I'm just not impressed with ANY of the candidates yet... and that is not a good thing.
If I had to pick right now, I'd go with Santorum. He's a bit bland, but his message is clear and he has a spotless if un-spectacular record while in Congress. He has a surprising number of religious endorsements, and very few of them (that I know of anyway) are Catholic... he has an official endorsement from the Evangelical League in SC, a Family Faith group in MS, and the Faith Matters organization in the Midwest. I say this to point out that I am not blind to the fact that many Protestant mainstream leaders across the country see his agenda as parallel to theirs... despite his Catholic faith.
My concern is that he is a Bush Jr. sort of conservative... big spending, big ticket GOP compromiser willing to allow big spending if it gets him his agenda. The Bush years (2001 to 2009) are not my idea of the conservative ideal... but they are a far cry better than what we've had since.
Still, he has none of the "flip-flop" taint that Romney has, and no automatic label of "hypocrite" that Gingrich is carrying around. His understanding of American needs in foreign policy seem rooted in reality (unlike Ron Paul's) and he is MILES ahead of Buchannan, Perry and the rest in his ability to clearly spell out his ideas and goals as President.
He doesn't have a lot on his resume to sell him into the Oval Office... no executive experience, two terms in the House and two terms in the Senate, and almost no public exposure since losing his Senate seat in 2007. If he has any money in his coffers, he needs to spend it on a PR campaign the likes of which we haven't seen since 1980.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The only universal constant is change
Well after 24 years, 5 years in the Navy, 4 years in the Army and the rest in the Air Force Reserve for a total of 24 years I am finally hanging up my hat. I'm not sure I really want to but like the title says change is coming and I don't think I can go through that again. I did 8 years of that kind of change under Bill Clinton and it's time for the young guys to clean up the mess. The ceremony is in July so anyone who would like to attend let me know, I will be supplying the Barley Pops.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Wish me luck...
Jake has a neurologist appointment tomorrow to test his sleeping patterns for problems like sleep apnea that might be keeping him from a full night's REM sleep. No problem, right?
Except that he has to stay up ALL NIGHT tonight until 8 AM tomorrow when he will sleep at the doctor's office.
That's right, friends... its UP ALL NIGHT with Jacob tonight! Aside from the fact that I simply don't function so well on zero sleep anymore, Jake suffers without a solid night himself... so its anybody's guess what tonight and tomorrow will bring us.
Forget wishing me luck... pray for us, please!
Except that he has to stay up ALL NIGHT tonight until 8 AM tomorrow when he will sleep at the doctor's office.
That's right, friends... its UP ALL NIGHT with Jacob tonight! Aside from the fact that I simply don't function so well on zero sleep anymore, Jake suffers without a solid night himself... so its anybody's guess what tonight and tomorrow will bring us.
Forget wishing me luck... pray for us, please!
Posting this right here so it doesn't get lost...
My book is available as an E book, and has been since it came out in 2005. Why Amazon doesn't sell it as an E book is a mystery, but if you go to the publisher, Red Lead Publishing, you can purchase it right there.
Claire has a Nook and loves it.
Enjoy!
Claire has a Nook and loves it.
Enjoy!
Friday, January 6, 2012
Fair enough...
I apologize for the crass and sarcastic manner in which I must have phrased my last post. I was trying to be ironic, not sarcastic.
That being said, I defend my position, if not my actual words.
"I was convinced it was but one bellicose general, bearing his short sword in his teeth, that braved the cold waters and set Rome on a course for Empire."
First of all... that was some damn fine rebuttal right there. Touche! However, I was not insinuating that you thought Caesar did it all... I was pointing out that Caesar instigated the civil war by marching an army into territory where it was forbidden to march, with the sole purpose of overthrowing the existing and established order. In short, a coup d'etat. He did this knowingly and with intent, fully understanding what would result from his actions. I simply don't think the comparison is accurate.
