Libya vs. Iraq

Best. Ever. (Hat tip to B!)

SOTU Wrap Up

Howdy, folks!  I struggled to decide this year upon the format for my State of the Union response - line by line responses, like last year, or topical thoughts, as I've done with prior political speeches?

I've decided that topical is better than line by line - better use of my writing time; better use of your reading time.  Hope you agree!  Remember - comments are welcome, dissent is appreciated, but everything must be CIVIL!

The Use of Victims

In my opinion, it is appropriate to recognize victims of recent tragedies and send best wishes to them (if they are still living) or their families (if they are not).  I do not, however, find it appropriate to use it as a wait to paint a divided body as unified or as a rallying cry.  Obama seemed to prolong his Tucson-related comments, while Rep. Ryan mentioned it and moved on.

Taxcuts, Paychecks, Healthcare and Jobs

Obama trying to tell me that my paycheck is larger because of "his" tax cuts is like Greece saying it's a fiscally responsible country. (Apologies to Greek friends.)  It's just funny.  First, extending the BUSH tax cuts was a Republican prerogative.  Second, my paycheck isn't larger.

Why?

Oh, yeah.  My healthcare premiums went UP.  So did my deductible, co-pays, and out-of-pocket maximum.  I don't blame my company for this.  I blame the government's so-called "reform." 

Oh, and bringing up tort reform at this late date, Mr. President?  When that and auditing government entitlements for FRAUD (more lower) would have been better done before last year's "reform?"  Oy.

Highlighting 250,000 jobs is almost funny.  Pointing to the success of a handful of "successful" small companies is sad.  We should have MANY examples to point to.  The absence of many and highlighting of few is indicative of the failure of the "bailout" of our country.

And calling our workers the most productive?  Not when we enable laziness and limit innovation through over-governmentalizing EVERYTHING.

Funniest phrase of the evening: "We're not just handing out money."

Yes, you are.  Through many different avenues and at length.  Unchecked.

But you can't handle cutbacks with grace, can you Mr. President?  At my company, employees gave back HUGE portions of their incomes after 9/11 and accepted little or no increases in pay for the following decade, in order to keep the company afloat.  Excuse me if my sympathy is not with government employees unwilling to make the same sacrifice.

Innovation

How can the same man who has so limited NASA draw an allusion to "the Apollo of our time?"  How can a man who is our Commander in Chief be ignorant that the innovations he mentioned (internet, etc.) had their basis in the military, not small business?  Sure, small business grew into Silicon Valley.  But its roots were vastly different.

And how can a man flout the desirability of green energy, advanced by small business, and forget the roots of the oil industry, all the while making hardworking men and women in that industry into the devil?  Even as he knows their support of cleaner energy.  And complaining about government support going to them while ignoring the MASSIVE tax dollars coming back to the government as a result, both from the oil companies themselves as well as on the gas tax.

Undocumented Workers

It was hard for me to type that phrase.  I don't believe it.  At all.  Let's call a spade a spade: these are ILLEGAL aliens.  I don't care why they're here.  Almost all of us have touching tales of why our ancestors came to America: my mom's family was looking for new opportunity, 400 years ago; my dad's family was escaping religious persecution in the Middle East.  But either way, they came in the appropriate manner, not specifically flaunting the laws of our nation.

And that's what it is.  It's not opportunity seeking when the chance to become legal is ignored.  It's a complete disregard and disrespect for our laws.

Yes, let's not take it out on the kids of illegal aliens.  But let's not give illegal aliens a FREE PASS or an EXCUSE just because they have kids.

Infrastructure

Obama spent a few minutes on rail.  Studies have shown in this country that even areas with many opportunities for rail and other shared ride programs, they are underutilized.  Our culture is simply different than Europe and Asia.  More money spent on rail isn't better spending.  And first of all, we'd need to recapture MANY MANY DOLLARS from other fraud-fraught government programs to even afford this.

Airlines

(Please remember that even though I work for an airline, any thoughts posted here are MINE and MINE ALONE.  I represent no one else's ideas.  Period.)

The joke on the patdowns was weak.  Um, it's YOUR government that came up with that idea, Mr. President.

And the aircraft-sans-engine analogy was, uh, muddled.  An aircraft can't fly without an engine.  Decisions to take off weight are made before takeoff.  You didn't make sense.  Maybe this is simply a great example of your entire speech, though.  Cute words; no substance.

Redistribution of Wealth

I believe that a rose by any other name...is still a rose.

By challenging high income Americans to pay more in taxes (you do know, Mr. President, that they already pay a majority, right?) in order to "promote America's success", you're just encouraging the socialist idealogy of redistribution of wealth, right?

The Government/The Country/The Rhetoric

So you're against earmarks, now?  How many were necessary to get your healthcare law passed?

"A government that lives within its means?"  Oh, please.

"This is a place where you can make it if you try."  But how many people don't try and live off the government instead?  A lot.  Seen it.  A lot.  And it continues throughout generations.

Representative Ryan's Response

It felt like President Obama's speech was slick, and Representative Ryan's was sincere.  Anyone else get that vibe?

I LOVED Rep. Ryan's point that the amount of confidence people have in the government is inversely proportionate with the size of the government.  Truer words could not be spoken.

Of all of his remarks, I liked those centered on self-initative best.

Self-Initiative

"Which allows able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency."  Isn't this what I scream all of the time about the problem with our welfare state and the lack of self-initative in many citizens?

"Hold all of us accountable."  Certain quarters wouldn't like that; easier to have someone to blame.

What say you, readers?

Just Go Vote!

