Gays being allowed to serve openly in the military is one of the few issues that Obama has to think about in the coming years. Actually, he doesn't really have to think about it because most military leaders say the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is serving the military very well. Obama has said he would like to reverse that policy, although I don't think it should be high on his list, if on his list at all. Let's look at the pros and cons of letting people openly display their gayness in the military.
PROS:
1. People will now be allowed to express their "gayness" wherever they so desire, without being fired from their job.
CONS:
1. The life of the gay person in question may become more challenging, as the vast majority of men and women serving in the military have traditional values and are repulsed by the thought of sodomy.
2. A large number of qualified officers and enlisted will be forced to make a decision between either leaving the military because of their convictions or having to become politically correct like the rest of the country, with no right to hold or state their opinion about the matter without being dishonorably discharged. Our country will become less safe with fewer brave men and women serving, all for the sake of letting gays tell everyone they're gay.
3. Missions and lives will be put in jeopardy. Knowing sexual orientation will inevitably create doubts in minds. The policy is there to protect gays, not discriminate. How would the parents of a gay person feel when their son was killed in action and everyone knew he was gay? Anger is sure to abound. . ."He was only put in that dangerous mission because he was gay. . . He always said the other soldiers didn't like him. . . maybe they didn't even try to save him." Can you even begin to imagine the lawsuits that would try to be brought? Just the civilian world. . ridiculous. Perhaps this is the greatest reason not to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
4. It would prevent our country's bravest young men and women from enlisting in our military for fear of saying or doing something that may lead to a dishonorable discharge, therefore ending their chances at either a military or other career. Once again, it would make our country less safe.
The military doesn't have the time or money to add political correctness to their plate. The military's job is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Any policy put in effect by Obama or anyone else that makes it exponentially more difficult for them to do that is a dangerous policy that will only serve to hurt our national interests. Isn't this common sense?
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Oh, really?
Obama, you feel like you score big time every time you announce to the world that your plan "would actually cut taxes for 95% of Americans." OK, couple of problems there, Obama. I don't know what your definition of "cut taxes" is, but 38% of American taxpayers don't pay federal income taxes in the first place because they don't make enough, leaving you to cut their taxes from 0 dollars to a whopping 0 dollars. Also, you voted to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the rest of us in the middle class, meaning that under your plan, all of our taxes would go up. So really, I'm pretty sure you would be RAISING taxes on 100% of Americans. Don't know who your math genius is on your campaign, but maybe you should check your numbers before trying to pull a fast one of us.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Fundamental Differences
In order to make a clear choice this election, each individual must understand the principles that each party operates under.
Here are some tenents that the Republican Party is currently upholding:
1. The government should be smaller, because without the pressure that free market businesses have of being accountable, government tends to be very wasteful and many times fraudulent. Consider this, from Gingrich's book, Real Change: "One [pork-barrel] project, $1 million for the "Center for Instrumental Critical Infrastructure" in [Congressman John] Murtha's district, was challenged by Republican congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona when his staff could not verify the center's existence. Democratic congressman Pete Visclosky of Indiana, who chairs the spending subcommitte responsible for the project, admitted he didn't know where it existed. Despite this, Flake's challenge failed by a vote of 326-98." A Center most likely did not even exist, and STILL Congress voted against investigating the fraud of our money.
2. All life is worthy of protection, regardless at what stage of life it is. Republicans have science on their side on this one, for the moment that the egg and sperm meet, you have 46 chromosomes, the number of a full-grown adult. The heart is beating at 21 days. To deny this is to pick and choose your science.
3. Capitalism is generally the best way to go. Where capitalism can fix it, the government shouldn't impose. Think of pretty much anything in your daily life and think of how your life would be different if government took over the capitalistic ventures. No more Wal-Mart or Target. Now you must shop only at K-Mart, with higher prices, less choices, and shoddy brands.
4. There are three branches of government. We already have a Legislative branch. We don't need judges to legislate for us.
5. We're willing to listen to your viewpoint, if not because we want to, but because it is forced upon us around every corner.
Here are some things that Democrats continue espousing in order to win:
1. They love big government, because they like being in control of your money and feeling as if they are the all-knowing and all-giving gods in Washington. Without them, we would have nothing. They enjoy the power. While Republicans have fought rightly for term limits on sitting U.S. Senators and Congressmen, Democrats have adamently fought them. You can also point to their unsatiated appetite for big government programs, from government run health care to Social Security to NASA. They were not always like this, but they have found that in order to garner the votes they once had, they must play up the "victimization" of Americans and make them depend on the government for their well-being. Hence you now know why a large majority of lower-class people vote Democrat, even though their policies are oftentimes not better.
