't read the person they are detaining their rights, they risk the terrorist getting off on a technicality.
As far as I am concerned, either one of these is as big of a failure as the next, but that is what happens when you make campaign promises meant to appease everyone. Being an elected official means sometimes you have to do something because the people want it. You represent the people, not your own wants and wishes.
2- The health care bill. Something like 56% of Americans polled are against this bill, yet President Obama promised he would get it passed. Well they are getting it passed by conducting back room/ closed door deals. Pretty shameful how this whole thing is going down. people are so mad about this bill, yet the politicians in Washington feel some driving need to pass this piece of crap legislation! It isn't on the behalf of the people, the majority of American people want nothing to do with this bill, so why do the politicians feel like they have to drive forward right now with this bill. Because President Obama made a promise he would get it done, and he already has had many significant failures.
3- This next failure is related to the one above. President Obama promised over and over again on the campaign trail that these health care reform discussions would be completely open, transparent, and he would have C-SPAN cameras there. Well as everyone knows there have been no C-SPAN cameras showing anything, and Republicans have not been involved at all. The President's lies are also a huge failure.
4- No pork barrel spending in bills. Remember when President Oabam promised he was going line by line through each bill and he was going to cut out all the pork (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/512/go-line-line-over-earmarks-make-sure-money-being-s/)? Yet in the omnibus bill there were, well as a Fox News report claims, "The new $410 billion omnibus spending bill contains thousands of them. In fact, congressional officials are telling us about 9,000 to be exact." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,500844,00.html). This is another huge failure.
Bottom line, President Obama had all the funding, and his victory has been a big failure. So how does money equal victory?
My question is this...
How does helping a person raise money equate with victory? How does raising $1.3 million get a candidate one step closer to winning?
Now I understand that a campaign needs money for things like TV and radio advertisements, to help the candidate go out and campaign and have room and board type stuff, money for gas and other necessities, and things like that. And I know that if you are campaigning you just can not work a full time job, unless you have a lot of time off so you need money for that. A candidate has to have another source of income besides a job, and that is where donations come in.
But how does more donations mean victory? And how does victory equate to success? Let me clarify, victory does not equal success, and money does not equal victory. Here is an example of what I mean, President Obama won the 2008 Presidential election, but his time in the Oval Office has been a huge failure in my eyes. In fact I don't think he has had much success at anything yet. lets taka look at some examples of what I mean.
1- One of the biggest failures right off the bat is his attempt to close Guantanamo Bay down. Guantanamo is where we have incarcerated suspected terrorists, or in Obama'ese, "enemy combatants". President Obama made bold statements about how he was going to have Guantanamo closed within the year (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/obama.gitmo/index.html). This would have been a very bad thing in my opinion because, a) It makes our country less safe by allowing suspected terrorists to either be set free or moved onto American soil which makes our country more vulnerable, b) It places our troops in more danger. The more terrorists we allow to leave Guantanamo Bay the more terrorists are allowed to go back out and join the fight, c) It places unnecessary restrictions on our troops when they are detaining suspected terrorists. Now if the troops don't read the person they are detaining their rights, they risk the terrorist getting off on a technicality.
As far as I am concerned, either one of these is as big of a failure as the next, but that is what happens when you make campaign promises meant to appease everyone. Being an elected official means sometimes you have to do something because the people want it. You represent the people, not your own wants and wishes.
2- The health care bill. Something like 56% of Americans polled are against this bill, yet President Obama promised he would get it passed. Well they are getting it passed by conducting back room/ closed door deals. Pretty shameful how this whole thing is going down. people are so mad about this bill, yet the politicians in Washington feel some driving need to pass this piece of crap legislation! It isn't on the behalf of the people, the majority of American people want nothing to do with this bill, so why do the politicians feel like they have to drive forward right now with this bill. Because President Obama made a promise he would get it done, and he already has had many significant failures.
3- This next failure is related to the one above. President Obama promised over and over again on the campaign trail that these health care reform discussions would be completely open, transparent, and he would have C-SPAN cameras there. Well as everyone knows there have been no C-SPAN cameras showing anything, and Republicans have not been involved at all. The President's lies are also a huge failure.
