Colt V. Ables

Thankful

2009-11-26T09:48:00.001-08:00

I am thankful for my family and friends, thankful for this great state, thankful for this great country. Thankful for the men and women of the military who continue to defend the freedoms that we were founded upon, understanding the sacrifice, and protecting our way of life.

I am thankful for those who I have been able to call my family and friends who I have lost over the past year for being allowed to know them and have them in my life, Mike Player, my great-grandmother Maw Bradford, and my Uncle James Riley.

I am also thankful for the life I have been given, for all those whom I have crossed paths with. I am thankful for the many blessing God has bestowed on my life and my family, but I think what I am most thankful for, is the swell job that President Obama is doing.

By waiting two months to formulate a position on Afghanistan while over 120 troops in Afghanistan were killed in combat, for the Healthcare that he and other Democrats in Congress are proposing that will only help to spiral us into further debt and destroy the concept of choice in medicine, I am thankful for President Obama’s continuing Tour de Apologia, apologizing for the many evils our country has purported over the years while we are the country to first come to the rescue in the third world with humanitarian aid. The country that has looked down the likes of Hitler and spilled American blood on foreign battle fields to protect our friends and allies. Freeing those from tyranny and oppression in the ideals that all people deserve to know freedom and the power it possesses for the individual.

Honestly thankful for President George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rice and others who exhibited great pride in our country and who were not afraid to do what was necessary to protect us.

I am thankful for America, our people, our values, our principles, and what we have stood for since our founding, and I say that with the utmost pride and without apology.

OFFICIALLY DITHERING

2009-11-14T16:17:00.000-08:00

When General Stanley McChrystal, the US Commander in Afghanistan gave his assessment regarding the current conditions in Afghanistan and a plan going forward on August 30, 2009, I do not think he thought there would be a two month delay before a decision would be made. When President Obama made his statement about dismantling and defeating al Qaeda, we all thought he was serious. Now that his liberal wing is calling for a full redeployment from Afghanistan, a decision has not been made.

Since the release of the initial assessment and General McChrystal's troop request, more than 107 American soldiers have died in Afghanistan while President Obama, as Vice President Dick Cheney put it, is "dithering" in making this decision.

Over the past week, information has leaked out that President Obama is contemplating a “hybrid” option that would give General McChrystal less than the prescribed 40,000 troop number but would also implement a partial counterterrorism strategy, which Vice President Joe Biden has been lobbying for. The current troop levels, NATO and all coalition forces are estimated to be about 100,000 in Afghanistan, with 68,000 being American forces. Add the 40,000 troops that the general requested for the counterinsurgency strategy to work, and then subtract the number of troops that were requested but did not make it into President Obama’s strategy and then subtract those who will be focusing on the counterterrorism efforts and not the COIN operations. Right now, we do not know that number, but to put the operations into context, General McChrystal will have less force to focus on the counterinsurgency strategy that he has set out.

When politics comes into play, as it clearly has over the past few months, beginning when Nancy Pelosi mentioned in August that President Obama would face opposition if he wanted to increase the troop levels in Afghanistan, the “decider” faces pressure from all directions. Current polling suggests that it is about 48% of the public opposes sending more troops and 46% believe that you should supply the General with the resources he needs to succeed.

This is a war that we have been fighting for more than eight years now, that for six of the eight years had been under-resourced and allowed the Taliban and al Qaeda to gain the initiative. The status quo is not the answer, with the credibility of the government being called into question and the looks of the run-off election in Afghanistan between President Karzai and his challenger Abdullah Abdullah already with calls of fraud and boycott. The Afghan people need to be reassured of their safety. Currently, the Taliban and al Qaeda act as mayors in these towns promising to provide protection, as long as they do not aid the coalition forces, which could result in the loss of their life if the citizens do so. The people are looking for safety, and the only groups that have stepped up to the plate are those who wish to terrorize. The counterinsurgency strategy would provide for troops to assist and aid in each community and province and essentially root out the insurgents.

With that being said, successes need to be made. The violence is paralyzing the Afghan society and without any sign of success by the coalition forces, the will of the coalition will continue to erode only allowing the enemy to celebrate because their end goal is to see us leave the region in defeat. To avoid such a disaster, the strategy must be changed, but to continue to wait only puts more troops in danger and the American people will continue to question President Obama’s role as Commander in Chief. General McChrystal spent over three months putting together a strategy based on conditions on the ground, President Obama has met with his military and political advisors for less than 30 hours to discuss the Afghan strategy in a matter of six weeks. If you were the American soldier or an Afghan citizen, who would you wish to have your fate in the hands of?

Power vs. Popularity, as written 8/29/2009

2009-10-12T21:52:00.000-07:00

Ever since we have fallen away from the doctrines of isolationism, America has been known as the lone superpower in the world. When after 40 years the Soviet Union stood down in the face of a stronger, more cunning opponent, America continued to rise above the fray and came to the aid of our allies to defeat the threats that attempted to overpower them. But as administrations come and go, policy shifts according to ideology and in the current political torrent affecting our country, popularity and placating to the world have become our rhetoric of choice abroad.

The days of exerting our view candidly and consistently have gone to the wayside. Over the past months, the administration has taken sides in Honduras, but not with the people in Iran, did not take action against provocation by North Korea, has attempted to reprimand our staunchest ally, stating they will be left to defend themselves on the occurrence of a first strike to protect themselves from Iran, but the administration has also attempted to dictate terms of Israeli domestic policy. These are all situations that exemplify a time when a different reaction was expected from the United States by both our friends and enemies.

During World War I and World War II, America sat on the sidelines for many of the battles, not assisting other countries whose soldiers and citizens were being killed. The idea was that ‘this is their war’ but we found that innate sense that our fellow man is dying and we are doing nothing, so we heeded the calls and came back victorious in our endeavors.

Fundamental isolationism still exists and many would like to see it regain its influence in both our foreign and domestic policy. Cutting the defense budget and allocating more funds to social programs for some, or cutting the defense spending to limit the expanse of our government internationally without using the funds for more government spending. Willful ignorance is the phrase that best describes those who do not see the need for our own defenses but relying on the United Nations to “keep the peace”. Interestingly, the United Nations members can never agree when it comes to assessing who an enemy is because each country represented in the UN are protecting their own national interests and friendships. When North Korea began launching missiles in April, China was slow to position itself against the country whom it is the sole provider for its sustenance. When the Bush administration went to the United Nations in 2002 and 2003, they fought for resolutions against Iraq but found it hard due to the self dealing of those countries who were benefiting from Iraq’s sanctions. Beyond the malfeasance of the organization, International consensus will seldom fall in favor of the United States.

To pursue popularity, as in the United Nations is to the detriment of our security. America has never been afraid to speak strongly and act in ways to back up our rhetoric. But for now, the strong and tough talk by the United States will be silenced to allow the countries who have not fought for their own peace or the dictatorial heads of certain countries to set the course. Exerting our power and influence has been coined as “arrogant” and “derisive” by President Barack Obama. And to much of our dismay, our policies towards the “Axis of Evil” are changing to fall in line with this new sense of world community. North Korea recently enjoyed the presence of former President Bill Clinton and Iran is still within the agenda of the Secretary of State.

To admit weakness or trepidation before a crucial task speaks of the ill-confidence held for a mission. We are currently fighting two wars, that regardless of your view of their legitimacy, American soldiers are protecting civilians against an enemy that has no uniform and is not afraid to die, often threatening America and wishing ill upon our way of life.

Showing weakness is a provocative action in itself. September 11, 2001, America had weak spots that the terrorists exploited for their gain, but at the expense of 2,977 American lives. In Afghanistan, as focus has been drawn from Iraq, the death toll of American troops in a month has increased to it’s highest since the start of the war, signaling the need for a battle plan for victory, a word that is not well received in the current administration. In Iraq, as our troops withdrew from the cities per the Status of Forces Agreement, the Iraqi Security Forces have taken control of their streets patrolling and foiling plots of the insurgents who wish for their democracy to fail. Last week, a deadly attack was launched in Iraq killing over 95 people, a sign that many accredit to “losing the war” but I tend to see it differently. Compared to the levels of casualties over the last few years, the numbers have dropped significantly and Iraq is on its way to complete sovereignty. Being delivered from a tyrant who kept his people in dire fear for their lives from him and from the actions that his own actions could bring upon them, the Iraqi people are safer today and many are thankful.

Progress has been made and the battles will be won, but not on the notion of exhibiting doubt or even the thought of exhibiting satisfaction without victory.

The popularity of America has been said to have fallen over the past eight years, and that point of view is right to a certain extent, but we embraced our values and did not falter even in the times of pain and suffering our country has been subjected to. American exceptionalism, we have something to exhibit pride for, we live in the greatest country founded on the basis of the advancement of freedom and liberty.

There is a reason why we exhibit much power in the world, it is not popularity and international consensus that makes our country great, it is our ability to stand up for what we believe is right and what is good for all. Standing up for freedom and helping those who are oppressed, and we have no apologies.

Aritcle as published in the College Republicans at UTA September Newsletter

Article as published in the Texas College Republicans Newsletter

Beyond our Borders as written on 7/29/2009

2009-10-12T21:44:00.000-07:00

With all this debate on health care, “cap and trade”, Sarah Palin, and other topics found broadcast on the news every fifteen minutes, there seems to be lacking something. Where has the foreign policy gone? You may hear an excerpt from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton every now and then, but what happened to North Korea and Iran.

Last week when Secretary Clinton attended a meeting of southeast Asian nations in Phuket, Thailand, a North Korean foreign minister commented about Secretary Clinton, “she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping,” and also saying, she “...is by no means intelligent” and calling her a “funny lady”. To be fair, they were never kind towards the Bush Administration either.

North Korea, a nation who in the past four months has displayed it’s missile capabilities by launching short, medium, and long-ranged missiles, and who also tested it’s nuclear capability underground. Now they are name calling? Sounds like the school bully who makes fun of you, causes you to flinch, but the question is, do they have the power and capabilities they proclaim to? Does the bully have the strength to shove you in your locker?

It is no secret that North Korea has an army numbering over one-million soldiers. Let’s add it up: a lot of soldiers, can fire missiles into allied territory, may possible have nuclear capabilities, and they are somewhat provoking action with missile launches and name calling. It sounds like someone is trying to keep an enemy at bay with a show of potential force and childish rhetoric.

In 1993, when President George H.W. Bush was visiting the Middle East and there came information of a potential attack on his motorcade by Saddam Hussein. What did we do, we launched a few cruise missiles at them in a punitive attack letting him know that such behavior would not be tolerated.

Now, before anyone says I am trying to say that we should strike North Korea because they made fun of Hillary Clinton, let me say, no. But I do feel that they have gotten away with too much over the last few months when their actions have shown to be hostile to neighboring countries and the problem is just with the government there, not it’s people.