2. All life is not worthy of protection. Obama said recently that the question of when life begins is "above his pay grade". Well, it's not above most of the American people's pay grade. To deny unquestionable science is clearly not common sense and must mean that the party is being held at the mercy of pro-abortion groups like NARAL and the National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood.
3. Capitalism can only be trusted for some things. What Americans really want and need is government run health care, so costs will go up even higher and the lines will make people die while waiting. No joke. Go check out Canada, where it can take 6 months to get a CAT scan even when you're deathly ill.
4. There are three branches of government. We don't care what their purposes are. We need them to work for the benefit of our own ideas, regardless of the will of the people.
5. Opposition must be silenced. Wait, that's not very democratic. Note the oppostion to the Broadcasters' Freedom Act, a bill to oppose reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine." "The so-called “Fairness Doctrine” -- initiated in the 1930s under Franklin Roosevelt -- enabled the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the content of radio and later television programming. In its heyday, it proved effective in keeping nearly all conservative opinion off the air," writes Erika Anderson of Human Events. Pelosi refuses to even allow the BFA to be brought up for a vote, and absolutely NO Democrats have signed the petition. Democrats are only for free speech when it involves throwing dung on the Virgin Mary and calling it art, or when they want teachers to have the ultimate authority of teaching your children smut and pseudo-science. A Democrat president will almost certainly reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, therefore effectively silencing all conservative voices on radio and television. How's that for a Democracy?
Here are some tenents that the Republican Party is currently upholding:
1. The government should be smaller, because without the pressure that free market businesses have of being accountable, government tends to be very wasteful and many times fraudulent. Consider this, from Gingrich's book, Real Change: "One [pork-barrel] project, $1 million for the "Center for Instrumental Critical Infrastructure" in [Congressman John] Murtha's district, was challenged by Republican congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona when his staff could not verify the center's existence. Democratic congressman Pete Visclosky of Indiana, who chairs the spending subcommitte responsible for the project, admitted he didn't know where it existed. Despite this, Flake's challenge failed by a vote of 326-98." A Center most likely did not even exist, and STILL Congress voted against investigating the fraud of our money.
2. All life is worthy of protection, regardless at what stage of life it is. Republicans have science on their side on this one, for the moment that the egg and sperm meet, you have 46 chromosomes, the number of a full-grown adult. The heart is beating at 21 days. To deny this is to pick and choose your science.
3. Capitalism is generally the best way to go. Where capitalism can fix it, the government shouldn't impose. Think of pretty much anything in your daily life and think of how your life would be different if government took over the capitalistic ventures. No more Wal-Mart or Target. Now you must shop only at K-Mart, with higher prices, less choices, and shoddy brands.
4. There are three branches of government. We already have a Legislative branch. We don't need judges to legislate for us.
5. We're willing to listen to your viewpoint, if not because we want to, but because it is forced upon us around every corner.
Here are some things that Democrats continue espousing in order to win:
1. They love big government, because they like being in control of your money and feeling as if they are the all-knowing and all-giving gods in Washington. Without them, we would have nothing. They enjoy the power. While Republicans have fought rightly for term limits on sitting U.S. Senators and Congressmen, Democrats have adamently fought them. You can also point to their unsatiated appetite for big government programs, from government run health care to Social Security to NASA. They were not always like this, but they have found that in order to garner the votes they once had, they must play up the "victimization" of Americans and make them depend on the government for their well-being. Hence you now know why a large majority of lower-class people vote Democrat, even though their policies are oftentimes not better.
2. All life is not worthy of protection. Obama said recently that the question of when life begins is "above his pay grade". Well, it's not above most of the American people's pay grade. To deny unquestionable science is clearly not common sense and must mean that the party is being held at the mercy of pro-abortion groups like NARAL and the National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood.
3. Capitalism can only be trusted for some things. What Americans really want and need is government run health care, so costs will go up even higher and the lines will make people die while waiting. No joke. Go check out Canada, where it can take 6 months to get a CAT scan even when you're deathly ill.
