This past week the Department of Homeland Security announced it would launch a review to beef up security procedures at several international airports.
The effort is part of the White House's response to the Christmas Day attempt by a Nigerian man to bomb Delta Flight 253 in Detroit, that originated in Amsterdam.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a statement, quote…
“As part of the ongoing review to determine exactly what went wrong leading up to Friday’s attempted terrorist attack, we are looking not only at our own processes, but also beyond our borders to ensure effective aviation security measures are in place for U.S-bound flights that originate at international airports.”
According to the homeland security chief - Senior Security officials will meet with leaders at major airports in Africa, Asia, Europe, South America and the Middle East in the coming weeks "to review security procedures and technology being used to screen passengers on flights bound for the United States,"
Ms. Napolitano went on to say said she would follow up on those meetings with her own "ministerial level" discussions, whatever that means
European airports will be reviewed first the in outreach effort, where U.S. officials will brief their European counterparts "on the findings of President Obama’s aviation security review," which he ordered last week.
Since Christmas the White House has been scrambling to assure passengers that air travel is safe, and that it has begun implementing a host of new security rules on international flights that land in the United States.
While all this may sound prudent it reveals a very disturbing fact…
The Obama administration is much more fluent in delivering political rhetoric then it is protecting this country and is completely lost when it comes to comprehending the threat of terrorism.
The idea that almost 9 years after the 9/11 attacks we are just now strengthening our international airport security shows an unbelievable dereliction of duty and a level of incompetence of Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano that it borders on being criminally negligent.
But what else would expect from an administration that seeks to give enemy combatants Constitutional protections and would allow two uninvited and unidentified publicity seekers to walk through the front door of the White House to press the flesh with the most powerful man in the world
Monday, January 18, 2010
Friday, January 1, 2010
Conservatism at its root
I'm often perplexed that liberal minded people cannot grasp the basic tenets of what conservatives believe. The simple belief in personal responsibility, independence, and self reliance. If more people accepted these basic tenets as the framework of human existence we would require far fewer of the social engineering policies liberals seem to be so fascinated with and dependent upon
Monday, December 28, 2009
Was passage of Health Care in the Senate a symptom of a larger problem?
While the United States is undoubtedly blessed like no other land has ever been –
She is falling horribly short of her potential and failing to fully exploit the blessings that God has granted, and it’s our fault.
While it’s easy to place the blame for the current state of our country on outrageous spending, excessive taxation, government intrusion, and ill advised social and economic policies –
The fact is the blame falls squarely at the feet of our politicians.
While this may seem obvious – a deeper look reveals a truth many Americans are reluctant to accept; that our elected officials are a reflection of our own commitment to the political process that governs our lives - and in recent years that commitment has waned.
As children we are taught that America is a nation of laws. While true we are also a nation of policies, regulations, instructions, rules, guidelines and accepted practices.
And the majority of these standards of behavior and governance that allow our nation to function without anarchy are created, implemented and managed by politicians that work for us and in theory represent the will of the majority or so it was intended.
Whether at a national, state, or local level our daily activities are managed by laws and policy created by people we elect. The problem however is that very often the people doing the governing are not qualified to do so. And that is our fault.
Over the past few decades American’s have become enamored with the toys and the distractions of success and affluence.
Even the poorest of American families own a car, cell phones, and large television sets behind which they can sit and look out into a world they once participated in.
Through these distractions and illusion of contentment many American’s have lost interest in the process under which we must all live.
The result is we continue to elect politicians not for their knowledge of the issues but rather on the perception they create of how they will govern.
And we do so because unlike generations before us we have become complacent with the political process that is the hallmark of America.
And it was political complacency that preceded the end of other great nations throughout history.
She is falling horribly short of her potential and failing to fully exploit the blessings that God has granted, and it’s our fault.
While it’s easy to place the blame for the current state of our country on outrageous spending, excessive taxation, government intrusion, and ill advised social and economic policies –
The fact is the blame falls squarely at the feet of our politicians.