*Sniff* Can you smell it in the air? Ahhh...the refreshing smell of freedom, when Americans can go to the voting booth and select men and women to represent their interests at the local, state and national level. I make no secret of my political leanings on this blog, but on this election day, I think it far more important to urge all of my prospective fellow voters to cast an informed vote based on the issues and the stances supported by various candidates for office, than to urge you to cast a ballot for a particular person or party.
Just go vote!

Perry vs White: 4 Weeks Left in Texas

If you've followed my blog for more than a couple posts, you probably know that I consider myself to be a moderate-conservative (more moderate on social issues, more conservative on financial, military and governance issues) and most often identify with Republican ideals. You may even remember my political crush on Rudy Giuliani.

But this election season, in considering the Texas gubenatorial race, I'm having a true crisis of conscience. I've voted for Perry in the past, you see, but I've become increasingly disgruntled with his administration over the past couple years.

I've listened to several interviews with Bill White and he seems like a decent guy - and certainly wouldn't be the first Democrat I've voted for, since I'm an issues versus party voter.

But.

But.

I'm just not sure. More of the same...or a pretty big unknown?

True: White did well as governor of Houston, a city with a larger population than some US states.

True: Perry has accomplished many positives during his already-long tenure as governor.

But.

White has some items on his Liberal-for-Texas-but-still-comparatively-Conservative agenda that I'm not feeling too sure about.

And 4 more years of Perry means 4 more years of crony-ism.

So which is worse? Or, conversely, which is more easily tolerated?

I'll be doing some seriously hard thinking over the next few weeks to make up my mind.

How about you?

Thoughts on AZ Immigration Bill

My family spent a week in Arizona earlier this month. My father-in-law and step-mother-in-law live in the desert outside of Phoenix, and we love visiting them there. (Ok, as someone who spent every winter of her childhood in Scottsdale from 1981-1986, I love any excuse to go back to Arizona. In any case, while there, an earlier version of the the now-passed immigration bill was being discussed on local television. From what we heard about it, we thought it sounded like great piece of legislation.
Over the past few days, we’ve watched as protesters for and against illegal immigrants have took to the streets over this bill. So I decided to dig deeper in an effort to educate myself on what this bill is – and is not.
Here’s what I’ve found:

• This legislation is not a new series of laws. It is a series of addendums to laws already in force in the state.
• This legislation does not make illegal any action or inaction that is not already illegal because of Federal statutes.
• My interpretation (which I’ve found substantiation for from legal experts far more learned than I) of this legislation is that it simply says that state and local law enforcement officers in Arizona are being empowered by the state legislature to detect aliens who are in this country illegally when they have already been contacted on suspicion of another illegality, and if the situation warrants, cooperate with Federal agents for detention, punishment and deportation as necessary.

Some myths that need to be busted:

• MYTH: This new immigration law is reminiscent of Nazi Germany, because it demands that aliens register with the governments and carry their legal documentation with them at all times. (Hold on. I have to laugh hysterically before I respond to this.) The requirement for aliens to register with the government and carry their legal documentation with them at all times stems from and 8 US Code 1302(a) and (b) and 8 US Code 1304(e). Federal laws, in other words. In practical application, this is no different from a requirement to carry a passport with you when you travel overseas, or a driver’s license with you when you operate a motor vehicle. Check out the Federal statutes’ language:

(a) It shall be the duty of every alien now or hereafter in the United States, who
(1) is fourteen years of age or older,
(2) has not been registered and fingerprinted under section 1201(b) of this title or section 30 or 31 of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, and
(3) remains in the United States for thirty days or longer, to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the expiration of such thirty days.

(b) It shall be the duty of every parent or legal guardian of any alien now or hereafter in the United States, who
(1) is less than fourteen years of age,
(2) has not been registered under section 1201(b)of this title or section 30 or 31 of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, and
(3) remains in the United States for thirty days or longer, to apply for the registration of such alien before the expiration of such thirty days. Whenever any alien attains his fourteenth birthday in the United States he shall, within thirty days thereafter, apply in person for registration and to be fingerprinted.

8 US Code 1304(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

• Myth: This law allows police officers to willfully discriminate against people, and arrest them, because of how they look.
  (Sorry. I’m laughing again. Always amazes me how many people have *no idea* of what goes on in law enforcement.) This myth is just plain silly. Here are quotes from the bill, and my interpretations:

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

LEOs make arrests all the time without a warrant and based solely on probable cause. A vast majority of these arrests are never challenged. Those that are are upheld, again, a vast majority of the time, because “probable cause” is a fairly fluid construct that is based upon an officer’s good judgment based upon just the facts at hand, and is generally only overturned if overt discrimination or gross misuse of judgment can be proven. As I said above, that doesn’t often happen.

E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
THIS SECTION.

My hunch is that this section is the one the protesters are most often referring to when they blast off about racial profiling. What’s interesting is that this is an addendum to an Arizona law that has to do with human smuggling. In other words, the “target” of this section wouldn’t be the illegal alien, necessarily, but the person who is sneaking them in. Still think they’re going to get stopped for being brown?
Many parts of the remainder of the bill pertain to it being illegal to employ illegal aliens, and it being illegal for illegal aliens to seek work. And the problem here is…? In most cases, the 2010 legislation makes only minor addendums to law already in force in the case of illegal alien employment. The bill also very deliberately lays out defenses to prosecution based upon entrapment, while also specifying that an employer can only be held culpable if they KNOWINGLY employ an illegal alien.
Some final thoughts, based upon my observations of the reactions of others:

1. Many people have no idea of (a) normal and legal law enforcement practices, (b) what racial profile actually means and entails, and (c) what laws pertaining to illegal aliens already exist and are in force.
2. “Undocumented alien” is beyond a misnomer. These folks are “ILLEGAL aliens” who have willfully broken the laws of the United States of America. This is a slap in the face to millions of Americans who have immigrated to the United States LEGALLY and with no small expenditure of time and effort.
3. Advocating a broad amnesty bill simply because various government agencies have thrown up their hands and said that they can’t possibly put 12 million people on busses and send them home is asinine. Not doing anything is unacceptable. Giving a free pass is unacceptable. Let’s start by actually empowering LEOs throughout the country to enforce the immigration laws of our land rather than tying their hands through bureaucracies and hypocrisies.