But in Iran, you are dealing with a group of people who are still rallying in the streets, protesting the results of the election, the news coverage of that also died down when the media realized there would not be a change in the Iranian government, brought on by its own people. The coverage of the rallies was somewhat historic as we were able to see the atrocities that were being waged upon the protestors. Reality is that we are still dealing with a country whose leader has called for the extermination of Israel, has the capability to wage such an attack, as it has also shows with it’s missile capabilities, and who looks to the west with disgust and abhorrence.

Domestic issues are important to us, but what is also important is what is going on outside of our borders, and how it effects our present and our future.

Article as published in the College Republicans at UTA August Newsletter

The General's know best as written on 9/29/2009

2009-10-12T21:35:00.001-07:00

The Afghan War began on October 7, 2001 launching Operation Enduring Freedom to find Osama bin Laden, disarm and destroy al Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban government from power for harboring the terrorist organization.

The war is not over. An increase in troop levels is required to combat the resilient insurgency and help build the confidence of the Afghan people. A new strategy needs to be adopted to protect the population and defeat the insurgency.

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, intelligence reports from the Middle East and South Asia pointed to Afghanistan and al Qaeda as being behind the attacks.

Eight years later, after the fall of the Taliban and free elections, Afghanistan is still rampant with insurgents.

President Obama has followed through with his campaign promise focusing on Afghanistan by increasing troop levels in March by 21,000. On March 27, he said the new strategy was to, “Disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan,” and relayed a message to the terrorists, “We will defeat you.”

Taking such a hard-line on Afghanistan only weeks after his inauguration was a campaign promise Obama planned to keep when he classified Afghanistan as a war of necessity. But that hard-line is slowing eroding.

We must win in Afghanistan —our peace and our security depend on it. That notion as expressed by Obama in that speech is also felt by General Stanley A. McChrystal, Commander of the United States Forces in Afghanistan and the International Security Assistance Force. McChrystal released the “Commander’s Initial Assessment,” on August 30, laying out the current situation and the strategy for Afghanistan going forward.

The plan and conditions advocate implementing a “significant change,” in strategy, making sure the forces on the ground have the resources needed for success. “Time matters; we must act now to reverse the negative trends and demonstrate progress.”

The strategy needs adjusting, and according to McChrystal, the answer is a surge in troop levels to combat the insurgency in the most troubled provinces and increase training at all levels of the Afghan National Security Force (ANSF). The strategy Obama laid out in March included the acceleration of the growth of the ANSF to 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 by 2011. For success in Afghanistan, these increased troop levels are needed for the police and Afghan troop levels to be realized over the next sixteen months.. To put an Afghan face on the war, coordinating NATO and ISAF forces within ANSF for increased training is needed.

The Current troop levels in Afghanistan include 35,000 NATO troops and 65,000 American troops. General McChrystal has requested an additional 30,000 to 40,000 troops to help counter the insurgents. I understand no immediate decision made based on the stress it could pose overall on the United States Military, but time is running out. Everyday a decision is not made means further delay for positioning the forces in strategic victory and the possibility of more lives lost.

The Afghan people currently have a “crisis in confidence” with the Afghan government due to corruption and inability to provide basic services to citizens, including security. The perception of the Afghan people is being won by the insurgents whose arguments are fueled by the eight years we have inhabited Afghanistan. To win their confidence, the government and coalition forces must be seen as combating the insurgency and providing for the people. Operate within each community, learn the language, assist in providing services, and earn their trust. Once an area is cleared of insurgents, the area must be held by a number of troops to keep the insurgents from inhabiting that community and continue to terrorize and threaten its people.

Mr. President, take direction from the generals. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, General Petreaus, General McChrystal, and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen - all men who have the experience and tactical training to make this decision based on the proper assumptions and metrics. Before a situation in Iran can be acknowledged and implemented, the war in Afghanistan must be stabilized with an adequate counterinsurgency strategy.

I argue that Afghanistan is at a breaking point, much like Iraq in 2005 and 2006. President Obama acknowledged has that the strategy of the past eight years was not working but the current security force remains weak and ineffective.

With the current Afghani government in question due to election fraud, they are unable to produce tangible results in the eyes of the Afghan people. The current economy is weak, and the rule of law is lacking and not enforced due to the spread of insurgents throughout the different provinces. The insurgency, Taliban forces, and al Qaeda feed off of the lack of confidence of the people.

As General McChrystal stated, “time matters”. Someone will be defeated, and we have the choice to adopt a strategy that will ensure that those who will be defeated will not be the American or coalition forces, or the citizens of Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is at a critical point, the campaign is over and it is time to supply the troops and the ANSF with the sufficient resources and manpower for a strategic victory.

Article as published in The Shorthorn

Article as published in the College Republicans at UTA October Newsletter

Rest in Peace, Senator Kennedy as written 8/27/2009

2009-10-12T21:26:00.000-07:00

There are not many politicians in Washington, DC today with the characteristics of Senator Ted Kennedy. Although I did not agree with his politics and some of the causes he trumpeted, he was a man who stood for what he believed in.

A man who proudly accepted the label of being a liberal, quoting his brother, President John F. Kennedy saying, “... if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people. If that is what they mean by a liberal, I am proud to be a liberal.”

With that in mind, he was a staunch advocate in the 1960’s for civil rights, he was a man who championed education, carried the torch for financial aid means for college students, and was someone who rallied for healthcare as a right for all Americans.

Just like his brothers, he had his own ill-dealings in his personal life and that is something that he had to deal with for many years, but that should not be what we remember about him.

I had the opportunity to meet Senator Kennedy in February of 2008 when he came to campaign for then Senator Barack Obama in San Antonio. There are not many in my generation, let alone my party, who can proudly say that they shook the hand of Ted Kennedy and got to speak with him briefly.

In August of 2008 during the Democratic National Convention, I think Caroline Kennedy summed it up best when she said

“If you're no longer being denied a job because of your race, gender or disability, or if you've seen a rise in the minimum wage you're being paid, Teddy is your senator too.

If your children are receiving health care thanks to the Children's Health Insurance Program...If your child is getting an early boost in life through Head Start, or attending a better school or can go to college because a Pell grant has made it more affordable, Teddy is your senator too.”

The Kennedy name has been synonymous in politics since the early part of the 20th century when the father of Ted Kennedy, Joseph P. Kennedy, was the U.S Ambassador to Great Britain during World War II, brother John F. Kennedy being a member of Congress then elected President, brother Robert F. Kennedy was Attorney General in the Kennedy Administration then elected Senator of New York and began his run for the Presidency in 1968, and 47 years in the United States Senate, Edward M. Kennedy, the “Lion of the left”.

The Kennedy name comprising over a quarter of the history of the United States, regardless of your party or your personal feelings on the personal matters of the Kennedy family, there were many issues they confronted for the American people, and legislatively, Senator Kennedy accomplished many things that have helped to better many lives.

In 2008, Ted Kennedy ended his speech at the Democratic National Committee saying, “There is a new wave of change all around us, and if we set our compass true, we will reach our destination... The work begins anew. The hope rises again. And the dream lives on.”

Rest in peace, Senator Kennedy.

Article as written in The Shorthorn

Cash for Clunkers? as written on 8/9/2009

2009-10-12T21:24:00.000-07:00

Did you get your new and more fuel efficient car yet? Not going to
take advantage of the "Cash for Clunkers" legislation that was passed
a few weeks back to help people get into more fuel efficient cars? Oh,
you already took advantage of the $4500 tax credit and got yourself a
new ride? You are welcome. Anyone who takes advantage of that program
should be thanking the taxpayers who actually have to pay taxes into
the federal government.

I never agreed with this program, although it has helped the auto
industry. Ford reported a 55% jump in sales thanks to the program but
out of the top selling models under the program, only one was American
made, the Ford Focus. Wouldn't you think that after the government
aided bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM that maybe they should have
stipulated that the cars should be American made? I am no fan of
protectionism, nor was I a fan of the "Cash for Clunkers" program
either, but what better way to spur the American economy than to
stimulate and sell American made inventory. The UAW would have been
happy, the tax payer would be happy to see profit coming out of the
industry they put billions into over the past eight months.

But that is just one of the problems with the "clunkers" program. Once
these vehicles are traded into the dealers and they fill out 22 pages
of paperwork, they must disengage the engine to no longer be operable
and the vehicle gets hauled off to the junk yard. Now that is
government efficiency. Instead of donating the cars to be used by
those unable to have a car, the car gets destroyed. Right now, we are
still in a recession, millions of Americans are still unemployed and
there is not a sign that unemployment will let up anytime soon.

The point in the program was to help get older, less efficient cars
off the road and to help car sales which had been falling over the
past few quarters. Many of the cars that have been traded-in were paid
for, I am assuming and were old enough to where the owner may have
only been carrying liability insurance. Under that assumption, the
discount that many of these people ran to take advantage of, put them
under a new automobile loan and higher insurance. Depending on the
financial situation of those consumers and one of their desires to
take advantage of the program was to lower their fuel costs. Did it
really? Now being assessed a higher insurance premium for full
coverage on top of a new loan, who really won financially? I would go
even further to say that there is a high possibility that we could be
bailing out a few of these consumers a few months or a year down the
road when they can not make the payment for their new car.

This program may have provided temporary financial relief to a few,
and to help slightly reduce the emissions of carbon-dioxide pollution
from automobiles, but should the government play that role in our
society? This $1 billion program has burnt through it’s original
allocation of funding and required another infusion of $2 billion to
keep it going into the fall. That is $3 billion of tax payer funded
giveaway to fund a few program to benefit only a small portion of the
public. I guess one could call it a small redistribution that will
have only a minute net-effect for the consumer when you get to the
bottom line.

Article as written in The Shorthorn

Mission not-so Accomplished? As written 7/23/2009

2009-10-12T21:17:00.000-07:00

Last Wednesday, President Barack Obama held a press conference to help
clear up a few of the questions and qualms that people have with the
idea of health care reform and the current proposed legislation to
further that cause. I do not believe that he can hang the “Mission
Accomplished” banner just yet.

The “Blue Dog” Democrats are causing a stir because the legislation in
the House of Representatives does not reflect their core principal of
fiscal responsibility. The Congressional Budget Office Director
Douglas Elmendorf announced last week that the proposed House
legislation would actually “keep costs rising at an unsustainable
rate,” which goes against the main call for reform being the rising
health care costs. Within the last two weeks, according to Rasmussen
Reports, opposition to health care reform has grown from 45% to now
53% of the American people.

I understand that the President should not shift with the political
winds, but when a majority of Americans, according to most polling
data, are against the idea, maybe this is not something the American
people are looking for. Yes, a majority of Americans voted for
“change” but I believe that America is trying to say “thanks, but no
thanks,” in this particular case. Not to say that we do not need
reform in health care but rather the ideas that are being presented do
not provide the real reform that people are looking for.