4. There are three branches of government. We don't care what their purposes are. We need them to work for the benefit of our own ideas, regardless of the will of the people.
5. Opposition must be silenced. Wait, that's not very democratic. Note the oppostion to the Broadcasters' Freedom Act, a bill to oppose reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine." "The so-called “Fairness Doctrine” -- initiated in the 1930s under Franklin Roosevelt -- enabled the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the content of radio and later television programming. In its heyday, it proved effective in keeping nearly all conservative opinion off the air," writes Erika Anderson of Human Events. Pelosi refuses to even allow the BFA to be brought up for a vote, and absolutely NO Democrats have signed the petition. Democrats are only for free speech when it involves throwing dung on the Virgin Mary and calling it art, or when they want teachers to have the ultimate authority of teaching your children smut and pseudo-science. A Democrat president will almost certainly reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, therefore effectively silencing all conservative voices on radio and television. How's that for a Democracy?
Digging for the Truth
We have a problem here in America, and everyone knows it. The problem is the dishonest media and a Democratic candidate who can say whatever he wants when he knows that none of the major news networks will call him on it. How can we as a country elect an honest leader in the face of such corruption? Luckily, we have information technology on our side. Americans must vote, but they do the country a disservice if they vote with no outside research. You wouldn't buy a new car based solely on what the saleman tells you would you? Of course not, he benefits from the sale. You wouldn't buy a house based solely on what the previous owners claim, would you? No. That's why, in the real world, we look at many different sources before we make a major decision. We go on websites, talk to others who may have different opinions and insights, read all the comments, both good and bad, about a product before buying it. It should be the same way with your vote for President. There is no blame with the average folks. The blame lies with a media who for years has been center of left and going more left all the time. They have lost all objectivity and will do absolutely anything to get the Democratic candidate elected. Every four years it's the same game for them. It's not just Republicans who should be angry about this. Democrats should be furious as well, becaue the media has even stopped representing them. It is now morphing into an outlet for the views of the far left. The media cheats us all when it only gives us one side of the story.
So do your research. Look up the candidates' records, don't listen to their rhetoric.
Below are some sites to get you started in your quest for the other side of the story.
http://2008election.procon.org/
www.townhall.com
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/%22new_politics%22
www.sourcewatch.org
www.factcheck.org
www.weeklystandard.com
So do your research. Look up the candidates' records, don't listen to their rhetoric.
Below are some sites to get you started in your quest for the other side of the story.
http://2008election.procon.org/
www.townhall.com
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/%22new_politics%22
www.sourcewatch.org
www.factcheck.org
www.weeklystandard.com
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
To Raise or Not to Raise?: The Ultimate Question
Enough with the finger-pointing. This economic bailout comes with a clear opportunity for McCain to make a strong case for his presidency. He dropped the ball by not going into the Debate fighting for the Republicans' plan, which seeks to require businesses themselves to pay back the money through loans and insurance premiums. This is common sense at its best. Does this equation make sense anywhere else in the real world? Of course not! No one likes paying for something they didn't order. "Excuse me, those people at the table across the way didn't bring money to pay for their meal and requsted that it be put on your tab," or "Sorry, sir, this man decided he wanted a big screen TV, but now he doesn't have the money for his leather sofa. We decided the fairest way for him to get it is if you paid for it instead." This argument makes no sense! Obama favors the $700 billion coming straight from OUR pockets, people who had no culpability in the matter to begin with, and McCain went meekly along in the hopes that the bill would pass and he would have at least done something.
In order for McCain to get back on track, he needs to explain to people how taxes work, and not stop explaining until the day of the election. I'm not an economist, but let's think this out sensibly. When you raise taxes, on anybody, rich or poor, there will obviously be less money circling through our economy because it's now in the government's pocket. Less money means less jobs up for grabs and less money to invest in starting up new businesses. Obama argues that the rich should pay more in taxes just because they make more, and this will help the economy. OK, you can argue that, but give some proof to back up your theory. When you raise taxes on the rich, you are once again giving them less money to work with. They can't create as many jobs for hard-working Americans to fill. They can't invest their money and make it grow which also creates jobs. They can't give as much to charities or simply spend more, which would boost the economy. Everybody loses when you overtax the rich. Raising taxes is probably the LEAST common-sense idea for the situation we are in now. When taxes were increased in the early 1930's, it made the Great Depression even worse. When Bush Sr. increased taxes in 1990, it led to the recession of 1991. Obama said during the primaries that he would double the capital gains tax, the tax on investments. If you do that, investors both big and small will find another country to invest in. Jobs will be lost. How is that looking out for the American people? McCain, who wants to lower it, will allow more jobs to be created by keeping more of the United States' money in the United States.