What do you all think?

State of the Union

Whenever a president delivers his first State of the Union address, the country, and indeed the whole world, watches with heightened curiosity.  Each of his subsequent addresses will be judged based on this first go, and this first go will be judged against both immediate and more distant predecessors.

I didn’t watch the SOTU when it was live on television.  It corresponded exactly with when baby Catherine goes through her bedtime rituals and goes down for the evening.  After she went down, I decided to wait until today, when I was more fresh-minded, to watch and give my own response to President Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address.

In the past, when responding to political speeches, I’ve posted all of the speech, and inserted comments on a line-by-line basis, or have prepared a similar response while quoting shorter snippets.  I’m going to depart from that form in this instance, and instead respond by topics.  I’ll post the topic, post a snippet of Obama’s thoughts, and then post my response.  Let’s see how that goes, shall we?

2010 State of the Union Address – President Barack Obama

Topic: The Country and the Future

Obama’s stance: “America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one people.”

Tiffany’s take: No matter what America has gone through, there have always been factions in support of the government and its actions, and factions opposed.  We, the people of the United States, are one people because of where we choose to make our home and plan for our future, not because of our willingness to support whomever is is power and whatever they choose to do with single-minded acquiescence.

 

(I’m sorry – did he just get a standing ovation because he says he’s got hope for the future?  Hope doesn’t facilitate change; feasible, reasonable, sustainable plans do.)

Topic: The Economy

Obama’s stance: “To shore up the same banks who helped cause this crisis.”

Tiffany’s take: No.  BANKS did not force people to live beyond their means, to borrow money they hadn’t a chance of repaying, or to purchase homes that clearly were outside of their budgets.  That would be like saying McDonald’s causes people to be fat, because they have all sorts of unhealthy goodies available to eat.  The problem, here, is personal responsibility.  But then, most things are.

 

Topic: Fees on the Biggest Banks

Obama’s stance: “I’ve proposed a fee on the biggest banks.”

Tiffany’s take: Yep.  Let’s tax them for recovering, paying back the money owed to the Federal government fair and square, and then having the very temerity to become successful again.  Bad, banks.  Bad.  Why would you ever think success would be a good thing?

 

Topic: Unemployment

Obama’s stance: “That’s why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans.”

Tiffany’s take: My husband is unemployed.  Has been for five months.  Has collected benefits for four months.  Obama’s plan adds $25 per $800 check.  Oooh.  Generous.

 

Topic: Tax Cuts

Obama’s stance: “We cut taxes for <insert here>.”

Tiffany’s take: Funny.  Because even though my household income is down significantly due to the aforementioned unemployment status of my husband, we’re still in the exact same tax bracket as last year, and will pay at the same overall percentage.

 

Topic: The Recovery Act (Stimulus Bill)

Obama’s stance: “Economists say this bill has helped avert disaster.”

Tiffany’s take: And plenty more say that the over all cost is not worth the nominal benefits provided.

 

Topic: Jobs in 2010

Obama’s stance: “And that’s why I’m calling for a new jobs bill tonight.”

Tiffany’s take: Obama, who has never in his life been a businessman, fails to understand that the government can create as many jobs as it wants and tell businesses to create as many jobs as it wants, but doing so will not ever have a lasting or long-term positive impact.  Rather, cutting taxes for businesses, so they can feasibly afford a new employee, would be far more sensible.  Not penalizing Wall Street for being the success engine behind the country would have far more impact than putting three construction workers on the roads in Allentown, Pennsylvania.  And as far as $30B from big banks to give small banks the opportunity to help local businesses – how stupid.  We’re just moving the money around.  We’re not creating anything.

 

Topic: Small Businesses versus Large Businesses

Obama’s stance: “Let’s also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small businesses.”

Tiffany’s take: We wouldn’t want to start penalizing them until they get to be large, evil Wall Street Corporations.

 

Topic: Building Infrastructure

Obama’s stance: “Our nation has always been built to compete.”

Tiffany’s take: Why, exactly, does Tampa need a high speed railroad?

 

Topic: Offshore Outsourcing

Obama’s stance: “Slash the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas.”

Tiffany’s take: Now, instead of penalizing success, we’re penalizing competition.  Outsourcing often makes good financial and operational success for corporations.  But doing so shows independent thought.  And we know that’s not allowed.

 

Topic: Long Term Economic Growth

Obama’s stance: “And finally address the problems that America’s families have confronted for years.

Tiffany’s take: You mean being personally, independently financially irresponsible?

 

Topic: America versus the World

Obama’s stance: “Well I do not accept second place for America.”

Tiffany’s take: President Obama, is that why you ran around the world, apologizing for America and telling other countries how evil we are during your first year in office?

 

Topic: Serious Financial Reform

Obama’s stance: “I’m interested in protecting our economy.”

Tiffany’s take: Then why are you continuing to increase the deficit in our Federal budget, and increase the debt we owe to other countries around the world, and specifically China?  How does that protect our economy?  With these increasing debts, America as a country is no better than an irresponsible citizen who borrows money they cannot hope to repay and lives beyond any reasonable means.