4- No pork barrel spending in bills. Remember when President Oabam promised he was going line by line through each bill and he was going to cut out all the pork (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/512/go-line-line-over-earmarks-make-sure-money-being-s/)? Yet in the omnibus bill there were, well as a Fox News report claims, "The new $410 billion omnibus spending bill contains thousands of them. In fact, congressional officials are telling us about 9,000 to be exact." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,500844,00.html). This is another huge failure.
Bottom line, President Obama had all the funding, and his victory has been a big failure. So how does money equal victory?
Transparency in action!
Well here we are, once again at the threshold of a health care reform bill, that most Americans object to, being passed, and we have no idea of a) what is in it, b) the full scope of what it will do to the health care system as well as to Americans, c) how far into the system it reaches, and d) who will be paying for what, and when does the payments get to be used.
It seems funny to me that President Obama, who repeatedly told us he was going to have open discussions with everyone, and that these discussions would be able to be seen on C-Span. I am including a link that has President Obama making the televised discussion promise 8 times (http://www.breitbart.tv/the-c-span-lie-did-obama-really-promise-televised-healthcare-negotiations/).
Of course do we really need C-Span there? According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi we don't. On Tuesday afternoon Speaker Pelosi said, "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who’s served here’s experience," during a press conference. When she was told that President Obama had promised to have the discussion on C-Span Speaker Pelosi said with a chuckle, "there are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.” (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/05/c-span-challenges-congress-open-health-care-talks-tv-coverage/), (http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/01/05/nancy-pelosi-takes-a-jab-at-barack-obamas-campaign-promises/).
If you are interested here is a link to a Fox News video of Speaker Pelosi's comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_3BHYmmmLg
Also I am trying to post the video, hopefully this works.
Well everyone, there it is, the change we were promised and the transparency we were promised. If I were one of President Obama's staff I would be telling him he needs to opn the discussions up and let C-Span in. If he doesn't he will have shown the compete and total hypocrisy that is Washington DC, and shown how much lying one is willing to do to achieve a desired office.
It seems funny to me that President Obama, who repeatedly told us he was going to have open discussions with everyone, and that these discussions would be able to be seen on C-Span. I am including a link that has President Obama making the televised discussion promise 8 times (http://www.breitbart.tv/the-c-span-lie-did-obama-really-promise-televised-healthcare-negotiations/).
Of course do we really need C-Span there? According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi we don't. On Tuesday afternoon Speaker Pelosi said, "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who’s served here’s experience," during a press conference. When she was told that President Obama had promised to have the discussion on C-Span Speaker Pelosi said with a chuckle, "there are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail.” (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/05/c-span-challenges-congress-open-health-care-talks-tv-coverage/), (http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/01/05/nancy-pelosi-takes-a-jab-at-barack-obamas-campaign-promises/).
If you are interested here is a link to a Fox News video of Speaker Pelosi's comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_3BHYmmmLg
Also I am trying to post the video, hopefully this works.
Well everyone, there it is, the change we were promised and the transparency we were promised. If I were one of President Obama's staff I would be telling him he needs to opn the discussions up and let C-Span in. If he doesn't he will have shown the compete and total hypocrisy that is Washington DC, and shown how much lying one is willing to do to achieve a desired office.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Oh the sick irony of it all!
First of all, if you have found my little blog I want to say welcome, and thanks for taking a second to read what I have to say. I think it is pretty important, and I know people have lives so I appreciate you taking time to check out my blog.
The second thing, if you have found my little political blog, and you are opposed to health care, please read and sign this online petition. Your signature will also send an e-mail to President Obama, your state senators, and your representative.
http://petition2congress.com/2/2752/transparency-in-health-care-bill
Now on to the meat and potato part of my post.
President Obama, it has been reported, came out on Thursday, January 07, 2009 and took responsibility, at least in part for the attempted "underwear bomb" terrorist attack. "President Barack Obama on Thursday accepted responsibility for intelligence shortcomings that led to a failed Christmas Day bombing plot on a Detroit-bound airliner, saying, “Ultimately, the buck stops with me." (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31241.html) And this a day after I wrote a blog on this very thing! President Obama also goes on to discuss how the government had all the information they needed to stop this attempt, but failed to share and use it correctly. Of course, President Obama did finish his trip to Hawaii before making serious comment, or demanding an investigation. probably for the best though because the National Counter Terrorism Director Michael Leiter took off for a ski trip the day after the plot, Leon Panetta who is the director of the CIA, was in Monterey, California and reportedly didn't return to CIA headquarters until the weekend after the first, and then Stephen Kappes who is the CIA deputy director, reportedly didn't see any need to return to the CIA headquarters from a vacation amidst the major intelligence community failure instead, it is reported that he returned to Washington, D.C. on Dec. 30 after a bombing that killed seven CIA officers (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/07/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6069399.shtml).