"For those naysayers and cynics who think that this is not going to
happen, don't bet against us," Obama said according to a July 13
article in USA Today.
Mr. President, the numbers show that a majority of the country is
against you on this.
Many of the objections arise from the question of how will this reform
be paid for? Currently it has been proposed in the House that those
households making over $1 million will pay a 5.4% surtax to cover the
cost. That is an amount that in some states would put them paying over
half of their income in Federal and State taxes. So if this is the
case, those of you who are not fans of Donald Trump, Mark Cuban, and
others who help to create the jobs that you as Americans are given the
opportunity to work at, thank you. I guess it is only right to make
those who have the ability to pay for your health care. That sort of
sounds like another famous person who said “From each according to his
abilities, to each according to his needs.” That man was Karl Marx.

"It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the
option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it," Obama said.
Thanks for giving me the choice to keep my health insurance, Mr.
President. I am glad I still have that freedom but am worried that you
telling me that I am “allowed” this freedom that maybe eventually that
freedom may be taken away.

Mr. President, what is your plan B?

As written in The Shorthorn

Where is the right to oppose? as written 7/13/2009

2009-10-12T21:10:00.000-07:00

Dissent is the greatest tool we carry when dealing with the
encroachment of the government. Albeit disagreeing with the war,
fiscal policies, or policies in general. One could even say differing
in views from someone else is a right that is becoming even more
unpopular.

After the Iraq War began, people were said to be unpatriotic if they
had a negative view of the war, now you are unpatriotic if you do not
want the policies of President Obama to succeed, Un-American even.

My point of view is not often well received and even mocked because it
differs from someone of a different ideological persuasion. I thought
in America we were still allowed to have open discussion and
intelligent debate over issues. But to my discouragement, I was wrong
and in fact nurturing a view that is different from some is
unacceptable.

Some may forget, it was dissent from what was viewed as a tyrannical
government that led to the formation of this great country.

Beginning after the inauguration, a historic day, citizens began to
rise-up and protest the proposed spending and policies of President
Barack Obama. Some found it abhorrent that people would come out
against the ever-so popular President. They even dismissed the
protests on April 15, 2009 where only about 250,000 people came out in
protest but during the the Bush administration, every anti-war protest
got prime-time media coverage. On July 4, over 37,000 Texans gathered
in the DFW area to once again protest those same policies that are
viewed as a stranglehold on the economy and the taxpayer.

The beauty in our political process and even in today’s 24-hour news
cycle is that both sides can always present their view and spread it
to other sources in a matter of minutes.

But I am not to say that this is a left vs. right problem but an
overall issue with both sides who readily claim victim when the other
side is in power.

It is not unpatriotic to protest the war, outrageous spending either
with the Bush administration or the current Obama administration, the
Federal Reserve, abortion, or even the use of taxpayer dollars in ways
you disagree with, however, I do feel that it is unpatriotic to not
hold both sides to the same standards.

The purpose of the media is to present the news of the day and often
hold those involved accountable. We can’t complain about President
Barack Obama’s use of taxpayer dollars to go to New York for date
night without talking about the trips taken by President George Bush
to Crawford, TX. There is a double-standard in place and it must be
removed to bring fairness and unbiased presentation back to the news.

The weathering of certain rights must stop but the coddling of
President Obama and blatant endorsement of his policies in the media
need to be measured and alterations made. It should be about the
issues and presenting them to the people and not making personal
attacks and advancing an agenda.

As written in The Shorthorn

Political Apathy is Outdated as written on 7/6/2009

2009-10-12T20:57:00.000-07:00

The issue I see with students these days is the apathy felt in the
political realm. The other issue I see is the ignorance of some
students who do vote for the wrong reasons. It is not about being a
Democrat, Republican, Independent, or a Libertarian, it is about being
informed and knowing why you vote the way you do. It is not about the
popularity of a candidate as it is about the issues. Economic,
domestic, and foreign policy are the basis in which we should measure
a candidate.

Political affiliation is almost like a circle in which one spectrum in
the circle falls under complete government control, equal
distribution, i.e. socialism, and the other spectrum falls under no
government control, or anarchism. But these really are not terms that
are necessarily used to describe parties in mainstream America.
Liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Moderate or
Independent, and the term Libertarian are all synonymous to political
pundits and commentators to refer to their own ideology or that of
their detractors. Generally, all of these fall somewhere along that
circle and each reflects a common view with the other. But within each
of these classifications are other terms to reflect an even further
core of beliefs, such as conservatives. Conservatives are also divided
into neoconservative, paleoconservative, and the traditional
conservative, but that is neither here nor there.

The point is, regardless of your affiliation, you should know what you
believe and why you believe it. Whether you consider yourself pro-life
or pro-choice, your view on gun rights, entitlements, welfare, and
whether your believe America should have an interventionist foreign
policy or one of isolationism, know where you stand.

We are at a pivotal moment in our history, beyond the election of the
first African-American President, our nation is constantly changing
and very important issues are being raised and will be raised in the
future that will effect the direction of this great country.

Pick up a book, read a newspaper, political apathy or political
stupidity are no longer “hip” but rather outdated in a climate that
aroused a large number of students to cast their votes this past
election. Regardless of what ideology you may align yourself with when
you conclude your political curiosity, just find it. There are plenty
of people out there who are looking for people to fall into alignment
with a cult-like mentality of followers. Avoid that. Do not be one of
those who drones on talking points without knowing the real facts, but
rather look at an issue objectively and draw your own conclusions.

Article as written in The Shorthorn

The Climate Tax from 7/1/2009

2009-10-12T20:50:00.000-07:00

With wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the North Koreans provoking the
world, and the instabilities in Iran, the biggest threat to the United
States is CARBON DIOXIDE. We should thank Al Gore for his wonderful
advertising campaign, An Inconvenient Truth, for convincing the world
that CO2 is killing the Earth. With the ice caps on the brink of
melting and polar bears running out of ice to play on, we are in
trouble. The land masses of our planet will be overrun with water and
millions of people will drown. I suggest you buy a boat, or if you are
Al Gore and worry about the emission of CO2, buy a private jet, a
yacht and live in a mansion that uses enough electricity in a month to
power 10 average american households. Hypocrisy.

Al Gore sat in Tennessee and made phone call after phone call to
members of congress, trying to convince them to vote for the Cap and
trade bill on June 26th. Even with the firepower of Al Gore, Nancy
Pelosi, and with huge support from the Obama Administration, the bill
barely squeaked through the finish line to be passed. The vote was
219-212. 44 Democrats voted against it but sadly, 8 Republicans voted
for it, helping to push it through.

We live in the state of Texas, where oil and natural gas are abundant,
domestic resources that can be used to produce energy. Off our shores
there are massive amounts of resources to be used. If the problem is
with our importing of foreign sources, we can fill that void with the
use of domestic sources as mentioned and also nuclear energy. The
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is said to be about
jobs and moving America away from CO2 emitting forms of energy. It
truly is a noble cause but based upon lies.

During the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama touted the
creation of green collar jobs in the renewable energies sector. The
question is how does that effect the current jobs held by
non-renewable energy sector employees? The answer, greatly. Many
different studies have shown that this bill will cost over a million
jobs due to the inability for some firms to operate in the new
business climate that this “Climate” bill creates and a number of jobs
will be lost as the carbon caps hamper refineries and coal plants. All
this in the name of the “global climate crisis”.

I do not want to rant about questioning the science of “global
warming” when the other half of the scientific field disagree with
their findings, but we should not allow unproven science be the basis
for legislation that will effect all Americans.

Thank you House of Representatives for creating jobs in China and
India because with this legislation, employers will be forced to close
shop in America and go to places that will not hinder their
productivity. Until there is agreed participation by the rest of the
world’s industrial powers, this legislation should not be voted on by
the Senate.

Article as written in The Shorthorn

Iran and the GWB case for the spread of democracy

2009-07-01T12:23:00.000-07:00

In 1979, a revolution erupted in Iran that lead to the current repressive regime that is being protested by the Iranian youth wanting freedom.

Ayatollah Khamenei on Friday, June 19th gave a sermon rebuking the actions of those who had been protesting the June 12, election results for the prior week. “Death to America! Death to England! Death to Israel,” are among some of the chants that were heard during the Friday prayers in Tehran. The Ayatollah did warn of a crackdown on further protesting, and he followed through.

When the protests began on Saturday, June 13, after the election, they were peaceful protests demanding that their votes be counted. The Iranian election had a record turnout of over 32 million. In most parts because many disagree with the way that current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is running the country. The reformist candidate, Mir-Hossein Mousavi had grown increasing popular, especially among the under 30 demographic which compiles over 60% of the Iranian population. Hence, the ones out protesting are people our age wanting their votes to be counted.

When the results were released only hours after the polls closed, people questioned how could 32 million ballots be hand counted in just a matter of hours? The answer and the belief by the Iranian people who have taken to the streets, is that the election was rigged and the results do not reflect the will of the people. After the sermon when the Ayatollah rebuked the protests and warned of the crackdown, those protesting began to chant, “Death to the Ayatollah.”

The Iranians are fighting for freedom now. Over the week of protests, those protesting peacefully were provoked and dozens were either shot, beaten, or jailed. This isn’t freedom, this is oppression.

President Obama has made a number of statements but none to add to the words of his speech in Cairo where he spoke of freedom:

“...you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.”

These people are hungering for freedom. Over the last several years of witnessing their neighbors in Iraq and Afghanistan participating in the democratic process and having the freedom to do so, they want to be a part of that. As I said, many of these protesters are those under 30 who have been subject to this oppression where men and women get stoned or lynched in the streets.

Regardless of what the outcome of this may be, should the American President rise in solidarity with those dying in the streets for a taste of freedom? That is a tough question because currently we are being blamed for meddling in Iran’s internal affairs. This is where it would be great to have President George W. Bush back in office, because part of the “Bush Doctrine” was seen as spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Or like I implied earlier, maybe it was due to our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq that lead to the current desire for freedom in Iran.

George W. Bush would come out against Iran without any equivocation or a sense of appeasement. Courage and moral clarity is what is needed and the actions of President Obama over the past two weeks in regards to Iran have been all but that. The leadership of the greatest country, the greatest super power must be stern and stand behind those who seek liberty and freedom.

Marching down the streets with signs written in English and tweets on twitter proclaiming the evils that are happening, it is a cry for freedom and must be heard.

Article as written in The Shorthorn

A Response in The Shorthorn regarding this article

A prescription for America.

2009-06-17T17:46:00.000-07:00

Health care has always been a controversial issue when it comes to the political realm. The question is always, how much should the government be involved?

In 1993, it became a real hot-button topic and was deemed the term Hillary-Care because of Hillary R. Clinton’s involvement in the closed-door proceedings. The Clinton administration was looking to create a foundation for a program that would fulfill the goal of providing health care coverage for all Americans. The debate is back and President Obama wants a Health care bill on his desk before congress will recess at the end of July.

