Question: When you read "Homeland Security" what comes to mind? Is it a warm, fuzzy feeling that you and your family are being protected?
How'bout "TSA?" Do you think "competence?"
"Department... of... Justice." Do you think "justice?"
Raise your hand if you don't believe that local law enforcement is misused for revenue collection via traffic ticket quotas.
Remember General Patraeus...? What ever happened to "The Savior of the Afghanistan War Effort?" Oh, yeah... he - along with Obama, Clinton, and Panetta failed to see Benghazi coming and when it came... they failed to rescue our people. (Oh... and let's not forget Patraeus was also banging a reporter... perhaps passing on classified info so as to boost her career.)
Jon Corzine? Charlie Rangel? They both got away with their crimes and indeed both men are still quite active in politics - Corzine as a money-man behind the scenes and ol' Charlie still an "Honorable" Member of the United States House of Representatives.
Question: Were you proud of your country - our country - when you were a kid? To my generation specifically, were you proud to be an American during the Reagan years?
Forgive me... the above is a "bit" of a trick question. Actually, I was proud of being an American even during the Carter years! And I bet that you - my peers - were too. Sure, the Carter years were a disaster... but it never occurred to most American to blame America back then. No... we still had faith in our institutions... in "The American Way."
How'bout now, folks... are you proud of America today... what we've become... the people we've elected to "represent" us?
Do I sometimes strike you as too pessimistic... as too "down on America?"
Well, folks... think about the basic questions I've just raised. Think about just how far your America has sunk in just the past 13 years under a Republican President and a Democrat President... under Republican Congresses, Democrat Congresses and now a "mixed" Congress.
Perhaps at times I go overboard... but unless the great mass of the American People start facing the reality of the situation...
(*SHRUG*)
3 comments:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/10278702/EU-plans-to-fit-all-cars-with-speed-limiters.html
* HERE'S THE HEADLINE:
EU plans to fit all cars with speed limiters
* EU STANDS FOR EUROPEAN UNION... WHICH (FOR THE MOMENT) INCLUDES GERMANY... HOME OF THE AUTOBAHN.
All cars could be fitted with devices that stop them going over 70mph, under new EU road safety measures which aim to cut deaths from road accidents by a third.
* IF THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENS OVER THERE... HOW LONG TILL OUR OUT OF CONTROL BUREACRATS TRY TO INSTITUTE A SIMILAR SCHEME HERE?
Under the proposals new cars would be fitted with cameras that could read road speed limit signs and automatically apply the brakes when this is exceeded.
* I NEED A DRINK...
The new measures have been announced by the European Commission’s Mobility and Transport Department as a measure to reduce the 30,000 people who die on the roads in Europe every year. Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, is said to be opposed to the plans... A Government source told the Mail on Sunday Mr. McLoughlin had instructed officials to block the move because they ‘violated’ motorists’ freedom.
* THANK GOD SOMEONE HAS SOME COMMON SENSE!
A spokesman for the European Commission said: “There is a currently consultation focusing on speed-limiting technology already fitted to HGVs and buses.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324009304579047542466837078.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories
After a 45-minute walk Friday night, President Barack Obama made a fateful decision that none of his top national security advisers saw coming: To seek congressional authorization before taking military action in Syria.
* GOOD... FOR... OBAMA...! HE DID THE RIGHT THING!
The stunning about-face after a week of U.S. saber rattling risked not only igniting a protracted congressional fight, which could end with a vote against strikes, but a backlash from allies in the Middle East who had warned the White House that inaction would embolden not only Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but his closest allies, Iran and Hezbollah.
* THE PRESIDENT HAS NO UNILATERAL AUTHORITY TO ATTACK SYRIA ABSENT CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION... OR... IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO A DIRECT ATTACK OR TO PREEMPT A DIRECT ATTACK UPON US OR TREAT ALLIES WE'RE BOUND TO DEFEND OR AS PROTECTION OF VITAL U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. (SUCH AS A THREAT TO THE SUEZ CANAL, LET'S SAY.)
Aides said the decision was made by Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama alone. It shows the primacy the president places on protecting his hoped-for legacy as a commander in chief who did everything in his power to disentangle the U.S. from overseas wars.
* HUH...??? L*I*B*Y*A...?!?! YEMEN...??? HIS ROOTING ON OF THE SO-CALLED "ARAB SPRING?" (OBVIOUSLY THE WRITERS/EDITOR OF THIS PIECE ARE ATTEMPTING TO PAINT A VERY POSITIVE PICTURE OF THIS PRESIDENT AND HIS FOREIGN POLICY.)
Until Friday night, Mr. Obama's national-security team didn't even have an option on the table to seek a congressional authorization.
* FOLKS... SERIOUSLY... WHAT DOES THIS TELL YOU ABOUT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Mr. Obama made no secret to aides he felt uncomfortable acting without U.N. Security Council backing.
* BUT... BUT... THE CONSTITUTION...???
The change in Mr. Obama's thinking confounded White House insiders. Some raised concerns about the decision. They asked what would happen if Congress refused to authorize using force, a senior administration official said.
* THEN THAT WOULD BE THAT. IF OBAMA WERE TO VIOLATE A DIRECT CONGRESSIONAL REFUSAL TO ALLOW HIM TO ACT, IF HE DID ACT, EACH AND EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE TO IMPEACH HIM AND EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE SENATE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE TO CONVICT HIM. NOT DOING SO WOULD BE THE END OF ANY PRETEXT THAT AMERICA STILL EXISTS AS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC UNDER THE RULE OF LAW.
Until Friday night, Mr. Obama's national-security team was focused on only consulting Congress, rather than seeking a vote on an authorization to use force. Mr. Obama's team concluded that Mr. Obama had the legal authority to act without congressional authorization and was proceeding on that basis.
* OBAMA SHOULD FIRE HIS TEAM. TO BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS TO REJECT THE CONSTITUTION AND REJECT THE CONCEPT OF BALANCE OF POWER WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SUCH VIEWS ARE ANATHEMA TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
During the walk, Mr. Obama told Chief of Staff Denis McDonough his thinking — that consulting with Congress wasn't enough — lawmakers should have to go on the record one way or the other.
* THE QUESTION IS... IS THIS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL THINKING... OR HIS POLITICAL THINKING? THE ANSWER GETS TO THE CORE OF EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS.
Later Friday night, Mr. Obama told aides the decision reflected his growing frustration with lawmakers who appeared to want to have it both ways—criticizing the president for not seeking congressional authorization, and then criticizing the decisions he makes.
* AND THAT'S A TOTALLY VALID CRITICISM OF MOST OF THE SCUMBAGS - REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT - WHO "SERVE" IN CONGRESS.
Current and former officials said Mr. Obama wanted to force Congress to make the decision so lawmakers own it as much as the president does.
* AS IT SHOULD BE! AS THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS! (BTW... STILL NO MENTION OF "THE CONSTITUTION" EXCEPT FROM MY OWN INSERTIONS.)
(*PURSED LIPS*) (*SIGH*)
* NOPE... GOT TO THE END OF THE ARTICLE... NO DEFINITIVE STATEMENT FROM OUR PRESIDENT AS TO WHETHER HE BELIEVES CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR MILITARY ACTION IS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR NOT. NOTHING REGARDING WHAT HAPPENS IF CONGRESS VOTES "NAY."
Post a Comment