While this may seem obvious – a deeper look reveals a truth many Americans are reluctant to accept; that our elected officials are a reflection of our own commitment to the political process that governs our lives - and in recent years that commitment has waned.
As children we are taught that America is a nation of laws. While true we are also a nation of policies, regulations, instructions, rules, guidelines and accepted practices.
And the majority of these standards of behavior and governance that allow our nation to function without anarchy are created, implemented and managed by politicians that work for us and in theory represent the will of the majority or so it was intended.
Whether at a national, state, or local level our daily activities are managed by laws and policy created by people we elect. The problem however is that very often the people doing the governing are not qualified to do so. And that is our fault.
Over the past few decades American’s have become enamored with the toys and the distractions of success and affluence.
Even the poorest of American families own a car, cell phones, and large television sets behind which they can sit and look out into a world they once participated in.
Through these distractions and illusion of contentment many American’s have lost interest in the process under which we must all live.
The result is we continue to elect politicians not for their knowledge of the issues but rather on the perception they create of how they will govern.
And we do so because unlike generations before us we have become complacent with the political process that is the hallmark of America.
And it was political complacency that preceded the end of other great nations throughout history.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Are States rights making a comeback?
For many decades the sovereignty of the States has eroded away as the federal government encroached further and further on their right to govern themselves.
On issue after issue, from taxation to abortion the federal government has peeled away the rights of states to create their own laws – but now it seems some states are drawing a line in the sand
During his campaign Barack Obama made several references about his desire for changing the laws regarding firearms - limiting gun ownership and usage. One of the few legal rights guaranteed by the US constitution but still administered by the states.
But a nationwide review by The Associated Press uncovered a largely unnoticed trend: In much of the country, it is getting easier to carry guns. Over the last two years, 24 states, mostly in the South and West, have passed 47 new laws loosening gun restrictions.
In Tennessee handgun owners won the right to take their weapons onto sports fields and playgrounds.
Among other things, legislatures have allowed firearms to be carried in cars, made it illegal to ask job candidates whether they own a gun, and expanded agreements that make permits to carry handguns in one state valid in another.
The trend is attributed in large part to a push by the National Rifle Association. The NRA, which for years has blocked attempts in Washington to tighten firearms laws, has ramped up its efforts at the state level to chip away at gun restrictions.
According to Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist "This is all a coordinated approach to respect that human, God-given right of self defense by law-abiding Americans,"
"We'll rest when all 50 states allow and respect the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves from criminal attack."
Among the recent gun-friendly laws:
— Arizona, Florida, Louisiana and Utah have made it illegal for businesses to bar their employees from storing guns in cars parked on company lots.
— Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia have made some or all handgun permit information confidential.
— Montana, Arizona and Kansas have allowed handgun permits to be issued to people who have had their felony convictions expunged or their full civil rights restored.
The state motto of Alabama is “We dare defend our rights”
Sounds like much of the rest of the country does too
On issue after issue, from taxation to abortion the federal government has peeled away the rights of states to create their own laws – but now it seems some states are drawing a line in the sand
During his campaign Barack Obama made several references about his desire for changing the laws regarding firearms - limiting gun ownership and usage. One of the few legal rights guaranteed by the US constitution but still administered by the states.
But a nationwide review by The Associated Press uncovered a largely unnoticed trend: In much of the country, it is getting easier to carry guns. Over the last two years, 24 states, mostly in the South and West, have passed 47 new laws loosening gun restrictions.
In Tennessee handgun owners won the right to take their weapons onto sports fields and playgrounds.
Among other things, legislatures have allowed firearms to be carried in cars, made it illegal to ask job candidates whether they own a gun, and expanded agreements that make permits to carry handguns in one state valid in another.
The trend is attributed in large part to a push by the National Rifle Association. The NRA, which for years has blocked attempts in Washington to tighten firearms laws, has ramped up its efforts at the state level to chip away at gun restrictions.