This is why our national security is at such risk! We have a terrorist attack happen, and the President of the United States stays on vacation, and doesn't have any serious press conference until about a week and a half has passed. Not that it really matters, because had President Obama came back who would he have met with? Key players from the CIA and NCTC determined it was vacation time and they were out! Of course one could argue that President Obama could have met with Janet Napolitano, which probably would have been a good thing because if she is meeting with the President she isn't on Sunday talk shows saying the system worked! And President Obama showed how serious he was about cracking down on a failed system by reportedly saying that he had no plans to fire anyone who was involved with the missteps that led up to the attempt (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31241.html). Good to know that he is serious about getting to the bottom of the issues!
The truly sad thing is not what the Obama administration is doing, or not doing in this case, it is the message they are sending to our enemies who are at war with us. If our media knows that key officials vital to national security didn't feel the need to fix the system immediately, then I GUARANTEE that Al Qaeda also knows this, and the Obama administration once again makes the country look indecisive and weak.
If I fail to perfrom at my job how long do you think I would last. If I am late every day, if I don't do my job correctly. There are so many little things that can cost me my job. Yet Michael Leiter, Leon Panetta, tephen Kappes, and Janet Napolitano all failed to do their job, and what makes the situation even worse is the fact that after they had failed to do their jobs they decided a vacation was in order! These are horrifically shameful actions! Of course we did forget to mention that President Obama didn't make any haste back to Washington DC, and is now making statements that indicate he is not going to be firing the very people who were asleep at the wheel and failed to do their job, which simply put is to stop what happened from ever happening! One would think that one 9/11 would be enough, but it appears that the Obama administration, and many politicians in DC have hit the snooze bar yet again.
The craziest part of this? Well I have no formal training, and have not yet graduated from college, but I can tell you that if I were appointed to Homeland Security I could fix this issue. Want to know how?
1- I would call in the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the NCTC, the State Department, and military intelligence. Once we are all together I would tell them that from now on whatever they know we all know. If one of them has ANY info on a suspected terrorist and they don't share it they will be fired immediately, and may be brought up on charges of treason for refusing to assist in stopping a terrorist plot.
2- I would ask the CIA, NCTC, FBI, State Department, and military intelligence to get each ones lists of any suspected terrorists and combine them all. This list would be rated from Extremely High to Minimal on a threat level, and all government agencies that have any form of interest in counter terrorism would get that list. Anyone on that list who applies for a visa into the United States automatically raises a red flag. If you are below moderate you have to answer a series of questions and have to be on a set waiting list before approval. If you are in the top 3/4 of the list your visa is denied, end of story. And that is denied forever, not just for a few years. If you are not be a U.S. citizen, and you are anywhere moderate on our list your visa is denied for life, no exceptions.
3- Each organization would provide one representative who would be in constant contact with the Department of Homeland Security and once a week we would all meet and go over any changes, additions, increased threats, or whatever needed to be updated and addressed. If something big came up, we would call and emergency meeting and discuss what changes had happened. Likewise, after our weekly meeting I would report back to the President on what had changed, and the President as well as all of the top cabinet members would have the list.
I find it very upsetting that a guy like me can formulate a better plan for handling this issue than the people we have elected. Sad indeed. And what is even sadder is the fact that I realize we are involved in a war on terror, and that puts me a head of all the people in Washington who think otherwise.
The second thing, if you have found my little political blog, and you are opposed to health care, please read and sign this online petition. Your signature will also send an e-mail to President Obama, your state senators, and your representative.
http://petition2congress.com/2/2752/transparency-in-health-care-bill
Now on to the meat and potato part of my post.