Healthcare does make up a large share of our economy and also a share of your income. In 2007, over 60% of bankruptcies were said to be related to the inability to pay for high health care costs according to a study conducted by The American Journal of Medicine. During the 2008 election in the October 7 debate, Tom Brokaw posed the question, "Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?" Obama answered that he thought of health care as a right, meaning that it is something that we should provide to all citizens like the countries of Canada or Cuba. If you have seen the movie 'Sicko' by Michael Moore, then you are aware of the great systems of healthcare provided by those countries. If you have not seen the movie, then you are better off and probably smarter for having not watched that abortion of a documentary.

The fallacy related to government run healthcare is that everyone is covered and you can get all the treatment you need. In the United Kingdom, healthcare is rationed based upon your age and life expectancy. Women are not able to get the medicine that would cure them of breast cancer because it is too expensive. With a government-run health care system, everyone will have a price on their head and would be viewed with a cost-benefit analysis.

Economically, health care is looked at as a luxury good. The more money you have, the more health care you will purchase. What about those who do not have the funds to purchase health care? There is the question that has stumped politicians and economists alike. There are currently 47 million who are uninsured that the government is wanting to get proper coverage for. Many of those are students and young Americans in the under 30 demographic. Why do they not have coverage? One reason is that they choose not to because they do not recognize the need for it. We are, for the most part, healthy individuals. The other argument is that they can not afford it.

Health care costs have skyrocketed over the last decade for a number of reasons: medical malpractice suits have caused a doctors liability insurance to rise, ER’s being used for regular doctors visits by those who are uninsured and unable to pay their bill and that causes what a hospital and doctor charges to be passed on to those who can pay, and there are many other reasons.

A Single payer system like Medicare/Medicaid, Co-op, individual mandates, and a public option are amongst the ideas being floated around. The people who will lose in the end, are the taxpayers. It is estimated that the health care reform will cost $1.2 trillion and cuts have been proposed to Medicare and Medicaid to help foot the bill. Other proposals to pay for it range from taxing your insurance benefits as personal income, implementing a Value added tax that will increase the price of goods over all, even a tax on carbonated beverages.

This health care debate has gotten out of hand. When President Obama campaigned during the election, he never provided specifics and he is not providing them now. Health care reform is needed, but the problem will not be solved by trying to mandate all Americans to be covered, or by establishing a new government bureaucracy like that of Medicare and Social Security. Both of those agencies currently make up a huge portion of our deficit. If the government can not run those systems, how can we expect them to run a health care system?

Here are a few suggestions to help preserve our current system and lower costs. First, put a cap on malpractice lawsuits, that will help to lower the costs passed from the doctor to the consumer. This would also prevent the doctors from having to practice “defensive medicine” meaning they would not have to prescribe a variety of un-needed tests just to avoid any malpractice claims and would then provide cost relief to the patient and health insurance companies. Second, encourage the construction to open free-clinics to those who are unable to pay for insurance or medical treatment, that will help to keep them out of the ER’s and passing the bill on to the other patients. Third, deregulate the health insurance industry and increase competition. And fourth, reward those who take it upon themselves and purchase their own health care by offering a tax credit to act as a partial reimbursement and apply that to employers who provide health care for their employees.

Believe it or not Uncle Sam, we know what is right for us and a government-run system is not the answer. Essentially, the free-market is.

A little bit about Sotomayor...

2009-06-09T20:06:00.000-07:00

My article in the Shorthorn

A little bit outrageous..

2009-06-04T13:49:00.000-07:00

Dr. Tiller was shot down in his own church on Sunday, a soldier was shot and killed and another wounded on Monday at a military recruiting center. Both shooters are considered domestic terrorists, the man who shot Dr. Tiller had been a member of an extreme right-wing group who did not approve of the work done by Dr. Tiller (late-term abortion doctor) and the 23 year old who shot the soldier was a Muslim convert who held ill feelings about the war. Both acts are equally reprehensible but the media did not play it out that way and neither did the administration.

On Sunday upon finding out about Dr. Tiller’s death, Obama released a statement:

“I am SHOCKED AND OUTRAGED by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence”

The next statement, about the death of the soldier which happened on Monday, finally got released on Wednesday evening…why did it take so long?:

“I am DEEPLY SADDENED by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.”

The media continuously pointed out the shooter in the death of the doctor as right-wing but yet with the little coverage the soldiers death got, they would rarely mention the shooters name Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, which he changed from Carlos Bledsoe when he converted to Islam.

Could this be the media playing down any notion that would reflect negatively on Muslims before President Obama began his trip late Tuesday night, his Tour de Apologia to the Middle East? It is an honest question that should be considered. Media bias strikes again but that is not the real question that concerns me…

WHAT THE HECK ABOUT NORTH KOREA?

2009-06-04T09:39:00.001-07:00

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

(Cairo, Egypt)

________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 4, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON A NEW BEGINNING

Cairo University

Cairo, Egypt

1:10 P.M. (Local)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- (applause) -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)

I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- (applause) -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

Our Future with North Korea

2009-05-26T17:11:00.000-07:00

Late Sunday night, North Korea tested its nuclear technology by detonating a nuclear bomb underground. They also launched three short-range missiles, both cases causing a shockwave of pronouncements by world leaders and the UN Security Council. Hours after President Obama condemned their actions; they launched two more missiles Monday night and another missile only hours later on Tuesday. Back in April, you may recall North Korea tested a long range missile under the guise of launching a satellite into orbit. What does this mean for us? Do not be alarmed, it’s not World War 3, yet.

Apparently the State Department and President Obama’s flowery statements did not pose much of a threat to North Korea last month and it will take more than a statement to make a point this time. This is where a reactive foreign policy has its draw backs. During the Bush administration, much of the North Korea policy was handed over to talks organized by China, minor successes but not the best model going forward.

China has always been tough to move when it comes to their relations with North Korea. They supply North Korea with its food and fuel among other resources and supplies. For them to reprimand North Korea and threaten with their resources, it could yield a better result than a Security Council slap on the hand which is not worth the paper it is written on. Surprisingly, China said they were “resolutely opposed” to the nuclear test as reported by Reuters. Maybe this could be a change in past attempts by the U.S. to have China act.

One counter measure is an array of different missile defense measures. Ranging from ground based midcourse defense, Aegis ballistic missile defense (sea based), and the study and implementation of SDI (space based), commonly referred to as “Star Wars”, and others. The purpose of the systems at their implementation was to deter the Soviet Union from firing a weapon at the United States and eventually led to its collapse due to their lack of funding. Some can say that the Cold War era is back and we are looking at the possibility of a nuclear scare from different areas that may be more trigger happy than our enemies of the past.

This nuclear test happening only weeks after Iran conducted it’s own missile test. The problem, rogue nations like North Korea and Iran tend to stick together. If North Korea furnishes a warhead to Iran to attach to a ballistic missile that has a range far enough to hit Israel our ally, the United States has an obligation to act. The same scenario applies to North Korea firing upon Japan and South Korea who feel threatened by these actions. But why should we have to react after the destruction of our ally? The missile defense capabilities provide reactive measures but we must remain on the offensive and not allow the enemy the opportunity to attack.

This is where the topic of preemption comes in. Do we have the right to go after a country that has shown they pose an imminent threat to us, our allies, and our strategic interests? To take a phrase from the Obama playbook, “YES WE CAN”. Or should we wait for the mushroom cloud and thousands dead to signal our action.

No Peace.

2009-05-12T23:26:00.000-07:00

Written by Colt Ables
THURSDAY, 07 MAY 2009 03:05 PM
Earlier this week, Joe Biden urged Israel to work with the Palestinians toward a two-state solution for the region. To quote Sarah Palin — “Say it ain’t so Joe.” For peace to be realized between Israel and Palestine, both groups must want to come to the negotiating table. How can one group make concessions for peace while the other group will not accept any of those concessions? Israel is a recognized state that is continually left to defend itself against rocket and mortar fire from groups that do not recognize its existence. Which side is being irrational? Palestine cannot have a desire for peace if they continue to be hostile. Ever since the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and border disputes with the Palestinians, the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the larger concern of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that carries very emotional ties. The conflicts are fought on religious grounds over which religion, Jewish or Muslim, have the right to claim the land. On one side of the issue, Israel is recognized as a state. On the other, people like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claim Israel doesn’t have the right to exist and should be destroyed. The ideological battle for this land is fought along both the northern and eastern borders of Israel. Along the northern border, Lebanon is inundated with members of the terrorist group Hezbollah, which receives a large share of its funding from the Saudi royal family and Iran. Along the eastern border, the West Bank, currently populated by Fatah. To the southwest, the Gaza strip is more or less controlled by the terrorist group Hamas and its Iranian backed government. Beginning in 1993, the Palestinian Liberation Organization became what was believed to be the negotiating force for the Palestinians. Israel has made peace with Egypt and Jordan along its other surrounding borders, and has been recognized by them as a legitimate state. Many UN resolutions have been passed recognizing Israel and encouraging peace in the region. In 1949, Resolution 273 was accepted by the Security Council, recognizing Israel’s legitimacy as a “peace loving state.” Security Council Resolution 242 calls for “the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle east” that includes the “withdrawal of Israel from territories occupied” during the Six-Day War and also the termination of all wars and the establishment of peace. Talks in 1993 between the PLO and Israel with the U.S. as an emissary to broker a possible peace deal. Negotiations were discussed for a withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the West Bank and the Gaza strip, which had been occupied since the Six-Day War. These talks became known as the Oslo Accords. Even with peace being discussed between them, to this day, the Palestinians and Israelis are still fighting. At the end of a six month cease-fire brokered by Egypt, Hamas fired more than two dozen rockets, injuring many Israelis in December 2008. Upon breaking the cease-fire, Israel commenced airstrikes overnight. A cease-fire has yet to be resumed and, recently, talks of a solution have been a topic in the news. The realization of any peace cannot be brokered without the hope that peace will be lasting and permanent. Peace will not be brokered with Hamas but rather a stable government in Palestine, which is not in the foreseeable future. As long as the Hamas-dominated Palestinian government continues its support of terrorism, all hopes of genuine peace are diminished.

Swine flu... Hype?

2009-04-30T12:35:00.000-07:00

Do you have the H1N1 virus? Or better known by its other name, Swine Flu? As of Thursday, there were over 100 confirmed cases in the United States of this mutated strain of the otherwise common, seasonal Influenza virus. On Wednesday, sadly it was announced that the strain had taken the life of a 22 month old boy in Houston who was visiting from Mexico City.

Fort Worth ISD, amongst other school districts, have announced that it will be closing all schools until at least May 8^th, and the Interscholastic League has announced that all competitive sports have been suspended until May 11^th. All this due to a few cases dispersed throughout the state totaling 26 confirmed. Do they do this for the regular flu season?