 

Topic: Clean Energy

Obama’s stance: Blah, blah

Tiffany’s take: I’m certainly not in favor of polluting our environment or using resources wastefully.  But this continued emphasis on clean energy just hurts my mind.  Because, really, this is just the back door to Cap-n-Trade, which anyone with the ability to reason understands is a bad idea in general, and a bad way to bring about any reasonable or sustainable change.

 

Topic: Climate Change

Obama’s stance: “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.”

Tiffany’s take: You mean all of that evidence that the scientists have admitted was doctored?  And don’t you just love how they’ve abandoned the term “global warming,” because trending clearly shows that to be a false scare, and are now trying to back something that sounds friendlier?

 

Topic: Exports

Obama’s stance: “We will double our exports in the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America.”

Tiffany’s take: Dear companies: start shipping more goods overseas.  Thanks, Obama.  Dear other countries: start buying more stuff from the United States.  Thanks, Obama.  Well, I’m glad that clears that up!

 

Topic: Education

Obama’s stance: “Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. … In this economy, a high school diploma no longer ensures a good job.  … Pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges.”

Tiffany’s take: Wouldn’t want to aim high and get a four year degree, would we?  Statistics about lifetime earning differentials aside and all. 

 

Topic: Educational Debt

Obama’s stance: “And let’s tell another 1 million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years; forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service.  Because in the United States of America, no one should go broken because they chose to go to college.”

Tiffany’s take: Nice sentiment; unbelievably irresponsible idea.  Think about what this teaches people: don’t worry about paying those silly loans back that you chose to take out.  Just work for a decade or two and the government will ensure that you can stiff your lenders for whatever you haven’t yet paid back.  Let’s see…I worked two, sometimes three jobs, while in college, still graduated in three years, and with only a small relative amount of debt.  And if I couldn’t afford something, I did without.  And my parents didn’t pay for me to go to college, and nor did I expect a handout from the government.  I simply worked and borrowed the smallest amount that I could.  Why is that a hard concept for people to get?

 

Topic: Middle Class Families

Obama’s stance: “And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle class families that we still need health insurance reform.”

Tiffany’s take: Wait…I thought your focus on killing the health insurance industry was to protect those 12 or so million underprivileged Americans without insurance.  Who promoted them to middle class?  When did this happen?  Was there a ceremony?  (Please don’t send me hate mail over this.  I’m being tongue in cheek because it drives me nuts that he’s trying to look like a knight in shining armor to the middle class by making this their issue.)

 

Topic: Health Insurance Reform

Obama’s stance: “The approach that we have taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry.”

Tiffany’s take: What amazes me is that he really is shortsighted enough to believe that healthcare reform lies in healthcare insurance changes, rather than changes to the actual healthcare system itself or to the legal torts system that plagues the healthcare system.  I will agree that there are some changes that would make insurance practices more palatable – namely dealing with pre-existing conditions and state-to-state portability – but making caps nonexistent or driving down premium rates just does not make any kind of financial sense.  But that brings me full circle to the thought that Obama is a lifelong politician (community organizing is grassroots politics in my book) and has no business or financial sense.

 

Topic: Healthcare, Part Deux

Obama’s stance: “But I also know this problem is not going away.”

Tiffany’s take: But hopefully you are, in the 2012 elections.

 

Topic: Healthcare on Healthcare

Obama’s stance: “There’s a reason why many doctors, nurses and healthcare experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo.

Tiffany’s take: Funny thought.  When I was in the hospital, I questioned why a nurse was doing something in a certain way.  Her response was “ask Obama.”  But seriously…from what I’ve read, “many” does not come close to equaling “most.”  In fact, “many more” are against these changes wholeheartedly.

 

Topic: Blame it on Bush

Obama’s stance: “At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.”

Tiffany’s take: Interpretation: that money that we used to protect our country from further terrorist attacks was a waste, those tax cuts I mentioned earlier are far superior to the Bush tax cuts for reasons that are still fuzzy even to me, and I only think certain types of healthcare should be affordable – prescriptions are OUT.

 

Topic: Federal Spending Freeze

Obama’s stance: “

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.

We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it.”

Tiffany’s take: A – Discretionary programs account for chump change compared to the key spending in the budget.  B - $20B in savings compared to a $3T whole is almost too ludicrous to consider.  C – Extending tax credits to those who Obama considers to be above middle class would, as mentioned above, be a smarter way to stimulate the economy.  Save them thousands on taxes, and they can spend those thousands to hire someone for their business.  Tax them more and they can get their businesses essential functions taken care of by more affordable workers overseas. 

 

Topic: Blame it on Bush, Part Deux

Obama’s stance: “The problem is that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.”

Tiffany’s take: Funny that the recession didn’t get started and take hold until the Democrats took control of the House and Senate during the 2006 mid-term elections.  Wait…wasn’t Bush a Republican?  Gee, now I’m just confused.

Topic: Lobbyists

Obama’s stance: “It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.”

Tiffany’s take: Yes, let’s play Big Brother with lobbyists, because we clearly have nothing better to do with our time and efforts.  And I’m sorry – lobbyists represent individuals and corporations, who can certainly contribute to whoever’s campaign they wish.

 

Topic: Earmark Reform

Obama’s stance: “I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform.”

Tiffany’s take: Yep.  Because there were no earmarks in the healthcare bill.  *Snort*

 

Topic: Politics

Obama’s stance: “We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.”

Tiffany’s take: President Obama, may I present to you a MIRROR.

 

Topic: National Security

Obama’s stance: “All of us are committed to its defense.”

Tiffany’s take: With all due respect, Mr. President, I have never been convinced that you are.

 

Topic: Iraq

Obama’s stance: “But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.”