President Obama, it has been reported, came out on Thursday, January 07, 2009 and took responsibility, at least in part for the attempted "underwear bomb" terrorist attack. "President Barack Obama on Thursday accepted responsibility for intelligence shortcomings that led to a failed Christmas Day bombing plot on a Detroit-bound airliner, saying, “Ultimately, the buck stops with me." (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31241.html) And this a day after I wrote a blog on this very thing! President Obama also goes on to discuss how the government had all the information they needed to stop this attempt, but failed to share and use it correctly. Of course, President Obama did finish his trip to Hawaii before making serious comment, or demanding an investigation. probably for the best though because the National Counter Terrorism Director Michael Leiter took off for a ski trip the day after the plot, Leon Panetta who is the director of the CIA, was in Monterey, California and reportedly didn't return to CIA headquarters until the weekend after the first, and then Stephen Kappes who is the CIA deputy director, reportedly didn't see any need to return to the CIA headquarters from a vacation amidst the major intelligence community failure instead, it is reported that he returned to Washington, D.C. on Dec. 30 after a bombing that killed seven CIA officers (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/07/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6069399.shtml).
This is why our national security is at such risk! We have a terrorist attack happen, and the President of the United States stays on vacation, and doesn't have any serious press conference until about a week and a half has passed. Not that it really matters, because had President Obama came back who would he have met with? Key players from the CIA and NCTC determined it was vacation time and they were out! Of course one could argue that President Obama could have met with Janet Napolitano, which probably would have been a good thing because if she is meeting with the President she isn't on Sunday talk shows saying the system worked! And President Obama showed how serious he was about cracking down on a failed system by reportedly saying that he had no plans to fire anyone who was involved with the missteps that led up to the attempt (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31241.html). Good to know that he is serious about getting to the bottom of the issues!
The truly sad thing is not what the Obama administration is doing, or not doing in this case, it is the message they are sending to our enemies who are at war with us. If our media knows that key officials vital to national security didn't feel the need to fix the system immediately, then I GUARANTEE that Al Qaeda also knows this, and the Obama administration once again makes the country look indecisive and weak.
If I fail to perfrom at my job how long do you think I would last. If I am late every day, if I don't do my job correctly. There are so many little things that can cost me my job. Yet Michael Leiter, Leon Panetta, tephen Kappes, and Janet Napolitano all failed to do their job, and what makes the situation even worse is the fact that after they had failed to do their jobs they decided a vacation was in order! These are horrifically shameful actions! Of course we did forget to mention that President Obama didn't make any haste back to Washington DC, and is now making statements that indicate he is not going to be firing the very people who were asleep at the wheel and failed to do their job, which simply put is to stop what happened from ever happening! One would think that one 9/11 would be enough, but it appears that the Obama administration, and many politicians in DC have hit the snooze bar yet again.
The craziest part of this? Well I have no formal training, and have not yet graduated from college, but I can tell you that if I were appointed to Homeland Security I could fix this issue. Want to know how?
1- I would call in the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the NCTC, the State Department, and military intelligence. Once we are all together I would tell them that from now on whatever they know we all know. If one of them has ANY info on a suspected terrorist and they don't share it they will be fired immediately, and may be brought up on charges of treason for refusing to assist in stopping a terrorist plot.
2- I would ask the CIA, NCTC, FBI, State Department, and military intelligence to get each ones lists of any suspected terrorists and combine them all. This list would be rated from Extremely High to Minimal on a threat level, and all government agencies that have any form of interest in counter terrorism would get that list. Anyone on that list who applies for a visa into the United States automatically raises a red flag. If you are below moderate you have to answer a series of questions and have to be on a set waiting list before approval. If you are in the top 3/4 of the list your visa is denied, end of story. And that is denied forever, not just for a few years. If you are not be a U.S. citizen, and you are anywhere moderate on our list your visa is denied for life, no exceptions.
3- Each organization would provide one representative who would be in constant contact with the Department of Homeland Security and once a week we would all meet and go over any changes, additions, increased threats, or whatever needed to be updated and addressed. If something big came up, we would call and emergency meeting and discuss what changes had happened. Likewise, after our weekly meeting I would report back to the President on what had changed, and the President as well as all of the top cabinet members would have the list.
I find it very upsetting that a guy like me can formulate a better plan for handling this issue than the people we have elected. Sad indeed. And what is even sadder is the fact that I realize we are involved in a war on terror, and that puts me a head of all the people in Washington who think otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)