When you turn on the television right now, the “swine flu pandemic” is the top story. Mexico has said they have found the origin of the flu to have been a 4 year old boy in Mexico, apparently the water supply to their home was contaminated by pigs, hence the name. Do not be confused, this virus can not be contracted through eating pork. You can still enjoy your Egg McMuffin or your Bacon Cheeseburger.

That is really not the story though. In 1976, there was another “swine flu pandemic” that erupted. At that time, then President Ford had asked Congress to approve the funding for a vaccination for the American public. Over forty million citizens were vaccinated until complications arose that halted the vaccinations. One death was attributed to the actual virus while dozens died from the vaccine and hundreds of others were left paralytic due to complications with the vaccine. Is this really worth the fuss right now? Each year during the flu season, over 30,000 people die from the flu, currently, although it still may be in its early stages, there are few known cases of the “swine flu”. Compared to that, it is really worth all the hype? In Mexico, where healthcare is nil in comparison to that of the United States, there have been almost 100 confirmed deaths due to the virus. People have been making the plea to close the US-Mexico border and halt all flights from Mexico to the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has said that closing the border is unnecessary (mainly for commerce reasons) but she did agree to a five day halt on the incoming flights from Mexico. My view, the disease is already here, what’s the point now?

Beyond the hyping of this “pandemic,” this incident has turned into a very political one. Back in February during the “stimulus bill” debates and compromising, moderate Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine proposed the cutting of $900 million that was to be for “pandemic flu preparations”. She wanted this funding stripped from the stimulus because she felt it was not a form of economic stimulus and it should be put into a different appropriations bill. That is what many liberals or democrats want to point out. Yet there is another voice that agreed with Sen. Collins and is quoted as saying, “All those little porky things that the House put in, the money for the [National] Mall or the sexually transmitted diseases or the flu pandemic, they're all out." That was Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York, according to the New York Post on February 8, 2009.

This should not be about politics and it should not be about hyping up a virus to send the American people into a panic. Do yourself a favor, wash your hands and turn off the TV.

Enhanced Interrogations kept us safe.

2009-04-23T22:25:00.000-07:00

My article as published in my school newspaper: http://tinyurl.com/EnhInt

National security concerns override personal feelings about methodology

Written by Colt Ables
THURSDAY, 23 APRIL 2009 03:27 PM
Apparently, the problem with “enhanced interrogations” is that they work. Regardless if you call the methods used by the CIA torture or enhanced interrogations, you have to admit that they aided in keeping America safe since September 11, 2001. Last week, when President Obama ordered the release of top-secret memos that were passed from the White House Office of Legal Counsel to the CIA, people said we are less safe with these details coming to light. Methods used range from face slapping and a technique called “walling” (throwing someone wearing a protective collar to prevent whiplash into a flexible wall), to the infamous water boarding. I bet the terrorists are relieved to know the methods that we would have used if they are captured. The real issue is about the information that wasn’t released. Much of the information from the memos that did not pertain to the methods used was blacked out. Marc Thiessen, former staffer in the Bush administration, remarked that much of what was blacked out in the memos actually pertained to the information obtained during the interrogations. In a report for The Washington Post, he cited information about a possible attack on the West Coast that involved flying a plane into the tallest building in Los Angeles. There was also information that led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, said to have been the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks. Who’s to say the individuals would have cracked in another form of interrogation? But much of the information obtained provided intelligence that helped keep our nation safe. Now those who provided counsel to President Bush could be in trouble and face prosecution due to a political witch hunt just to stifle the success and legacy of those who kept us safe. If the proposed methods weren’t used and planned attacks thwarted, who’s to say what the consequences would have been? If your mother, father, son or daughter’s life were in danger and you knew that someone had information that could save any of them, would you not use whatever means were necessary to ensure the safety of your loved one? After Sept. 11, extreme measures were needed to ensure the safety of American citizens and, regardless of your feelings on the methods used, they worked. If you are one who wants to argue that “America’s image has been tainted” — if doing the popular thing at the expense of innocent American lives is your course of action, then what does that make you?

Pirate Problem? by Colt Ables

2009-04-22T15:00:00.000-07:00

Was published in my school paper also: http://www.theshorthorn.com/content/view/16766/71/

Over the past few months, if you have been listening to the news, you know that there has been a rise in the number of ships that have been hijacked by pirates. Last week when pirates attempted to hijack the American flagged ship the Maersk Alabama the crew members fought the pirates back and they abandoned the operation, only after taking the captain of the ship hostage onto one of the ship’s lifeboats. After American Navy ships made it to the area, it took five days for the Captain to be rescued. Three Navy Seals simultaneously shot three of the four pirates that were on the lifeboat, rescued the Captain and currently is holding one of the pirates to face criminal prosecution in American courts. Mission accomplished. What now?

Sadly, the French also tried to rescue four hostages being held captive by three Somali pirates just two days before the successful recovery of Captain Phillips, but their operation ended in the death of one of their hostages.

What are we to do to fight against piracy in that area of the world where many ship and crew have been held for ransom, grossing the pirates close to $100 million in 2008. This is the first time in almost two hundred years that an American flagged ship has been taken or its members held for ransom by pirates. Is this a national security issue? Essentially, yes, because just as the terrorists on 9/11 took over four planes to cause harm to America and American lives, pirates could hijack an oil tanker (as has already happened last November but a ransom was paid to get the Saudi oil tanker back) and detonate the contents in a port taking the lives of many innocent people and also disrupting trade. This is already a disruption to trade as hijacked ships are held for more than just days. Currently, there are over 300 hostages being held by Somali pirates and on Monday alone, the pirates had already hijacked four other vessels, their crewmembers, and also it was reported that the American vessel the Liberty Sun was fired upon by the pirates.

The real question, as afore mentioned, what do we do now? Can we afford to send in the Seals every time there is a hostage crisis to take out the pirate or should we attempt to end this nonsense all together? As reported by Bloomberg, a self-proclaimed spokesperson for the pirates, Mohamed Hashi Yasin, declared on Monday, “France and the U.S. will encounter unforgettable lessons… We will treat every country as they treat us.” It was even said that they will target U.S. and French ships now to get their revenge. Can piracy be called terror? Should these men be treated as terrorists and we go after where we know they operate their training camps and dock their boats in Somalia? Yes.

If we want to crack down on this threat to human lives and which slows transport in an area where about 1/10 of trade passes through, we must put an end to these acts of terrorism. They may not be destroying property, but they are putting innocent lives in danger to exploit for financial gain. We must end it, and we must end it now.

Strike the training camps, the “mother ships”, and safe havens with aerial strikes and cut the threat off at its base and possibly allow the ships to carry weapons to defend against these threats on the seas. Killing five of them may send a sign and deter them, but we must take this seriously and the threat by the self-proclaimed spokesman doesn’t really assert that these situations will be ending anytime soon.

Disarm now?

2009-04-05T20:45:00.000-07:00

North Korea launched a three-stage, Taepo Dong-2 rocket on April 4th against the warnings from world leaders that this was a provocative action and would have consequences. The said purpose of the launch was to possibly put a satellite into orbit. The rocket was said to have a possible distance of 4400 miles which would have the possibility of hitting Alaska. The North Koreans set the rocket off just hours before the president spoke of global nuclear disarmament in Prague. This action from North Korea defies UN Security Council Resolution 1718 which was adopted in 2006 which prohibited any ballistic missile activity in North Korea.

This event only falls into the broader aspect of President Obama’s speech in Prague proclaiming global nuclear disarmament. Both North Korea and Iran have been in the development stages of producing weapons grade material to use in nuclear weapons. With both of these regimes being hostile to not only the United States but also to their neighboring countries, what would the solution be for these two programs? These regimes are utterly dangerous and pose a serious threat to any effort towards peace in their regions of the world. But how are we to react?

Should they be allowed to continue production of weapons when they hold such hostile views of their neighbors? My answer is no. If they are allowed to produce these weapons, are we to wait until someone is hit with one of their ballistic missiles or preempt such action from even happening? One of the programs which has been developing and implemented over the last three decades is a Missile Defense Program. This is a system of land, sea, and air-based installations that would allow for a possible projectile to be shot down during the three different stages of the trajectory. This of course is effective in the event that such an action is taking place where a ballistic missile is launched successfully. But President Obama is looking to cut missile defense spending amongst other defense measures.

Is this the answer when we know that Mahmoud Ahmadinijad of Iran and Kim Jong Il of North Korea harbor ill feelings toward other nations and in the case of the President of Iran, wishes to “wipe Israel off the map”?

In the case of North Korea, NORAD confirmed that the three stages of the missile launch did not reach orbiting distance and did not deliver a satellite. This was seen as a missile launch in breech of UN Security Council resolutions. Should we sit back in inaction and allow the Security Council to apply sanctions? We know how well sanctions worked in Iraq, Saddam Hussein found ways around them and continued weapons development. Hard action is needed and time is limited until their Nuclear proliferation is successful and they develop nuclear weapons. Time is running out for hard, strong action.

2009-03-18T22:58:00.000-07:00

TEN THOUGHTS ON AIG from DAVID FRUM
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:56 PM

Taken from NewMajority.com

1. If I worked at AIG, I'd be ashamed to take a bonus, and I am dismayed that anybody there could feel otherwise.

2. The evidence is accumulating that the Obama administration has been much, much less than candid about its AIG decision-making. In particular: for the president to argue that Tim Geithner did not "draft" the bonus clauses in the AIG deal is disingenuous. Of course he did not draft them. Nor did he sweep up the room afterward. He was head of the New York Fed! But he did sign them, so he is responsible.

3. The Obama administration's defense of these bonuses makes things worse. They seem to be representing the AIG bonus-takers as successful blackmailers: We had to agree to pay them or else they would blow up the world economy. That's not a very appealing argument - and it is not an exactly reassuring signal about how the Obama administration would respond to actual terrorists or actual blackmailers.

4. All that said: a contract is a contract - and a contract signed by the US government is something more than an ordinary contract. There can be no reneging.

5. The only thing worse than contract-breaking by the US government would be an attempt by Congress to impose special onerous taxes on a small, discrete group of unpopular people. If that's not unconstitutional, it ought to be.

6. In this matter, Congress has behaved in ways that are simultaneously hysterical, thuggish, and deeply hypocritical. Barney Frank's demand for the release of the names of bonused employees is the lowest, an open invitation to lynch law.

7 Some AIG employees have already voluntarily surrendered their bonuses. When will members of Congress voluntarily return their AIG campaign contributions? And what about you, President Obama?

8. From the start, AIG has been handled with a shocking lack of transparency. Why did it take so many months to identify the counterparties who are receiving taxpayer money via AIG?

9. The role of Goldman Sachs in all this is especially troubling and mysterious. Much more than the names of the bonused AIG employees, I'd like to know the name of the Goldman PR person who persuaded Reuters to report that Goldman was receiving none of the AIG money when in fact it received more than anyone.

