Sunday on Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer was talking to David Axelrod about the President's allegations that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is taking foreign money and using if for unethical, if not illegal purposes. The President offers no evidence to support these allegations yet when asked for such evidence, Axelrod responded "What evidence do they have to prove they're not doing it?" Schieffer's incredulous response to this was "Is that all you've got?"
So the White House is making unsubstantiated allegations against a Federal agency that has opposed his policies concerning businesses and taxes and telling America it's up to the agency to prove they did nothing wrong rather than the White House prove the Chamber of Commerce did anything wrong.
In the spirit of fairness, Rush Limbaugh today made an unsubstantiated allegation against President Obama and his staff. Limbaugh accused the President and his staff of being paid by the Chinese (who's top military leader recently said America is an enemy of China) to cause the failure of the United States economy and said Obama is getting his paychecks from China. By Mr. Obama's own standards, Limbaugh then called on the President to prove that this allegation is not true.
Whether you like or dislike Rush Limbaugh, and even if you think the allegation is silly and maybe even disrespectful, fair is fair, isn't it? The point is - if the President can hurl out unsubstantiated allegations and then try to make everyone consider that agency guilty until the prove otherwise, why can't the same thing be done to him? Of course the only thing Obama will do with Limbaugh's allegations, if he responds at all, will be to say something derogatory about Rush and decry anything he says, probably criticizing FOX News at the same time.
I'm getting seriously tired of the double standards in Washington, on both sides of the aisle but particularly from the White House. The White House is supposed to be an example to the American people yet lately all we get from them are double standards, continued vilification of anyone who opposes their views and a whining, crybaby attitude. Even Bill Clinton is getting in on the whining and vilification of people who oppose Democrats, liberals and/or progressivism. George W. Bush, like him or hate him, had more class than to do that while he was President and now as a former President. Obama could learn something from Bush if he wasn't so busy blaming him for everything.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Don't ask, don't tell....
On Tuesday, a Federal District judge in Riverside, California, issued an injunction barring the U.S. military from enforcing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that has been in place since the Clinton administration. The order puts a freeze on discharges from the military due to sexual orientation.
Some people may be surprised by my thoughts on this but I say it’s time to change that law. Homosexuals have been serving in the military, mostly in the closet, for as long as we’ve had a military. Their service is, and has been no less honorable than any heterosexual person but they have been forced to hide their true identities from all but their closest friends.
When I was a Staff Sergeant and Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge I supervised several openly gay people. They didn’t flaunt it in public but they weren’t really secretive about it either. And they were all extremely conscientious and dedicated workers. They did their jobs as required and their sexual orientation never was an issue. One gay man, who was a cook in the dining room, was everyone’s favorite cook because he was always happy, friendly and ready to make you the meal you wanted. I could probably make some sick joke about that but this is a serious subject. Eventually, someone complained about these people and they were discharged from the service, despite their dedication.
I’ve heard the arguments against gays serving in the military. Usually it’s something like “Our straight soldiers don’t want to take showers with gay men” or “They don’t want to be in a foxhole with a gay guy.” These people act as though homosexuals go around sexually assaulting straight people on a regular basis. If a homosexual can’t shower with straight men without jumping on them they’ll have problems long before they get to the military. And if they do make unwanted sexual advances toward someone in the shower or in a foxhole, there are regulations against that for all military members, straight or gay. That type of behavior would be grounds for disciplinary action and possible discharge for anyone who did it.
Everyone in the military is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and is responsible for their behavior. Military members must behave in a manner acceptable to society as well as acceptable to the military, so they’re governed by two sets of rules. Anyone, gay or straight, who can’t abide by those rules will be unacceptable to the military and won’t be kept around for long.
It’s time to change the law and allow anyone and everyone who qualifies for military service the chance to serve their country. Patriotism and protecting America isn’t limited by sexual orientation. And neither should qualification to serve.
My question about this entire issue is not whether or not gays should be allowed to serve in the military but whether a Federal District Court judge has the authority to overrule Federal law. I know the Supreme Court can rule something unconstitutional but does a District Court judge have that authority? If judges at that level can overrule a Federal law, why do we need a Supreme Court? For that matter, why leave lawmaking up to Congress if a district judge can change it? Sonia Sotomayor made a joke once about legislating from the bench (that wasn’t really a joke). I’m curious as to whether this ruling will stand and whether this district judge can dictate to the military what they can and can’t do. If anyone knows the answer to this, please let me know.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Lucky Dog....