Tiffany’s take: Irresponsible.  Hand over everything to the Iraqis and turn tail.  Then we can all sit and scratch our heads in 10 years and wonder why their a mess.

 

Topic: Nuclear Weapons

Obama’s stance: “And at April's nuclear security summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C., behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.”

Tiffany’s take: We’ll ignore the fact that not-so-nice countries – North Korea, Iran, etc. – already have nuclear weapons and are developing more.  And “isolating” these nations and threatening “growing consequences” when there have been none tough enough to speak of in the past is just a silly way of dealing with this threat.  But in addition to having never been a businessman, Obama has also never been a military or foreign affairs expert.  And it clearly shows.

 

Topic: Human Rights and Iran

Obama’s stance: “Why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran.”

Tiffany’s take: The fact that he got this out with a straight face is unbelievable.  Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President.  And when millions took to the streets in Iran after clearly corrupt elections, you didn’t so much as say boo, let alone do anything to show your support of democracy in other countries or the preservation of human rights. 

 

Topic: The Future

Obama’s stance: “The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment — to start anew, to carry the dream forward and to strengthen our union once more.”

Tiffany’s take: I fervently believe in the spirit of the American people.  I also fervently hope for your defeat, Mr. President, in 2012, so that a truly learned and experienced leader can open doors for this nation that I don’t believe you are even capable of unlocking.

 

Overall take: The man is a decent orator, despite distractingly repetitive hand gestures.  The problem is that he didn’t really say much about the actual, current state of the union, did he?  More hope and change, change and hope.  Wait, I thought we weren’t still running for office…

Obama Remix

As usual, I feel compelled to offer my responses to the ideas put forth by our not-so-fearless Commander-in-Chief. In fact, I'm even resurrecting myself from 2+ weeks of battling pneumonia to do this. But it's just*that*important.

Here we go...

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan - the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here - at West Point - where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

Actually, it's more of a publicity stunt, which the contempt on the faces of various cadets illustrates fairly well.

To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

Mmm. Thanks for the history lesson. I'm just freaking glad you weren't president then. Without a decisive and strong leader like President Bush, our country would be a hell of a lot worse off today.

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda - a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban - a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

Seriously. We actually have to have a history lesson here?

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them - an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 - the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy - and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden - we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the UN, a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

I'm a student of history. And at this point in the speech, I'm bored out of my mind. Say something of substance, dude. I dare you.

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention - and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

Yes, thanks to the courage of military members for whom you've shown zero support and instead only offered arbitrary deadlines and hindsight judgments.

But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda's leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

And if anyone should be familiar enough to speak of (ACORN) corruption...

Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian effort.

And yet...you put off meeting with Gen. McChrystal for...how long? And actually took longer to approve these 30k more troops than it took to kick the Taliban out of Kabul in the first plan? Gee, what a strong leader you are. So thoughtful. So...useless.

Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation's Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and - although it was marred by fraud - that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and Constitution.

So here's my issue with this thought. We can't kill everyone who doesn't agree with us. And for every al Qaeda or Taliban "leader" we kill, there's another waiting to take their place. War is aggressive, yes, but it's also important to get on the same page and win hearts and minds instead of just battles.

Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan Security Forces and better secure the population. Our new Commander in Afghanistan - General McChrystal - has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.

Just couldn't resist the Bush dig, could you?

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and with our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people - and our troops - no less.

Wow. And again, this man just has no concept of either the military or of being a leader.

This review is now complete. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.

So...it's kinda like a field trip. A field trip to Afghanistan. We'll just go sightseeing, stay a few months, look around, and head out. GREAT idea.

I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

Yeah....first issue. Obama has no idea of long-term consequences. Let's face it. He's never stayed in a job long enough to see anything through. And the good Lord willing, the voters will ensure that in 2012, that trend continues. Second issue. Yes, many in the US are opposed to the military action in Iraq. But many, many, many also support it. But Obama only cares about what HE cares about. Third issue...putting people to work at home. Which is why, historically, so many people join the MILITARY in order to have a steady and meaningful career.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you - a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have travelled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

Do you want a cookie? And WHAT?! So, Obama, you're confirming your stance as an isolationist, are you?

So no - I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America's war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

Oh, you mean those allies you trotted around the world apologizing to for what a bad citizen the US is within the world? Would those be the allies that you are far more concerned with impressing than working with? Or are those the allies that denied you the Olympics but yet ensured that a person who has ZERO professional achievements outside of popularity contests won a Nobel prize?

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

Is he working from Cliff notes here?

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

I've already expressed my thoughts on arbitrary timelines, yes?

The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 - the fastest pace possible - so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

I thought we were trying to find an equitable way to bring an end to hostility, not train proxies to stand in our stead.

Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility - what's at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.

Aww...kumbaya.

Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government - and, more importantly, to the Afghan people - that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

Responsibly? Like saying you're closing Gitmo without any sort of feasible plan in place? Transition? Like tucking tail and running? Conditions on the ground? Until July 2011, and then who cares? Dude.

Second, we will work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas - such as agriculture - that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation - by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand - America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect - to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

You're dreaming.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan's capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

I'm sure the Pakistani people are touched. Screw the Iranians affected by the Iraq war. Let's head elsewhere.

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

Maybe he's taken Toastmasters pointers in summation. Or maybe his teleprompter is just getting smarter, cause The Man sure isn't.

I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.

Which is why you were smirking as you delivered this line?

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. Yet this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now - and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance - would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

I refuse to understand the constant need to trash the military actions in Vietnam. I think that more people, including our clueless president, need to spend a bit more time studying military history instead of regurgitating wrong-headed pundits.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we cannot leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan Security Forces and give them the space to take over.