10. I fear, I truly fear, that AIG may mark an ideological turning point in American history, a moment that marks the beginning of a sharp turn toward more regulation, more statism, and more populist anti-business feeling. Bitterly ironically, it will be the people who did most to provoke today's outrage whose party will benefit most from it.

The first 50 days

2009-03-10T13:41:00.000-07:00

Democrats were quick to usher in the demise of conservatism after this past election in the Age of Obama. Many people touted that conservatives lost when the Republicans suffered the defeat at the polls. But I will remind you, that it was only after the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter that we got a true conservative leader, President Ronald Reagan.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference that was held on February 26-28, there was record attendance with more than 8,500 and over half in attendance were students. All came to rally and reassure those who proclaimed our demise; our conservative principles did not die on November 4^th. Do the liberals have a yearly conference to rally the troops or are they too involved with trying to legalize marijuana, hugging a tree, building a wind-mill, or miscalculating the effects of “global warming”?

It took a bad economy that began in the Nixon and Carter years to get Reagan so if you ask me, it’s looking pretty good for conservatives right now. The economy began to collapse under President Bush, not by his doing alone, and it seems to be getting worse with President Obama and his policies that bring us closer to a state of collectivism everyday. The Dow has plunged below 7000, unemployment is still rising despite what all believed would be the consequence of electing the “Messiah” as some would have him called. Many have learned that President Obama is not a friend of the free-market and despite being “pro-choice” he is not a friend to the worker who does not wish to unionize, wishing to take away his right to choose if he wants to be represented by a union or not.

President Obama is already looking to introduce “universal healthcare” because he says that healthcare costs have skyrocketed over the past few years… maybe he should look at some of the Democrat’s favorite constituency, the trial lawyers, and ask them why the cost of healthcare has risen at such a rapid rate. It is because of excessive lawsuits that have driven up the premiums of a doctor’s liability insurance which aided in the rise in the cost of healthcare.

What about spending? Candidate Obama talked about fiscal responsibility over the campaign and the idea that he would not be one to stand idle as senators and congressmen got away with passing legislation laden with earmarks, but besides some of the spending in the Stimulus bill, the current appropriations bill termed the Omnibus Spending Bill to provide the funding for the rest of the government until year end September 30, this bill has over $7.7 billion in earmarks tallying to over 8,500. Is this going to be another campaign promise that gets broken by the administration who said they were going to be transparent, not hire lobbyists, and bring America together? And just think, it has only been 7 weeks and we didn’t even talk about the three-plus Trillion dollar budget he introduced…

To leave you on a lighter note, did you hear about the difference between the two Messiahs? Jesus saves, Obama spends.

Tax cuts from Gutfeld.

2009-03-03T14:39:00.000-08:00

MONDAY'S GREGALOGUE: THE ANTIDOTE

One of the big topic of conversations around dinner tables (or in my case, a lunch box filled with discarded ears), is Obama's tax philosophy. Some find it confusing - for he claims he's for tax cuts, yet he's still raising taxes for some Americans (otherwise known as rich jerks).

Now, here's the thing: if the president is going to cut taxes for something like 96 percent of the population, then he`s got to think that tax cuts are good. I mean, you don`t do something to 96 percent, unless it works.

So, why not just go to 100 percent?

Seriously: Imagine having a classroom full of kids waiting for a flu vaccine. Do you only give it to 96 percent of the class? No - if you believe there`s an antidote that repairs what's wrong, you don't leave any one out.

But here, we do.

The question, then, is why.

Well, It's not because we need the revenue, because that cash from the top 2 to 4 percent won't help.

So then, why?

Oh yeah - that four percent is "rich." And if you've been basting in the sauce of class warfare most of your life - the rich need to be punished, even if all they've done wrong is get rich.

Which is a nasty form of negative reinforcement. Look, if you're going to get nailed for elevating yourself to a higher financial class, after awhile, you`re going to think, "Why bother."

And then, "Is that meth?"

Worse, the definition of rich? Bull crap. What's rich in one area, is poor in another. A family can live happily on 75 grand in Kansas, but in Manhattan, they'll be turning tricks for oatmeal. Inevitably, the so-called rich are going to have to move out of cities, so they can live on skimpier means – which means a lot of whiny Columbia grads wandering confused at Ace Hardware.

And that's something we can all live without.

-By Greg Gutfeld, taken from Dailygut.com

Our Stimulus...

2009-02-15T14:49:00.000-08:00

My Article from our school newspaper, The Shorthorn: http://tinyurl.com/awng9z

$735,014,005 per page, all 1071 pages of it totaling $787.2 billion. That is how much each page of this will cost the tax payers over the next 50 years. With the unemployment rate at 7.6% and President Obama warning that to not pass the Stimulus Package would be a catastrophe, the politics of fear succeeded. Where was the hope? Economists have spoken out saying that the projected 3.5 million jobs to be created or saved is an inflation of the facts. Even the Congressional Budget Office, after further analysis of the proposed stimulus, said that it would do worse damage to the economy and end up reducing GDP within 10 years and an unemployment rate hovering at 10%. Leaving the economy alone would have a more positive effect…

With only three Republicans voting for the measure in the whole Legislative branch, before the election, President Obama campaigned as the candidate that would not let divisiveness stand and would “ring in a new era of bipartisanship, accountability, and responsibility”, seems so distant now. He was seen mocking the Republican’s during a speech at a Democratic Congressional retreat a week ago and with the Republicans ideas being shot down during negotiations, this new era of bipartisanship is already crumbling after less than a month.

We have few instances to compare the current meltdown to, the Depression in the 1930’s-1940’s and the deep recession that accrued in the 1970’s that was inherited by President Reagan when he assumed the office of President in 1981. With the focus on infrastructure spending to get out of the Depression, President Roosevelt's own Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morganthau, was quoted at the time saying, “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work… I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot.” With interest rates over 17%, high inflation, and tax rates so high that people were not paying their tax liability, Reagan had a problem. Being an advocate for tax cuts, he was able to lower the highest tax bracket from 70%, to 28%, doubling government revenues. Reagan got us out of the recession and created over 20 million jobs. Now it is too late to ask what the answer to the current recession is, when you look at history, the answer is clear. Sometimes we should look beyond ideology for the right answers.

On a side note: Michelle Obama was asked about the stimulus measure that was taken by President Bush in the Spring of 2008 ($600 per individual, $1200 per couple), she mocked the measure and dismissed it by saying she could buy a pair of earrings with it. Part of this new Obama stimulus package includes $400 for individuals and $800 for couples, wonder what she thinks about that. The new era of “hope” and “change” has come, I just “hope” that we can afford this “change”.

$789,500,000,000.00

2009-02-12T15:49:00.000-08:00

Here it is guys, a brief summary over this great stimulus package that will rescue our economy...

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb021209.pdf

Brief Tribute to Ronald Reagan

2009-02-06T10:16:00.000-08:00

Today is the day that many conservatives are celebrating what would be the 98^th birthday of our 40^th President, Ronald Reagan. Most of us know the history of the man, his accomplishments, and what he meant to us. A man who was talking straight-talk long before it became a brand for a presidential campaign. A man who went from being a Democrat to a Republican, when asked why he left the democrat party, he responded “I did not leave the Democratic party. The party left me.”

A man who became the face of conservatism who many say Barry Goldwater’s failed Presidential Bid in 1964 was fulfilled in 1980. Many were around to remember the presidency of his predecessor, Jimmy Carter. Inflation was sky-rocketing, interest rates were over 17% and the economy was beginning to spiral downward. “Are you better off now than you were four years ago…” was the question that Ronald Reagan asked that helped him to seal the deal with the American people. He is attributed with getting the top tax bracket lowered to 28% which more than doubled the revenues of the United States. The economy was on the rise.

With the aid of Prime Minister Thatcher and a change in foreign policy, President Reagan also helped to bring down the Soviet Empire. “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” and not long after, the iron curtain was pulled away. There were also rough times with the Iran-Contra affair and the escalation of the national debt which many like to point out, but some forget that it was a Democratic Congress which allowed the spending to get out of hand.

Today, we are in similar turbulent times and I just wish that our new President will remember what history has taught us, what has worked in the past, and especially, remember the man whom helped to deliver the United States from a deep recession to a time of economic growth.

God Bless you Ronald Reagan.

Speechless.

2009-02-06T00:16:00.000-08:00

Friday afternoon, President Obama met with the families of some of the 9/11 victims and also families from the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000. I am glad that he met with them, and I am glad that he let it be leaked to the press (sarcasm). Do you know how many different families of soldiers who had been killed in the line of duty that President Bush met with over the past 7 years? Always closed from the press and very seldom even mentioned. Love him or hate him, President Bush did not let his Presidency become just a massive PR stunt like the Obama campaign was for almost two years and out of the starting gate, seems like it will continue to be.

On a different note, this past week it became known that the Obama campaign has been talking with Syria and Iran since November, after the election. Does that send the wrong signal to you about President Obama insisting that there is only one President at a time? Hypocrisy… not surprised by it though.

Back to the meeting with the victim’s families. I would like to think that it was meant to be a very sentimental moment to let the families know that the deaths of their loved ones would not be in vain. That they will not be forgotten as they ever should be. I still remember that whole day, watching the TV replay what would be come known as the worst attack on American soil. Who did this? That was the reaction after the shock of the event. We went to war in Afghanistan to fight the enemy that planned this horrible act, and then we took on terrorism when we went into Iraq. Guantanamo Bay became a bad word because that is where many of those who were suspected of terrorist acts were shipped to, to be interrogated to find out what they knew so they could possibly aid us with information to keep another attack from happening.

I do not know what happened in “Gitmo” nor do I care because the very men who helped to plot the attacks against America were not in a position to cause anymore harm to us. That is justice. Not anymore though. Guantanamo will be closed within a year, per an Executive Order signed by President Obama, military tribunals have been ceased to give the Obama administration time to review these cases to figure out what to do with these men. Let them face trial in U.S. courts or send them back home. One of the men suspected of plotting the bombing on the USS Cole was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, it was announced today that his case would be closed. Since President Obama decided to suspend Military Tribunals and one of the Tribunal judges had went ahead, against Obama’s orders, to try this man who had admitted through aggressive interrogation that he had in fact been involved in the plot that killed 17 sailors, another judge overruled the Tribunal judge.

For Obama to face those families, to look them in the eye and not be able to tell them that these guys may go free or better than that, come to a U.S. prison, I feel the slap in the face that these families must be feeling. Complete and utter disregard for their feelings that there is a chance that someone who is possibly responsible for the death of a member of their family may get to go back to their country and not face anything, that’s heartbreak. About 10% of the men released from Guantanamo have gone back to their home country to join in the fight against America. But, better than that, to think that if any of these guys come back here for their day in court, where they receive the same rights as you and I, someone not a citizen who harbors ill-feelings towards America and Americans, that makes it even worse. These men could go free anyways.

Thank you Mr. President, your show of patriotism reveals much about your character.

What is going on?