Last night my wife and I were running and errand and upon our return, found a half-eaten bar of Caress soap on the floor in the upstairs hallway. We have two dogs, her 15 year old Jack Russell and my 10 year old mixed breed (a kinder word than "mutt", somewhat like "pre-owned" replaced "used".) Somehow I just knew it was my dog who ate the soap but neither of them showed any signs or symptoms of stomach upset and both devoured their dinners without difficulty. We all went to bed around 10 and got up this morning with everyone seemingly OK. The dogs had their breakfast and Barrie, my wife, went to work. I settled down at my computer to post my morning blog.
About 9:00am, my dog, Lucky by name, verified that she was the perpatrator of the great soap caper. While I was in the shower she began vomiting up her breakfast. Being the kind, concientious creature that she is, she didn't want me to find a large puddle of regurgitated dog food on the bedroom carpet that I would have to clean. So, in her kindness, she left me four smaller puddles, scattered around the bedroom in various places. I got a large spatula (it probably sounds gross but it's the easiest way to pick it up) and a plastic plate and scooped up as much as I could, then got a towel and some spot remover and cleaned the four smaller spots. (Thanks to my dog's undying generosity, I wasn't scrubbing a very large, single spot!)
About an hour later I watched Lucky drinking some water from her bowl and thought "She must be feeling a little better." Ten minutes later she was up in the bedroom again getting rid of that nice water she had just consumed, once again insuring I didn't have one big puddle to clean by depositing it in two separate places. This time there wasn't much food mixed in - mostly water and a frothy substance that I took for saliva. That is, until I began cleaning the carpet again. With every scrape of the spatula the frothy stuff seemed to expand and get thicker. The more I scraped the more foam I got. Curiosity, or some crazy notion took me because at that point, for whatever reason, I decided to smell it (I know it's disgusting but I had to know). And I wasn't terribly surprised when the foam smelled exactly like Caress bath bar. I kid you not. Lucky was throwing up bubbles and foam from the soap she ingested last evening. If she had to puke, I can't complain too much about that.
She depositied several more throughout the afternoon, always being sure she didn't leave them in one, ugly, wet puddle.
Anyway, she seems to be better now as she hasn't unloaded anything else recently. I finished cleaning the carpet, all eleven spots, and made sure there was nothing else in reach that she might want to sample. I'm not taking her to the vet today because I still believe it was the soap she ate that made her sick and I don't feel it's worth $100 for the vet to tell me the same thing. I'd like to say she learned her lesson but she is a dog, after all. A much wiser one today than yesterday, I'd like to think, but a dog nonetheless.
Barrie suggested we change her name to Bubbles....
About 9:00am, my dog, Lucky by name, verified that she was the perpatrator of the great soap caper. While I was in the shower she began vomiting up her breakfast. Being the kind, concientious creature that she is, she didn't want me to find a large puddle of regurgitated dog food on the bedroom carpet that I would have to clean. So, in her kindness, she left me four smaller puddles, scattered around the bedroom in various places. I got a large spatula (it probably sounds gross but it's the easiest way to pick it up) and a plastic plate and scooped up as much as I could, then got a towel and some spot remover and cleaned the four smaller spots. (Thanks to my dog's undying generosity, I wasn't scrubbing a very large, single spot!)
About an hour later I watched Lucky drinking some water from her bowl and thought "She must be feeling a little better." Ten minutes later she was up in the bedroom again getting rid of that nice water she had just consumed, once again insuring I didn't have one big puddle to clean by depositing it in two separate places. This time there wasn't much food mixed in - mostly water and a frothy substance that I took for saliva. That is, until I began cleaning the carpet again. With every scrape of the spatula the frothy stuff seemed to expand and get thicker. The more I scraped the more foam I got. Curiosity, or some crazy notion took me because at that point, for whatever reason, I decided to smell it (I know it's disgusting but I had to know). And I wasn't terribly surprised when the foam smelled exactly like Caress bath bar. I kid you not. Lucky was throwing up bubbles and foam from the soap she ingested last evening. If she had to puke, I can't complain too much about that.
She depositied several more throughout the afternoon, always being sure she didn't leave them in one, ugly, wet puddle.