Obama, even if he is trying to subvert the established order by usurping more authority than the Constitution gives his office, has not knowingly acted in a manner that would start a civil war. I'm still not convinced that the policy or legislation can even stand up to today's very liberal Supreme Court... as you said, it is a clear infringement on (if not violation of) nearly every aspect of our personal freedoms and liberties as defined in the founding documents.
States like South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Virginia seizing and occupying Federal forts and harbors prior to April of 1861 is EXACTLY the sort of action your analogy describes: clear and thoughtfully planned acts that have no possible alternative result other than civil war. Some would argue that Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops to "maintain the Union" did the same thing, but none of those troops (even if they had been on hand at the time, which they weren't) were encroaching on State lands (literally, the lands then claimed by the Confederacy)... so I don't agree.
Lincoln's arrest and detention of most of the Maryland legislature and the Mayor of Baltimore without charge or trial for more than 4 years IS a good example of what I am talking about. They remained detained at his direction until the end of hostilities... and the act was later determined by the SCotUS to be un-Constitutional, but it did not impede Lincoln during the crisis.
Andrew Jackson's actions in utilizing Federal troops to forcibly remove Indians from their legally ratified and recognized reservations in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina (and later Florida and Mississippi) was also determined to be "wrong"... but was justified by the then President as needed and necessary, and was NOT seen as something that could be allowed to remain a permanent part of Executive authority.
These were all actions taken against recognized US citizens, their property and their rights as defined by the Constitution. I don't mean "recognized now" either... people understood these individuals to be US CITIZENS, but that was inconvenient to the established authority and it was ignored by the White House and other elected leaders. Whatever the reasoning, it was (or is now) recognized that this was WRONG, and it was corrected or guarded against in the future.
Look, perhaps my saying that "every President since Washington" was trying to do what Obama was doing was taking it too far. What I meant by that was that every President since Washington (and I include Washington in this) has looked to expand, or at least redefine, the Powers allocated and allowed to the Executive Branch of Government. Few have succeeded, but some have, and some have only to have their efforts reversed later by calmer and wiser heads.
I simply cannot believe that this legislation will survive even minutes of debate between the Justices, should it ever reach the Supreme Court. If "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is un-Constitutional... how can this be?
That being said, I defend my position, if not my actual words.
"I was convinced it was but one bellicose general, bearing his short sword in his teeth, that braved the cold waters and set Rome on a course for Empire."
First of all... that was some damn fine rebuttal right there. Touche! However, I was not insinuating that you thought Caesar did it all... I was pointing out that Caesar instigated the civil war by marching an army into territory where it was forbidden to march, with the sole purpose of overthrowing the existing and established order. In short, a coup d'etat. He did this knowingly and with intent, fully understanding what would result from his actions. I simply don't think the comparison is accurate.
Obama, even if he is trying to subvert the established order by usurping more authority than the Constitution gives his office, has not knowingly acted in a manner that would start a civil war. I'm still not convinced that the policy or legislation can even stand up to today's very liberal Supreme Court... as you said, it is a clear infringement on (if not violation of) nearly every aspect of our personal freedoms and liberties as defined in the founding documents.
States like South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Virginia seizing and occupying Federal forts and harbors prior to April of 1861 is EXACTLY the sort of action your analogy describes: clear and thoughtfully planned acts that have no possible alternative result other than civil war. Some would argue that Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops to "maintain the Union" did the same thing, but none of those troops (even if they had been on hand at the time, which they weren't) were encroaching on State lands (literally, the lands then claimed by the Confederacy)... so I don't agree.
Lincoln's arrest and detention of most of the Maryland legislature and the Mayor of Baltimore without charge or trial for more than 4 years IS a good example of what I am talking about. They remained detained at his direction until the end of hostilities... and the act was later determined by the SCotUS to be un-Constitutional, but it did not impede Lincoln during the crisis.