If you dig just a little, you'll see there is little sense in in the Democrat's plan. Democrats have been running for years now on entitlement programs that are paid for by our hard-earned dollars. Obama couldn't name a single program he would put on hold to deal with this crisis, so that implies that he'd still try to go along with them all, which in turn means RAISING TAXES. Raising taxes at a time like this will only worsen the situation. Is that the change we really want?
In order for McCain to get back on track, he needs to explain to people how taxes work, and not stop explaining until the day of the election. I'm not an economist, but let's think this out sensibly. When you raise taxes, on anybody, rich or poor, there will obviously be less money circling through our economy because it's now in the government's pocket. Less money means less jobs up for grabs and less money to invest in starting up new businesses. Obama argues that the rich should pay more in taxes just because they make more, and this will help the economy. OK, you can argue that, but give some proof to back up your theory. When you raise taxes on the rich, you are once again giving them less money to work with. They can't create as many jobs for hard-working Americans to fill. They can't invest their money and make it grow which also creates jobs. They can't give as much to charities or simply spend more, which would boost the economy. Everybody loses when you overtax the rich. Raising taxes is probably the LEAST common-sense idea for the situation we are in now. When taxes were increased in the early 1930's, it made the Great Depression even worse. When Bush Sr. increased taxes in 1990, it led to the recession of 1991. Obama said during the primaries that he would double the capital gains tax, the tax on investments. If you do that, investors both big and small will find another country to invest in. Jobs will be lost. How is that looking out for the American people? McCain, who wants to lower it, will allow more jobs to be created by keeping more of the United States' money in the United States.
If you dig just a little, you'll see there is little sense in in the Democrat's plan. Democrats have been running for years now on entitlement programs that are paid for by our hard-earned dollars. Obama couldn't name a single program he would put on hold to deal with this crisis, so that implies that he'd still try to go along with them all, which in turn means RAISING TAXES. Raising taxes at a time like this will only worsen the situation. Is that the change we really want?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
"I'm Kim Jong Il and I approve this message"
Question: Are all anti-American dictators really Democrats?
Answer: Looks like it.
In terms of high-profile endorsements, Obama just might be winning. Of course, having an endorsement doesn't always help a man. Just look at Jeremiah Wright. I actually like endorsements for the fact that they can tell you a lot more about a cadidate's character and worldview than the candidate will ever tell you himself. So let's take a quick look at some of the props that Obama has received.
1. The Chosun Sinbo, the North Korean's Japanese newspaper of choice, had this to say: "We will see a better relationship between the U.S. and the Korean Peninsula with Obama, who sternly criticizes Bush and who would meet the leader of Chosun without pre-conditions, than with the “Bush clone” and scarecrow of the neocons McCain."
2. Fidel Castro called Obama "the most advanced candidate" in the race, according to the NY Times. “I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity,” Castro wrote. “Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor.” Therefore, he's not defending him. Wait, what?
3. Ahmed Yousef, Hamas' top political adviser, spoke to WABC radio on Sunday, April 13th, 2008, saying, "We like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election." He continued. Obama is a "great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance." And Hamas only wants to wipe Israel off the map.
4. The Columbian terrorist group, FARC, who still hold 3 Americans hostage, said in a Feb. 28 letter, that he (Raul Reyes, the chieftain) met "two gringos" who assured him "the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support 'Plan Colombia' nor will he sign the TLC (Free Trade Agreement)."
Not that Obama really wants these endorsements, but it matters not. The damage is done. We know that those who hate America think it will go better for them if Obama is elected.
Answer: Looks like it.
In terms of high-profile endorsements, Obama just might be winning. Of course, having an endorsement doesn't always help a man. Just look at Jeremiah Wright. I actually like endorsements for the fact that they can tell you a lot more about a cadidate's character and worldview than the candidate will ever tell you himself. So let's take a quick look at some of the props that Obama has received.
1. The Chosun Sinbo, the North Korean's Japanese newspaper of choice, had this to say: "We will see a better relationship between the U.S. and the Korean Peninsula with Obama, who sternly criticizes Bush and who would meet the leader of Chosun without pre-conditions, than with the “Bush clone” and scarecrow of the neocons McCain."