2009-02-05T09:35:00.000-08:00

Two weeks into the Presidency of repeating his campaign rhetoric and many Democrats are already in retreat and looking to attach themselves, possibly, to the GOP plan. Interesting right? Check out the article in today's Wall Street Journal http://tinyurl.com/aw96l6 .

Last night they held the annual Washington Press Club Foundation dinner, or what it is often known as, a roast. Nancy Pelosi pointed out that President Obama's e-mail address is "IAMALLEARS@WHITEHOUSE.GOV," she got a few laughs. Then Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota took the stage poking fun at Joe Biden, and made a punch at the GOP House member who was there also to speak, Rep. McCarthy. She said she was surprised he accepted the invitation because nowadays the GOP is saying "No" to everything, a stab at the GOP vote against the stimulus package last week. And then Rep. McCarthy made it up to the podium and I think stole the night with his "I am starting to believe that Obama may be the Messiah when he picked Joe Biden to be his running mate. The Bible does say that he will ride into town on an ass." If that isn't great then I do not know what is. He also poked fun at Rep. Cantor who was originally supposed to give a speech, who he said was the only jew in the GOP caucus and was on his way to Gaza strip where he would feel more welcome. It was really a good speech, Nancy Pelosi did not get as many laughs and neither did the Minnesota Senator.

Other than that, Daschle resigned because this "limousine liberal" who didn't pay taxes on the gift of a car and driver for the past few years, over $140,000, decided he didn't want to bring anymore negative attention to the Obama administration. Also another nominee rescinded her nomination because of back taxes. With as much as Democrats talk about raising taxes, we now know why, because no matter how high they are, they don't pay them!

The stimulus package is still being debated, the Senate bill is even more inflated than the original House bill. Obama was out today letting people know that with his election, the old ways were rejected, basically taking a shot at Republicans who say that Tax cuts would spur the economy. For more info, read the Rove Article that was mentioned before.

NEWS LINKS OF THE DAY:

Self-Imposed Deadline for Stimulus: http://tinyurl.com/cbd7ho

Holder to Mete Out Racial Justice: http://snipurl.com/bcuhw

Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast: http://snipurl.com/bcwaa ...

The Audacity of Panic: http://snipurl.com/bcqmp

Kristol "Post Partisan" http://snipurl.com/bcoo7

Graham Says Obama Is 'AWOL' on Stimulus Debate: http://tinyurl.com/dyresy

Oval Office Respect?

2009-01-30T00:33:00.001-08:00

Pete Souza/White House

President Obama has apparently relaxed the dress code a bit since becoming President. When George W. Bush was President, he never allowed anyone to enter the oval office without a suit and tie out of respect for the office that has been held by many respectable Commander in Chief’s… but I guess what can we expect seeing as though the last Democratic President occasionally didn’t wear pants in the oval office.. there is a joke there so read into it.

I STAND CORRECTED: A PHOTO TAKEN BY ERIC DRAPER ON JANUARY 22, 2001.

Republican backbone.

2009-01-28T20:19:00.000-08:00

The Obama stimulus plan passed the House today with a 244-188 vote. The Republicans led by Rep. Boehner stood strong and all Republicans voted against it with another 11 Democrats voting against it. “Signs of life in the Republican party,” said Laura Ingram tonight on “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren”. I am already hearing the arguments though from the Pro-Obama media who are blaming the Republicans for not putting forth an effort of bi-partisanship. Did they miss something? Obama dismissed putting more tax cuts in the bill made by the GOP leaders, the insistence on the remarks made by the Congressional Budget Office that the stimulus package as it is, only 10% of it will be seen or dispensed in the next few months. Why vote for a stimulus that will not stimulate the economy now when supposedly it is most needed?

But, Barack has spoken, and the Democrats and media have fallen into step like loyal soldiers to do the will of the President, and we get to deal with the consequences whether we are for it or against it.

DID YOU LISTEN TO RUSH—WELL DON’T.

At least that is the consensus by the congressional Democrats and President Obama when he spoke to the Republicans on Friday. He warned “You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," this was said in the same meeting as the “I won” comment. With Obama’s comment and the congressional reaction to the President’s words, do you think that we are just one step closer to the fairness doctrine?

Keep on trucking Rush, you know you are getting under their skin and doing something right when they talk bad about you.

NO IRS PENALTIES AND LATE FEES.

Congressman Carter from my great state of Texas is proposing legislation that will eliminate all IRS penalties and interest. Good idea right? This is all based on the great Democrat Charles Rangel from New York. It is reported that he did not pay any penalties or interest in 2008 for over $10,000 that he owed in back taxes. Congressman Carter said that Rangel’s constituents should receive the same benefits that he get as a member of congress. “You shouldn’t be treated any differently under the law than your citizens back home,” Carter was quoted as saying.

I am glad that a Texas congressman is bringing to light this hypocrisy, but it will not get the publicity it needs. We have a Treasury Secretary who is a tax cheat; he got away with paying little in penalties or interest on taxes owed from over 5 years ago, people tried to bring up the fallacy in his actions but even Republicans were saying it was only a trivial matter. I hope that my fellow Texan succeeds. Although, not in passing this legislation because what will the IRS do when no one pays their taxes on time and the U.S. Treasury is empty to pay for this great stimulus that our country needs (sarcasm), I hope it brings to light the idea of a double standard when it is the citizens who have to pay penalties and interest and the congressman and Treasury Secretary who do not. Since we are the ones who are already paying their salaries and they have the audacity to get further special treatment…To take a phrase from my friend Donald Trump—Charlie Rangel and Tim Geithner: YOU’RE FIRED!

A few good things. Just politics?

2009-01-26T23:46:00.000-08:00

“Tax-cuts as an act of bipartisanship,” what happened to cutting taxes for 95% of American families? Sen. Schumer made sure that he let the Sunday talk shows know that it was only through compromise with the Republicans that the tax cut’s are in the Stimulus package. And actually, it was with a statement made with a bipartisan presence of leaders of both houses of congress where Republican leaders pleaded for less spending and to divert more of the stimulus to cutting taxes such as for business, where Obama reassured them that he was not going to compromise anymore for the tax cuts because, as it was quoted from Rep. Cantor, Obama said “I won,” which I guess means that since he was elected by 53% of the American people, his ideas matter more than what the other 47% of Americans believe to be an economic stimulator. To reassure what I heard from so many Hillary supporters during the primary season, he is arrogant.

AND TODAY.

Nancy Pelosi wants more funding for contraception because it will act as a means of prevention of healthcare issues…"The family planning services reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government," she said in an interview on Sunday on ABC's This Week. I guess since kids are so expensive for the state, the ones that depend on their healthcare from the government…. If we can give out contraception, keep certain people from having kids, then that will save the government money. Does that sound a little like another country? One where they let you have one kid… kind of like population control maybe? If you having a kid is going to cost the state or federal government more money then you should just not have that kid. If someone has a different take on what Nancy Pelosi said, please tell me because I really do not want to put words into her mouth, especially when her as a Roman Catholic is wanting to make sure everyone gets all the contraception they need. (i.e. Catholics are against any and all form of contraception with a slight deviation in extreme cases of AIDS).

Remember when Biden said that Vice President Cheney was the most dangerous Vice President in our history? Now he wants to make sure he is in on every meeting and is the last to leave the room, are you telling me he wants to have influence on policy? Trying now to see where he got off saying that Dick Cheney was the most dangerous VP? Vice President Cheney had some influence on policy; he was a confidant of President George W. Bush, not a co-president or shadow President as some have said. So Joe, please tell me the difference.

What else…

Today, Obama’s UN Ambassador came out and let it be known that direct diplomacy was still on the table with Iran. Didn’t he deny that there would be direct talks with Iran? Have it be known that it will not be Obama sitting across the table from Ahmadinjad, but we will talk to a nation who sends aid to Hamas and Hezbollah and even sends soldiers to fight against our troops in Iraq.

One last thing. They voted Geithner in today. Yes, we now have a Treasury Secretary who was a tax cheat, who only paid when the Obama vetting team let him know that it would be an issue, and he needed to pay. That is great. Now, the next time you think about paying your taxes, don’t do it. And when the IRS calls, tell them “Oops, I pulled a Geithner, sorry!” And Obama came out on Thursday and signed an Executive Order setting restrictions on lobbyists in his administration. Guess what? Obama is appointing a former lobbyist from Raytheon to deputy Secretary of Defense. You can’t make this stuff up.

President Obama, a great first week in office, I am sure by the end of your second week, we will be able to see all the ‘Change’ that you wanted to bring, and that 53% of Americans voted for… what about the other 47% of us?

Inauguration - My take.

2009-01-21T23:03:00.000-08:00

A day after the Inauguration of our new President of the United States, Commander in Chief, and essentially, the Chief Executive of our nation, and “Change has come” (according to the new and improved White House website, www.whitehouse.gov).

Can you feel it? All the new “hope” and all the “Change you can believe in”, trust me, it’s there.

Beginning his Inaugural address as follows, “My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors…” After many applause and references to our economic crisis and past economies, he say “…each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.” A slight shot at oil and our current dependence, a fair shot, but one question, we have oil here, can we not drill that and use our own resources at home? That can help buy us time to efficiently transfer to the renewable resources of solar, wind, geothermal, and others.

“We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.” What happened to oil and coal? Not even clean coal—what’s up with that?

“On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.” A very low blow to the men, past Presidents sitting right there just 10 feet from him, especially President Bush whom he praised at the beginning of his speech, “I thank President Bush for his service to our nation...(APPLAUSE)... as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.” I get it, let’s praise the guy that I bashed for 19 months on the campaign trail, and now that I am elected President, I will just get a few more kicks in before he heads back to Texas. The purpose of the Inaugural address is meant to be a slight overview of policies and to uplift the nation, not just your base. I guess some people forget that there were over 50 million people who voted the other way…

“We will restore science to its rightful place…” With that statement, on a side note, today the Executive Order was signed by President Obama to roll back the order signed in 2001 by President George W. Bush that has come to be known as the “Mexico City Policy” or the "Global Gag Rule" involving funding international health facilities that provide abortions. Background: This was an order that originated with President Reagan, maintained with President George H. W. Bush, rescinded by President Clinton, and reissued in 2001, like I said earlier. The order as issued by President Reagan would deny or restrict funding to those facilities that gave abortions, a Pro-Life and Pro-Choice President’s just bounce this one back and forth as different ideologies take over the White House.

“The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.” I want to briefly discuss this hit at President Bush, or well, all Republicans and the fact that it is focusing on the supply-side economics that conservatives are a strong proponent for. It has always been a democratic argument that the Republicans favor the rich. When President Reagan cut the highest tax rate in the 80’s from 70% to 28%, which more than doubled the income-tax revenues… the government got more money, isn’t that the point of taxes in the first place? From my guess, it worked, and is still working today with the tax-cuts that President Bush proposed and passed in 2001 and 2003.