Andrew Jackson's actions in utilizing Federal troops to forcibly remove Indians from their legally ratified and recognized reservations in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina (and later Florida and Mississippi) was also determined to be "wrong"... but was justified by the then President as needed and necessary, and was NOT seen as something that could be allowed to remain a permanent part of Executive authority.
These were all actions taken against recognized US citizens, their property and their rights as defined by the Constitution. I don't mean "recognized now" either... people understood these individuals to be US CITIZENS, but that was inconvenient to the established authority and it was ignored by the White House and other elected leaders. Whatever the reasoning, it was (or is now) recognized that this was WRONG, and it was corrected or guarded against in the future.
Look, perhaps my saying that "every President since Washington" was trying to do what Obama was doing was taking it too far. What I meant by that was that every President since Washington (and I include Washington in this) has looked to expand, or at least redefine, the Powers allocated and allowed to the Executive Branch of Government. Few have succeeded, but some have, and some have only to have their efforts reversed later by calmer and wiser heads.
I simply cannot believe that this legislation will survive even minutes of debate between the Justices, should it ever reach the Supreme Court. If "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is un-Constitutional... how can this be?
20 paces and I'll stop along the way to pick up my second!
You couldn't be more wrong in your analysis, and I will lay out the specifics as to why.
But first ...
What sin could I possibly have committed to earn such an insult? Have I done so little to vindicate my intellect over these many years that you find it necessary to attempt a literal correction of what was clearly a creative hyperbole meant to accent a relevant point? So let me get this straight - you're telling me it wasn't ONE man that crossed the Rubicon? Thank you dear professor. Whatever would I do without such keen insight? I was convinced it was but one bellicose general, bearing his short sword in his teeth, that braved the cold waters and set Rome on a course for Empire. Your clarity is crystal. But why stop the lesson there? Surely it occurred to you to enlighten me on the fact that President Obama himself will not literally be the arresting agent when an American is detained under his new authority. Nor will it be he, one man, who flies the plane when and if an American is subjected to Rendition. Nor will he lock the cell door, nor launder the clothing, nor cook the prison food for the never charged, never mirandized, indefinitely held American citizen. Perhaps the constraints of time prevented you from making this clear. I can only hope that I have properly addressed the issue to your exacting standards ... feel fortunate dear man that Western Civilization has evolved past the era when it was permissible to challenge a fellow gentleman to a duel, for I would demand satisfaction sir!
To my point, Bush never sought nor did he achieve this power by law (not that it was disclosed at least). Had he, his immediate successor would have no need of duplicate legislation. In addition, never once have I advocated indefinite detention of US citizens. Third, this I don't buy for a moment: "every chief executive" has sought this power. In fact, I would go so far as to say the vast majority have not.
Fourth - FDR and Lincoln / temporary versus permanent. There is a specific and measurable difference between they and Obama. Technically, this is peacetime. There is no formal declaration of war. Meaning unlike Lincoln & FDR these powers have not been assumed under the War Powers Act, which would as a matter of course naturally abate at the cessation of hostilities. In other words, this is a stand alone law. No return to peace (from wars declared or not declared) will withdraw the authority. Which leads me to my last point on the permanent nature of these powers - there will never be a cessation of hostilities in the war on terror. They (or at least a significant portion therein) have been converting by the sword since the time of Mohammad. Unlike what Lincoln and FDR faced, there is no single leader to kill or capture; no peace of real estate to win that eliminates the threat; no high command that can demand and receive the surrender of all enemy troops. In other words, unlike in the case of the two afore metioned chief executives, the very nature of this war neccessitates that these new powers not be temporary.
No, no my friend. This is unique. Even Adams' sedition acts provided for charge and trial. So unless you can demonstrate a case(s) in which a PoTUS sought and had codified into law, unaffected by peacetime status, the ability to suspend any and all applicable criminal justice Rights (and if you want me to rest easier, evidence the authority was successfully rebuffed and the law recalled), don't present section 1021 to me as something common to the annals of American history.