Anyway, she seems to be better now as she hasn't unloaded anything else recently. I finished cleaning the carpet, all eleven spots, and made sure there was nothing else in reach that she might want to sample. I'm not taking her to the vet today because I still believe it was the soap she ate that made her sick and I don't feel it's worth $100 for the vet to tell me the same thing. I'd like to say she learned her lesson but she is a dog, after all. A much wiser one today than yesterday, I'd like to think, but a dog nonetheless.
Barrie suggested we change her name to Bubbles....
Amazing coincidence...
According to Politico.com, "The Obama administration is preparing to end the ban on deepwater oil and gas drilling imposed after the BP oil disaster in April, lifting it more than a month ahead of schedule. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is set to make the official announcement during a conference call 1 p.m. Tuesday. The administration has been subject to constant political pressure from Gulf state lawmakers and the oil and gas industry concerned about job losses attributed to the ban, which covers drilling along the outer continental shelf more than 1,000 feet down."
Who'd have thought, with over half the America people against the moritorium, the loss of oil production and the massive unemployment in the Gulf states brought on by the drilling ban, that only three weeks before the mid-term elections (which the Democrats seem to be losing) Obama would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling? I know the President would never do anything like that for political gain say - to win back votes for Democrat candidates in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi. But it sure is an amazing coincidence, isn't it?
Who'd have thought, with over half the America people against the moritorium, the loss of oil production and the massive unemployment in the Gulf states brought on by the drilling ban, that only three weeks before the mid-term elections (which the Democrats seem to be losing) Obama would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling? I know the President would never do anything like that for political gain say - to win back votes for Democrat candidates in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi. But it sure is an amazing coincidence, isn't it?
Politics according to Pat Sajak
The infamous host of "Wheel of Fortune" wrote an article for Ricochet.com, a blog site that professes to have representation from across the board, both politically and culturally. I haven't researched it yet to see if that's true but I did read Pat Sajak's post this morning and found it to be very accurate.
Sajak said that while Republicans will most likely gain majority status in the upcoming election in November, they really need to do something positive once they gain that status. I have to agree. One of the left's comebacks to criticism of what the left has or hasn't done is "Well, what have the Republicans done?" And while that's a lame response ini a discussion and no defense of the policies of the left, it's actually a valid question. Many Republicans are leaning more and more toward the progressive movement and abandoning their conservative roots. That's the reason many of the incumbent Republicans, powerful Republicans, will be losing their seats in November as well.
Republicans have no real plan to enact once they gain majority status. Eric Cantor and his group of young Republicans put out their new "Contract With America" two weeks ago but the truth is - it really didn't say much. It was very vague and there was no discernable plan of action. So it's just more talk.
Pat Sajak has a very valid point. If Republicans don't have a plan to change things they're simply going to occupy seats in the House and Senate and continue the same 'ol, same 'ol. That course of action may slow down the far left-wing movement of the last 21 months but it won't turn the country around, create jobs, improve the economy and improve our standing in the world. And that will be a true shame and a wasted opportunity.
Sajak said that while Republicans will most likely gain majority status in the upcoming election in November, they really need to do something positive once they gain that status. I have to agree. One of the left's comebacks to criticism of what the left has or hasn't done is "Well, what have the Republicans done?" And while that's a lame response ini a discussion and no defense of the policies of the left, it's actually a valid question. Many Republicans are leaning more and more toward the progressive movement and abandoning their conservative roots. That's the reason many of the incumbent Republicans, powerful Republicans, will be losing their seats in November as well.
Republicans have no real plan to enact once they gain majority status. Eric Cantor and his group of young Republicans put out their new "Contract With America" two weeks ago but the truth is - it really didn't say much. It was very vague and there was no discernable plan of action. So it's just more talk.
Pat Sajak has a very valid point. If Republicans don't have a plan to change things they're simply going to occupy seats in the House and Senate and continue the same 'ol, same 'ol. That course of action may slow down the far left-wing movement of the last 21 months but it won't turn the country around, create jobs, improve the economy and improve our standing in the world. And that will be a true shame and a wasted opportunity.
Labor Unions and the Vote
In an article in "Redstate" this morning, AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka was quoted as saying businesses who are not creating jobs right now due to the floundering economy are "corporate traitors" and are guilty of "economic treason". Mr. Trumka believes those business who are not unionized, and are not receiving bailout money from the government to help create jobs, are turning their backs on America.