The statement that I most greatly admire and I know played well among the Republican and conservative circles,

“And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, "Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

I think that explains itself.

My only problem with all that has happened in the last 48 hours, “I got 99 problems and a Bush ain’t one,” great wisdom from Jay-Z and also “I want to thank 2 people. I want to thank the m***** f***** overseas that threw 2 shoes at George Bush…and I want to thank the m***** f***** who helped them move their s*** out the White House” and then Young Jeezy made the statement “…No more white lies, my President is black.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A832RUnk6s&feature=player_embedded

Interesting right? I think it is great that Barack Obama was supposed to bring everyone together. I have had many people talk down to me because I criticized a few things that President Obama had said in his speech. I was told “We all need to unite. Whether you wanted him to be president or not, he is. What is the point in being negative?” and that we should all come together to make this country a better place. Where was that attitude when President Bush was in office? Many people have came out and said that they do not appreciate criticism of President Obama but over the last eight years if we said that about President Bush, we would get blasted and degraded or called “narrow minded”. By no means, am I saying that I think the Democrats and liberals should get the same treatment from us because we should give President Obama a chance to govern and we will exercise our first amendment right when he decides to go against our core-ideals.

I am an American, and my President is an American, not looking at his skin color, I care about how he governs.

And in honor of the anniversary of Roe v. Wade: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c

Closing Prayer...divisive?

2009-01-20T16:51:00.000-08:00

"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around — (laughter) — when yellow will be mellow — (laughter) — when the red man can get ahead, man — (laughter) — and when white will embrace what is right."

Closing prayer by Rev. Joseph Lowery at President Obama's Inauguration.

Does any else find this divisive? I came across many minorities that found it increasingly offensive.

Michelle Malkin wrote a brief article about it: http://michellemalkin.com/

Obama's First 100 Days

2009-01-20T16:47:00.000-08:00

Obama's First 100 Days by Andrea Tantaros www.andreatantaros.com

Categories: Obama

The first 100 days of a presidency is a critical time for any commander in chief and will be no different for Barack Obama.

With sky high approval ratings, despite a nation still at war and facing an economic slow down, Obama will be under tremendous pressure to make good on his many campaign promises and his repeated insistence that change is here. In the first 100 days, perception — not policy — is everything. If he can master the art of optics, he can win points from the public. Here's how:

1. Lower expectations. Obama's honeymoon will last longer than 100 days, and it will take much longer to accomplish what he needs to do, particularly on the economy, so the new president must be sure to fuse 'hope' with a measured, realistic approach. Americans are tired of quick fix solutions that don't work, but they do want to see progress. That will come in smaller doses than Obama may want to dispense, so he must prepare Americans.

2. Embrace Republicans. I didn't say embrace their policies, just them. Folks want partisanship gone, at least for now. While some hammer Obama for his centrism, and while it is true that many centrists politicians make me gag because they have no principles and they will change their mind at the drop of a poll, I think the presidency is different. After a partisan political campaign, it is not unimportant symbolism for the president-elect to demonstrate that he considers himself president of the entire nation. This presidential symbolism designed to unite the nation (which every president has vowed to do) is quite different than a finger-in-the-wind, centrist congressman. If Obama makes a play to fold Republicans into the discussion he will rise above the binary political games and make a good first step toward helping heal the country after a bitter election battle. This would also fulfill one of his campaign promises to be everyone's president not just the left who helped elect him.

3. Play small ball. Obama should pick between 3 and 5 items that he is reasonably sure he can implement in his first 100 days and go after them. Even if it's part of a larger campaign, he and his team just need to make sure there's an end in sight. — Remember, if you name it, you own it. For example, Obama should promise to meticulously manage congressional oversight when it comes to the final portion of TARP funds. If he can account for every dollar and credit markets begin to thaw, he can take credit. This kind of small, early victory builds momentum.

Despite the suggestions and speculation, only Obama can set the tone for his tenure. Though so much remains uncertain, one thing is clear: starting Wednesday morning the world will be watching.

Some Reading

2009-01-19T15:49:00.000-08:00

From Michelle Malkin over the Obama dinner with conservative columnists:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/19/geith/

From TV’s Andy Levy

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=46082567890&h=nNljM&u=7zRGR

That is all I have for now, no original ideas today guys.

Legacy.

2009-01-17T10:48:00.001-08:00

All this talk of President Bush’s Legacy has me pondering a few things. What was the Clinton Legacy? “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, chubby sex with an intern, failed “Hillary-Care” healthcare reform, raising taxes, not paying down a deficit, chubby sex with an intern, signing some of the legislation that helped to create the financial mess we are in now, or was it having chubby sex with an intern? Oh wait, that’s right—he was the first “black President”.

I am glad the democrats are putting it to President Bush about his legacy because it won’t be nearly as good as President Clinton’s. (Sarcasm)

The Taxpayer's Inauguration.

2009-01-14T20:32:00.000-08:00

$150 million, seriously? This Obama inauguration is costing US, THE TAXPAYERS 150 MILLION DOLLARS. In 2004, President Bush’s inauguration cost a little more than $40 million and the media and democrats were going after him for being that high… but you know what, I had a junior in high school let me know that he thinks Obama should get his own holiday because he is the first black President… I said why? We’ve already got President’s Day.

What’s up with this meeting of Obama and some of the top conservative columnists in America? What is the motive for this? Trying to cause a rift amongst the conservatives? More on this in a few days.

That’s all I have for now.

Two for Today.

2009-01-12T21:15:00.000-08:00

I went to the funeral of a great woman today. Her name was Becky Barton, a strong, God-fearing woman who gave more to others than she ever received. If you needed prayer, she would pray for you. If you needed something tangible, she would do whatever she could to make sure that you got what you needed, even if it meant that she would pull money from her savings because she knew that by her faith in God, she would get by. The pastor who officiated the service told those in attendance that everyone would have to work a lot harder just to make up for what the world lost in Becky.

I told my buddy who’s Aunt she was that he should feel a little bit better knowing that he had his Aunt Becky on his side up there with God, rooting for him.

God Bless you Aunt Becky.

It is going to be a long year for Pope Benedict but the only meeting that I am interested in is the meeting that could possibly happen when then President Obama will travel to Italy for the G-8 and plans to make a stop in Vatican City. Being the faithful Catholic that I am and having read many of the works of His Holiness, I know Pope Benedict will make time to visit with President Obama because he is a man that will listen to other views. I am sure tag-along Joe Biden will see if he can get in on the meeting if it happens because he is a Catholic, well, a Democrat Catholic putting party before God. Why am I saying this? Well, Pro-Choice. Stem cell research which was recently a focus of one of the most recent documents released by the Vatican, Dignitas Personae, and of course the big one, abortion which is mentioned in Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Evengelium Vitae which reaffirmed Pope Paul VI’s stance taken by The Church on abortion as “unchanged and unchangeable” in regards to the sanctity of life. To only be a fly on the wall when that meeting happens.

I think there needs to be a new classification of Catholics during the political season, like I mentioned above, Democrat Catholics and Catholics, the one’s who put God before politics and rhetoric and those who put politics ahead of God. Well they already have a name for those who pick and choose what to believe from The Church, they are Cafeteria Catholics.

Here’s my title:

Catholic. Conservative. Republican. In that exact order.

Arab media, vying for Our support of Hamas.

2009-01-11T10:12:00.001-08:00

The Arab media networks are putting out continuous coverage of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza, did I mention it’s one-sided? Israel has not allowed any network journalists inside of Gaza as of yet for fear of them being injured or slain during the continued attacks that began in mid-December after Hamas fired a round of missiles into Israel.

Watching the news, we continue to see coverage of pro-Palestinian rallies across America and the world. In front of the Israeli embassy in Paris, thousands gathered to protest throwing shoes and injuring security officials and began looting stores in the area and also burning cars in protest. Really? Is that supposed to have a positive effect, for you to destroy another person’s property and to resolve to steal? The Pro-Israel rallies seem to be better organized and more civilized.

I know that I do not like the idea of a group that believes that the destruction of the Jews shall bring about the end:

“The Prophet, Allah's prayer and peace be upon him, says: "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews." (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim).”

Taken from http://memri.org in an article written about "The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement – Hamas".

Apparently, the Jews must be slaughtered to bring about the end of the world? I am not too keen on other world religions than my own but I find that information about Islam very disturbing and telling.

Now I will go back to my rant about the Arab media. The Arab media is drawing more sentiment to their cause because of the way it is being presented to the world, via their bias. The Time Magazine cover couldn’t do much more to support this claim. The cover says “Why Israel Can’t Win,” the media hyped Obama up to America and the world and now they are putting a militant terrorist organization, Hamas, up on a pedestal. A media that supports Hamas, what next, celebrate the birthday of Hitler? I will say this, much of the article in Time is about the growing Arab population in Israel and at their birthrate, the Jews will be outnumbered in their own land eventually, but the cover seems to tell a different story and is disturbing.

I support Israel and their cause. Hamas is fighting as cowards in Gaza, having their artillery storage facilities in heavily populated areas and running their operations underground in hospitals and houses. With this, anytime Israel does hit a Hamas target, civilian casualties are imminent, sadly. Hamas first fired, Israel is retaliating. When you have an enemy, who is publicizing every civilian casualty, and everyone in the world is viewing the Arab propaganda, people will be fooled because no one likes to see an innocent person die, but like I said, the media are great at persuading people, look what happened during the campaign season.

New Year. New Transition.

2009-01-10T15:20:00.000-08:00

Obama will be inaugurated in just a few days and it has become evident to many people, I called it months ago, that it seems the Clinton entourage will be once again, in the White House. Politics as usual? You are correct. Behind the euphemisms of Hope and Change, apparently even the media did not know what they meant. I do wish him success in the coming years, but not in passing liberal legislation such as "card check", "universal health care" and others. Right now we are in an economical bind which, if you will, I believe it had to do in large part with his being elected and with the ensuing economical downturn, the Democrats will continue to push the economy as the issue as to why Republicans are wrong for the country. With Obama as the poster-boy that so many feel will deliver them, they will believe it.

My opinion:

-Many of these short term solutions that Obama is offering, are not the answer. In an economic downturn or recession, people are uncertain as to how to go forward. Long-term solutions are the answer. For example-tax cuts. When President Bush pushed for tax cuts in his first term, he was providing for a new environment to spur investment, one that may calm the waves during an uncertain time like the recession that President Bush inherited. It offers a predictable playing field so to speak.

-In response the the infrastructure investment that is being proposed that would create jobs, we are talking about a jobs bubble. Another temporary fix to employ workers for jobs that will not last any longer than 3 years most likely.

-And last, green jobs. Some studies show that for every green job created, you lose a blue collar job. If you can produce X kW of electricity by utilizing wind or solar, then that is X less kW that will be produced by coal or older technologies.

Alright, there is my view on a few of the "obamanomics" proposals.