Oh, and of course you realize these powers would provide their ability to "disappear" the likes of Timothy McVeigh, right? Now personally, I wouldn't care if McVeigh were summarily thrown on the Rack then tossed in a shallow grave (although clearly our laws can not reflect such personal feelings). What I do care about is the idea that scores of radicals on the Left do not distinguish between Terry Nichols and the Tea Party. And the language on what constitutes a "terrorist" is just vague enough to be interpreted any which way they please.
But first ...
What sin could I possibly have committed to earn such an insult? Have I done so little to vindicate my intellect over these many years that you find it necessary to attempt a literal correction of what was clearly a creative hyperbole meant to accent a relevant point? So let me get this straight - you're telling me it wasn't ONE man that crossed the Rubicon? Thank you dear professor. Whatever would I do without such keen insight? I was convinced it was but one bellicose general, bearing his short sword in his teeth, that braved the cold waters and set Rome on a course for Empire. Your clarity is crystal. But why stop the lesson there? Surely it occurred to you to enlighten me on the fact that President Obama himself will not literally be the arresting agent when an American is detained under his new authority. Nor will it be he, one man, who flies the plane when and if an American is subjected to Rendition. Nor will he lock the cell door, nor launder the clothing, nor cook the prison food for the never charged, never mirandized, indefinitely held American citizen. Perhaps the constraints of time prevented you from making this clear. I can only hope that I have properly addressed the issue to your exacting standards ... feel fortunate dear man that Western Civilization has evolved past the era when it was permissible to challenge a fellow gentleman to a duel, for I would demand satisfaction sir!
To my point, Bush never sought nor did he achieve this power by law (not that it was disclosed at least). Had he, his immediate successor would have no need of duplicate legislation. In addition, never once have I advocated indefinite detention of US citizens. Third, this I don't buy for a moment: "every chief executive" has sought this power. In fact, I would go so far as to say the vast majority have not.
Fourth - FDR and Lincoln / temporary versus permanent. There is a specific and measurable difference between they and Obama. Technically, this is peacetime. There is no formal declaration of war. Meaning unlike Lincoln & FDR these powers have not been assumed under the War Powers Act, which would as a matter of course naturally abate at the cessation of hostilities. In other words, this is a stand alone law. No return to peace (from wars declared or not declared) will withdraw the authority. Which leads me to my last point on the permanent nature of these powers - there will never be a cessation of hostilities in the war on terror. They (or at least a significant portion therein) have been converting by the sword since the time of Mohammad. Unlike what Lincoln and FDR faced, there is no single leader to kill or capture; no peace of real estate to win that eliminates the threat; no high command that can demand and receive the surrender of all enemy troops. In other words, unlike in the case of the two afore metioned chief executives, the very nature of this war neccessitates that these new powers not be temporary.
No, no my friend. This is unique. Even Adams' sedition acts provided for charge and trial. So unless you can demonstrate a case(s) in which a PoTUS sought and had codified into law, unaffected by peacetime status, the ability to suspend any and all applicable criminal justice Rights (and if you want me to rest easier, evidence the authority was successfully rebuffed and the law recalled), don't present section 1021 to me as something common to the annals of American history.
Oh, and of course you realize these powers would provide their ability to "disappear" the likes of Timothy McVeigh, right? Now personally, I wouldn't care if McVeigh were summarily thrown on the Rack then tossed in a shallow grave (although clearly our laws can not reflect such personal feelings). What I do care about is the idea that scores of radicals on the Left do not distinguish between Terry Nichols and the Tea Party. And the language on what constitutes a "terrorist" is just vague enough to be interpreted any which way they please.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
We should be ashamed of ourselves...
We've already surpassed the number of posts for the month of December...
Anyone for another New Year resolution?
Anyone for another New Year resolution?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