In reality, the big labor union in this country is one of the greatest contributors to the failing economy. They would vilify me for writing this but one of the reasons General Motors and Chrysler were going under was the high wages, expensive health care plans and unsustainable pension plans of the United Auto Workers. President Obama, a big fan of unions and government control of businesses, not only made a deal in which the stockholders lost everything to the union thugs but is going to bail out the unions and subsidize their pension plans, giving the unions yet another handout at the taxpayers' expense. He is also a fan of card check, which gives unions more power to organize labor in all businesses and to intimidate those workers who don't want to unionize. In return, Obama gets union backing and millions in campaign contributions.
Big labor unions contribute to high prices of goods and poor work ethics. By that I mean vested union workers are almost impossible to fire because they are protected, no matter what they do. When I worked for the Federal government my observation of the union was that they worked hard to reduce the workload and responsibilities of employees and helped keep lazy, worthless or criminal employees on the job. I can't tell you how many times I saw a union employee get arrested and convicted for something yet keep his job because of the union. One man was convicted of attempting to carry a loaded handgun on an airplane yet he kept his law enforcement job after conviction. If he'd have had that conviction before he was hired he never would have been hired. I saw others convicted of illegal drug possession and/or use who also kept their jobs in law enforcement. Why? The union went to bat for them and management was afraid to oppose them because labor arbitrators normally side with the union.
There was a time, back in the late 1800s and early 1900s, before laws were enacted to protect workers, when the union was a necessary organization in this country. Today it is merely about power. No group should be able to tell a privately owned corporation what they can and can't do yet it happens on a daily basis. No group should have as much influence on the government as SEIU, AFL/CIO and others have today. As far as I'm concerned, GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go bankrupt, re-organize, disband the union and start over. It would have increased unemployment but in the long run the company and the USA would be stronger. Case in point - look at Toyota of America. They have no unions but they're still working, still producing cars and not beholdin to the government. Ford managed to survive without a bailout but only because they produce a high quality product that people are still buying. But they have the same UAW union as the other two so problems are still very possible. It's all about power and influence and so far, the unions have more than ever.
In reality, the big labor union in this country is one of the greatest contributors to the failing economy. They would vilify me for writing this but one of the reasons General Motors and Chrysler were going under was the high wages, expensive health care plans and unsustainable pension plans of the United Auto Workers. President Obama, a big fan of unions and government control of businesses, not only made a deal in which the stockholders lost everything to the union thugs but is going to bail out the unions and subsidize their pension plans, giving the unions yet another handout at the taxpayers' expense. He is also a fan of card check, which gives unions more power to organize labor in all businesses and to intimidate those workers who don't want to unionize. In return, Obama gets union backing and millions in campaign contributions.
Big labor unions contribute to high prices of goods and poor work ethics. By that I mean vested union workers are almost impossible to fire because they are protected, no matter what they do. When I worked for the Federal government my observation of the union was that they worked hard to reduce the workload and responsibilities of employees and helped keep lazy, worthless or criminal employees on the job. I can't tell you how many times I saw a union employee get arrested and convicted for something yet keep his job because of the union. One man was convicted of attempting to carry a loaded handgun on an airplane yet he kept his law enforcement job after conviction. If he'd have had that conviction before he was hired he never would have been hired. I saw others convicted of illegal drug possession and/or use who also kept their jobs in law enforcement. Why? The union went to bat for them and management was afraid to oppose them because labor arbitrators normally side with the union.
There was a time, back in the late 1800s and early 1900s, before laws were enacted to protect workers, when the union was a necessary organization in this country. Today it is merely about power. No group should be able to tell a privately owned corporation what they can and can't do yet it happens on a daily basis. No group should have as much influence on the government as SEIU, AFL/CIO and others have today. As far as I'm concerned, GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go bankrupt, re-organize, disband the union and start over. It would have increased unemployment but in the long run the company and the USA would be stronger. Case in point - look at Toyota of America. They have no unions but they're still working, still producing cars and not beholdin to the government. Ford managed to survive without a bailout but only because they produce a high quality product that people are still buying. But they have the same UAW union as the other two so problems are still very possible. It's all about power and influence and so far, the unions have more than ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)