2. Fidel Castro called Obama "the most advanced candidate" in the race, according to the NY Times. “I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity,” Castro wrote. “Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor.” Therefore, he's not defending him. Wait, what?
3. Ahmed Yousef, Hamas' top political adviser, spoke to WABC radio on Sunday, April 13th, 2008, saying, "We like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election." He continued. Obama is a "great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance." And Hamas only wants to wipe Israel off the map.
4. The Columbian terrorist group, FARC, who still hold 3 Americans hostage, said in a Feb. 28 letter, that he (Raul Reyes, the chieftain) met "two gringos" who assured him "the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support 'Plan Colombia' nor will he sign the TLC (Free Trade Agreement)."
Not that Obama really wants these endorsements, but it matters not. The damage is done. We know that those who hate America think it will go better for them if Obama is elected.
Common Sense Truth: Murdering is generally frowned upon in our society
This might be the most common sense truth of all: Most Americans don't believe we can kill another human being simply because their quality of life does not meet our standards of "quality". If we could, run and hide, because someone out there knows you to be flawed and not living to your fullest potential. If you were allowed to kill people who you personally don't believe to have "potential", pretty soon we'd be wiping out whole segments of the population. Nazi Holocaust, anyone?
So I find it surprising that when the majority of the country feels so strongly on this issue, there is one presidential candidate who doesn't seem to have a problem with the whole "murder" thing. In 2003, Barack Obama voted "no" on a bill called the "Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act". Among other things, "the bill additionally provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Senator Obama, the only Senator to argue this bill on the Senate floor, did a poor job of doing so by throwing in "constitutionality" where there clearly was no question of it. His most telling argument was this: "Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a, a child, a nine-month-old, child that was delivered to term."
Senator O'Malley answered, "This is essentially very simply. The Constitution does NOT say that a child born must be viable in order to live and be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be born. And a child who survives birth is a U.S. citizen, and we need to do everything we can here in the State of Illinios and, frankly, in the other 49 states and in the halls of Washington, D.C., to make sure we secure and protect those rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, resecure and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in America, so be it, and it is constitutional."
Obama voted "no" on this bill, a bill that was identical to the one passed in the U.S. Senate, a bill that was even supported by liberal senators Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy. If that is not troubling enough, Obama knows that this could very well cause voters concern over his judgment and has issued an ad calling these facts a "lie." Senator Obama is the liar. Only problem for Obama is, Americans don't need the dishonest media or his own dishonest "Fact Check" site. We can do our own research, and what we find is frightening. We have a presidential nominee with a record of supporting infanticide. Watch out, America! I hope you're viable enough for Obama.
http://www.bornalivetruth.com/
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf Pgs. 33 and following
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf Pgs. 83 and following
So I find it surprising that when the majority of the country feels so strongly on this issue, there is one presidential candidate who doesn't seem to have a problem with the whole "murder" thing. In 2003, Barack Obama voted "no" on a bill called the "Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act". Among other things, "the bill additionally provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Senator Obama, the only Senator to argue this bill on the Senate floor, did a poor job of doing so by throwing in "constitutionality" where there clearly was no question of it. His most telling argument was this: "Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a, a child, a nine-month-old, child that was delivered to term."
Senator O'Malley answered, "This is essentially very simply. The Constitution does NOT say that a child born must be viable in order to live and be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be born. And a child who survives birth is a U.S. citizen, and we need to do everything we can here in the State of Illinios and, frankly, in the other 49 states and in the halls of Washington, D.C., to make sure we secure and protect those rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, resecure and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in America, so be it, and it is constitutional."
Obama voted "no" on this bill, a bill that was identical to the one passed in the U.S. Senate, a bill that was even supported by liberal senators Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy. If that is not troubling enough, Obama knows that this could very well cause voters concern over his judgment and has issued an ad calling these facts a "lie." Senator Obama is the liar. Only problem for Obama is, Americans don't need the dishonest media or his own dishonest "Fact Check" site. We can do our own research, and what we find is frightening. We have a presidential nominee with a record of supporting infanticide. Watch out, America! I hope you're viable enough for Obama.
http://www.bornalivetruth.com/
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf Pgs. 33 and following
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf Pgs. 83 and following
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)