Well, with all due respect, this is what YOU basically wanted and backed for most of 2009. Somebody apparently smacked you upside the head...too bad they didn't do it hard enough to make you lose your arbitrary dates as well.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort - one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

As a PMP, here's my take on timelines. It's GREAT to have a proposed deadline. It's IMPERATIVE to have milestones in place to ensure that you're accomplishing your goals. It's IRRESPONSIBLE, FOOLHARDY, and CONCEITED to ignore the human elements of WAR in

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who - in discussing our national security - said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Unless they have to do with unnecessary healthcare reform or cap and trade, that is.

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance, and failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars.

Yep. A war should only ever be fought based on how much it costs. Great idea. Wonderful. Wow

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly 30 billion dollars for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

*Snort.*

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended - because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.

*Double snort.* Out of curiosity, Mr. President, have you considered the impact on unemployment and the economy when you bring all of our troops home, decommission them, and there are no jobs they can go into?

Let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions and diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold - whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere - they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we cannot count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

I suggest you take ginkgo biloba. Might help your chances of saving yourself from being remembered as the President with the weakest foreign policy ever.

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons - true security will come for those who reject them.

Yep. Let's take away all of the nukes. Then get rid of our own. Then act totally shocked when it turns out that, wow, a bunch of really bad people still have them. I know this goes against the fiber of your being, Obama, but Mutually Assured Destruction worked. Ask Chamberlain what being an optimistic appeaser does.

We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World - one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values - for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home - which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America's authority.

Yep. Just like we've helped the Iranians after their farce of an election.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions - from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank - that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

And in one fell swoop, you're going to undo that. Yay for you.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades - a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

One does not join the military in order to receive gratitude. That's the difference between the honorable men and women in our military and YOU, Obama - they understand service to others; you understand only service to self.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for - and what we continue to fight for - is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

Yeah, I'm just not seeing that rosy future you are. In fact, I'm seeing you ruin that rosy future.

As a country, we are not as young - and perhaps not as innocent - as we were when Roosevelt was President. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

Challenge number 1: ensuring you aren't re-elected.

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people - from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.

Personally, if I were a cadet, I'd take offense at Obama mouthing off about businesses rebuilding an economy that SOLDIERS GIVE THEIR LIVES TO ENSURE THE EXISTENCE OF.

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue - nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united - bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we - as Americans - can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment - they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, one people.

One people...who are not really united behind you. Even the Obamanistas are really not fawning over you much any more. And thank God for that!

America - we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you, God Bless our troops, and may God Bless the United States of America.

See, I've heard nothing from you that sounds unwavering. I've heard regurgitated crap, pandering nonsense, and overall nothing, nothing, nothing of substance. But, alas, I am not surprised.

What about you, readers?

Speaking Up

Sometimes, the hardest thing to do is to speak up.

Putting up information on the internet, sending emails, commenting on articles...all of those mediums can get information out, but don't rise nearly to the level of making a public statement in front of the very body you are seeking to influence.

Many of you have watched in horror over the past few months as hysterical activists have taken over the city of Fort Worth and actively set out to hijack an otherwise ordinary occurrence to use as a political agenda. Along the way, ruining a few lives or reputations wasn't even an afterthought for these individuals.

We've been so lucky to have such a supportive family and circle of friends during this time. I've heard from you with phone calls, emails, Facebook notes and more about how ridiculous this entire situation is.

But I still needed to publicly speak up.

With Kristen in tow, I visited the Fort Worth City Council meeting last night and finally got my say. It wasn't when I wanted to - I got slotted in to speak during the response time for a resolution, instead of during the citizen presentation time - and I had less time than I wanted - I used precious seconds to explain that I wasn't speaking either for or against the resolution - but I got out my thoughts.

The Council all maintained eye contact with me, my own Councilman nodded along, and Kristen wasn't the only one clapping after the bell ring to signify the end of my time. I even received kind words afterwards from several folks, including one area journalist.

All in all, I felt exhilarated to have spoken up. It might not change a damn thing...but at least I said my piece.

And yes...I'll be posting a link to the prepared speech soon...check back!

Minor Celebrity

I think what's bugged me the most about these past few months and dealing with the backlash of the Rainbow Lounge is that my husband has become a minor celebrity. But not a much-loved celebrity. Instead, well, yeah. Lots of morons spewing lots of idiotic invectives.

Chris tried to break out of this and granted an interview to the local NBC station today...hopefully it'll be well-received. But, honestly, I don't care. I could give a damn what those activists think of my husband, me, and my family. We've consistently taken the high ground, and facts and the truth are on our side. They can go spin themselves into a tizzy until kingdom come, but, and this is so fortunate, the local citizenry, including members of their own community, have grown sick of their antics and wish they would go away almost as fervently as I've wished for the same since early July.

In any case...go check it out on NBCDFW.

Obama and Healthcare = Nausea

So there's this funny thing about Obama. He actually causes me to NEED healthcare...because whenever I hear him speak about it, I become nauseous. A recap of my tweets during his speech tonight:

• Because wiggling my nose didn't have the intended effect of getting the Spender in Chief off my TV, I'm going tweet about his "ideas."
• If the country for which I was the chief elected official was in as bad a shape as ours, I wouldn't have a big grin on my face like HE does.
• OBAMA has pulled the economy back from the brink? He actually got that out with a straight face? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
• I hope that Obama WILL be the last president to address this issue. Let's tell him firmly NOW that he needs to go away and end it.
• Obama is trying to put insurance companies out of business. If he headed a company trying to limit another, it'd be an antitrust issue.
• Hey Obama, if our healthcare system is so bad, why do people come here from all over the world, seeking treatments unavailable elsewhere???
• Presidents should be required to run a company before running the country. CLEARLY, this man has ZERO business sense. OBAMA=FAIL.
• Let me be very clear on something here: I would be just as opposed to these "healthcare reform measures" if it was McCain advocating them.
• THAT'S THE PROBLEM - everybody's "part" should be taking care of themselves...not making insurance coverage mandatory.
• The government deciding if a business can afford insurance for it's employees is Big Brother at it's scariest.
• His guiding principle is choice? Don't make me laugh. If he was about choice, he wouldn't be ramming this proposal down our throats.
• Not having pre-existing condition exclusions will put insurance companies out of business. "Giving" to those who can't afford will as well.
• How can this joker say in one breath that he isn't trying to put ins. companies out of business while arguing so stridently against them?
• What the heck poll is Obama looking at? The polls I've seen say that tax-paying Americans do NOT favor a public option.
• I'm sorry; the government regulating costs is completely at odds with the most fundamental ideals of capitalism.
• The key to healthcare reform isn't single payer or forced competition or mandated covered. It's tort reform. Stop frivolous lawsuits, done.
• Oh, good. Obama will protect Medicare. Which is going broke anyways. Yay.
• It's NOT better politics to kill the plan than to improve it. It's better SENSE. Take out politics.
• Oh good. Teddy could imagine what it would be like to not have insurance. Too bad he didn't imagine getting Mary Jo out of his sinking car.
• Ha! Medicare as a good example of government healthcare? Then why does my mom need a $400/mo supplemental plan to cover just basics?

Yeah...if this goes through, we're screwed.

Political FRAUD

I'm from Pennsylvania. Almost seven years ago, I moved to Texas.

Back in PA, there is some political FRAUD taking place right now. Long-time Republican Senator Arlen Specter has decided to flip to the dark side and become a Democrat.

Fraud. FRAUD.

The people who elected you, Mr. Specter, are your Republican constituents. As a former member of that class, I'll tell you that we always knew you were a pretty left-leaning Republican, but you were a Republican nonetheless. You were elected time and time again INSTEAD of a Democrat.

My dad, who you knew for decades, liked a lot of your politics. I'm glad he didn't have to witness this debacle, however. I imagine he's just flipped over in his grave.

So thank you, Mr. Specter, for abandoning your electorate in an attention-getting move that shows your willingness to pander to our new administration.

And may you be soundly defeated in your next re-election attempt.

I'm ticked!

To Rule and To Serve

Kelly McCrady shared a link to this post with me, from blogger "LawDog." Go visit (this site definitely deserves checking out). I've also reposted the video in question here for you to review. Pay very careful attention to wording used 30 second in.

Election Preview

Tomorrow might be a very scary day. It could also turn out to be a very, very good day.

Nearly every poll in America is predicting not only an Obama win, but an Obama blowout.

The blog Vox Popoli, however, takes a different view. Check it out!

But I hope - and believe - that we may have a "Dewey defeats Truman" event in the making. Polls are so subjective - and statistically, their predictions do not always correctly portend actual outcomes.

Instead of rehashing all of my political beliefs, here are links to my past reactions:

1st Presidential Debate Wrap Up
2nd & 3rd Presidential Debate Wrap Up
Vice Presidential Debate Wrap Up

Republican Convention Recap
Democratic Convention Day 1
Democratic Convention Day 2
Democratic Convention Days 3 & 4

A Governor and a Community Organizer
Stupid People Voting

I've already voted - the hubby and I took advantage of early voting and headed to the polls last Thursday. And I'm sure you know who we both voted for. But now it's your turn. Cast your ballot for who you may. And remember this important axiom: if you fail to exercise your right, privilege and ability to vote, you forfeit your right, privilege and ability to complain.

Debate 2 & 3 Wrap Up

Yes, I know...it WOULD take me until the day before the election to get to this, wouldn't it?

Here are some of my thoughts from the 2nd and 3rd Presidential Debates:

Debate #2, Belmont University

• Question #1 - Solutions for the down economy
  Obama: "It means help for homeowners so that they can stay in their homes. It means that we are helping state and local governments set up road projects and bridge projects that keep people in their jobs."
  Obama has forgotten, yet again, about the role of the Federal government. First, homeownership is not a Federal issue - no how, no way. Second, it is NOT within the purview of the Federal government to step in and "help" state and local governments unless (a) that help is specifically requested and (b) it is for an issue that the Federal government should address. And jobs are not a Federal issue! And furthermore, where is the money going to come from to create these jobs? This idiot proposes more and more and more spending but swears taxes will go down instead of up. He needs a basic lesson in (a) the Constitution (power to the states/people) and (b) math.
  McCain: "We obviously have to stop this spending spree that's going on in Washington. Do you know that we've laid a $10 trillion debt on these young Americans who are here with us tonight, $500 billion of it we owe to China?"
  Thank you. NO MORE WASHINGTON SPENDING. We need to CUT, not ADD.
• Question #2 - How does bailout package help ordinary citizens
  McCain: "...one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. ... But you know, they're the ones that, with the encouragement of Sen. Obama and his cronies and his friends in Washington, that went out and made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back."
  Again, thank you. Thank you for acknowledging that the fault in bulky home loans lies between the lenders and the buyers, NOT The Federal government.
  Obama: "Right now, the credit markets are frozen up and what that means, as a practical matter, is that small businesses and some large businesses just can't get loans. If they can't get a loan, that means that they can't make payroll. If they can't make payroll, then they may end up having to shut their doors and lay people off."
  Talk about ALARMIST! How many businesses actually need loans to make payroll? Certainly not the millions of businesses that Obama predicts. This is a stupid thought in the first place, because it would seem to suggest that they'd need a loan every payday. Come on now.
• Question #3 - How can either be trusted with money
  Obama: I'm not even going to quote him, here. His answer was completely scattered, he had no plan or solution to offer, and simply sounded like an idiot.
  McCain: Again, I'm not going to quote. However, I like how McCain pointed to his record versus Obama's, clearly showing that he better understands the economy.
• Question #4 - What sacrifices will Americans need to make to get out of the economic mess
  McCain: "I first proposed a long time ago that we would have to examine every agency and every bureaucracy of government. And we're going to have to eliminate those that aren't working. ... I believe that we have to eliminate the earmarks. And sometimes those projects, not -- not the overhead projector that Sen. Obama asked for, but some of them that are really good projects, will have -- will have to be eliminated, as well. And they'll have to undergo the same scrutiny that all projects should in competition with others."
  This is a fabulous response. A politician suggesting less money be spent - it's the obvious solution, but not one that many would acknowledge.
  Obama: Nothing worthy of quoting. Apparently, he thinks we should save energy. And that'll fix the economy. I know...I'm laughing, too.
• Question #5 - What about unfunded obligations to Social Security and Medicare
  Obama: This idiot alludes to taking on entitlements during his first term as President. Let's not get cocky, here. Don't allude to your first term as if that's a guarantee, let alone a second term. In his response, he outlines his tax plan - with the moving target of income limits to get a break. Never alludes to Social Security or Medicare.
  McCain: He didn't give specifics of what to be done, but he did one better - suggested putting together a commission to address instead of assuming that he has all the right answers himself. Bravo!
• Question #6 - Congress and Environmental issues
  McCain: His response was to advocate nuclear power. And how he and Sen. Lieberman went around looking at greenhouse gas emissions. Um, not a response, per se.
  Obama: He didn't really respond directly, either, looking only at energy issues. Null point.
• Question #7 - Healthcare as a commodity
  Obama AND McCain: Ok, folks. You already know how I feel about healthcare - and let me remind you that I've worked in healthcare. Obama is suggesting socialized medicine. Period. And I'm opposed to that 100%. McCain is suggested supplementation through income tax credits. I'm not really thrilled with that either. My opinion is to let it alone. Know what? I've had major medical issues myself. I've gone into debt to pay for them. But I'd rather that be the case than have to follow government mandates over managing my own health.
• Question #8 - Economic stress vs. America's position as a peacemaker
  McCain: "I am convinced that my record, going back to my opposition from sending the Marines to Lebanon, to supporting our efforts in Kosovo and Bosnia and the first Gulf War, and my judgment, I think, is something that I'm -- a record that I'm willing to stand on. Sen. Obama was wrong about Iraq and the surge. He was wrong about Russia when they committed aggression against Georgia. And in his short career, he does not understand our national security challenges. We don't have time for on-the-job training, my friends."
  All I can say is: AMEN!
  Obama: "Now, Sen. McCain and I do agree, this is the greatest nation on earth. We are a force of good in the world. But there has never been a nation in the history of the world that saw its economy decline and maintained its military superiority."
  Really, Obama? Isn't it your wife who said she was finally proud to be an American? And next, I've already addressed that your little remark here is wrong. During the Great Depression, we proved our military superiority by kicking ass in World War 2. Get your facts straight. Oh, wait. You can't. That would mean not making up stuff to suit your own agenda.
  
  
  
• Annnnd...this is where I lost interest, quite honestly. There were still a few questions left, but I drifted off.

Debate #3, Hofstra University

Selected quotes and my responses:

• It's funny to me that right off the bat, when asked about finances, both McCain and Obama repeated exact phrases from the prior debate.
• It's funnier that Obama can't seem to keep his own numbers straight. Is it $250k or $200k that makes someone right, you dumb fool? He uses both numbers in subsequent responses. Get it straight!
  
• Oh, my gosh. Joe the Plumber. Hasn't this man already had more than his 15 minutes of fame? Let's move on, people!
• It's not hard for a small business to make MORE than $250k.
  
• For the record, Mr. "I don't mind paying a little more" Obama, spreading the wealth around is a SOCIALIST or COMMUNIST concept.
• When asked what each man would cut in spending, Obama gave vague answers and McCain pointed to how he's saved taxpayer money in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Yay, McCain!
• McCain: "Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago. I'm going to give a new direction to this economy in this country."
  BRAVO! Well stated! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Obama!
• Obama: "If I'm interested in figuring out my foreign policy."
  A sphincter says what?
• McCain: "You don't tell countries you're going to unilaterally renegotiate agreements with them."
  Yes, but Obama thinks he's above the rules of fair play.
• Obama: "I exempt small businesses from having to pay into a kitty."
  Do ya, now? Ain't that special. Considering that if you become President, you'll be an EXECUTIVE, not a LEGISLATOR.
• Obama: "I think it's going to be critically important for us to recruit a generation of new teachers, an army of new teachers, especially in math and science, give them higher pay, give them more professional development and support in exchange for higher standards and accountability."
  So...instead of improving current resources, you'd swap them out for next gen. Pay more? You idiot. With what money? This is NOT a FEderal issue.
• McCain: "So choice and competition amongst schools is one of the key elements that's already been proven in places in like New Orleans and New York City and other places, where we have charter schools, where we take good teachers and we reward them and promote them."
  I agree with this wholeheartedly. Because my child will not step one foot in the public schools that my neighborhood feeds into. A charter school or enrolling in the neighboring school district - that'd be fine. Otherwise, it's private school or homeschooling for us.

And...that's that. Again, I don't support every idea from McCain...but they're, by and large, far more rational than anything I've heard uttered by Obama.

Happy voting!