According to Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist "This is all a coordinated approach to respect that human, God-given right of self defense by law-abiding Americans,"
"We'll rest when all 50 states allow and respect the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves from criminal attack."
Among the recent gun-friendly laws:
— Arizona, Florida, Louisiana and Utah have made it illegal for businesses to bar their employees from storing guns in cars parked on company lots.
— Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia have made some or all handgun permit information confidential.
— Montana, Arizona and Kansas have allowed handgun permits to be issued to people who have had their felony convictions expunged or their full civil rights restored.
The state motto of Alabama is “We dare defend our rights”
Sounds like much of the rest of the country does too
Thursday, December 10, 2009
A government that controls the press – controls the people
In a recent survey up to 90% of Americans that regularly read the news get at least some of their news online. This trend has been growing and has placed a serious financial burden, and even forced bankruptcy on major US news papers as circulation of print media plummets.
But according to Democrat congressman Henry Waxman of California since the newspaper industry is suffering "market failure" the US government will need to step in to help preserve serious journalism essential to democracy.
In a statement during a meeting on journalism in the Internet age hosted by the Federal Trade Commission, Waxman said "The newspapers my generation has taken for granted are facing a structural threat to the business model that has sustained them".
"The loss of revenue has spurred a vicious cycle with thousands of journalists losing their jobs”.
Waxman, who chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over the FTC, went on to say "depression in the media sector is not cyclical, it is structural."
"While this has implications for the media it also has implications for democracy," he added. "A vigorous free press and vigorous democracy have been inextricably linked.
"We cannot risk the loss of an informed public and all that means because of this market failure”.
Waxman noted various possible remedies, including new tax structures for publishers, providing non-profit status, changing anti-trust regulations or eliminating a law that bars owning a newspaper and a television station in the same city.
But "as we look at these various solutions, government is going to have to be involved in one way or the other," he warned.
"Eventually, government is going to have to be responsible to help resolve these issues and our whole society depends very much on reaching some resolution of the problem."
When you consider that the first move of any government that is seeking to restrict the rights of its citizens is to seize control of its media,
the idea that the US government should take any stake, let alone a financial one in the media should not only be a major concern to all American’s but one that should be stopped dead in its tracks, before this insane notion has any chance of being taken seriously.
But according to Democrat congressman Henry Waxman of California since the newspaper industry is suffering "market failure" the US government will need to step in to help preserve serious journalism essential to democracy.
In a statement during a meeting on journalism in the Internet age hosted by the Federal Trade Commission, Waxman said "The newspapers my generation has taken for granted are facing a structural threat to the business model that has sustained them".
"The loss of revenue has spurred a vicious cycle with thousands of journalists losing their jobs”.
Waxman, who chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over the FTC, went on to say "depression in the media sector is not cyclical, it is structural."
"While this has implications for the media it also has implications for democracy," he added. "A vigorous free press and vigorous democracy have been inextricably linked.
"We cannot risk the loss of an informed public and all that means because of this market failure”.
Waxman noted various possible remedies, including new tax structures for publishers, providing non-profit status, changing anti-trust regulations or eliminating a law that bars owning a newspaper and a television station in the same city.
But "as we look at these various solutions, government is going to have to be involved in one way or the other," he warned.
"Eventually, government is going to have to be responsible to help resolve these issues and our whole society depends very much on reaching some resolution of the problem."
When you consider that the first move of any government that is seeking to restrict the rights of its citizens is to seize control of its media,
the idea that the US government should take any stake, let alone a financial one in the media should not only be a major concern to all American’s but one that should be stopped dead in its tracks, before this insane notion has any chance of being taken seriously.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Two Turtle Doves and budget busting heath care for all
It's simply not true that all American’s are in denial when it comes to funding Barack Obama’s enormous health care initiative.
The day after the Congressional Budget Office gave its blessing to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s version of the health reform bill - a Quinnipiac University poll of a cross section of voters - reported its results.
The poll question read: "President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade.
Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think that any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?"
The answer: Only 19 percent of those polled think he will be able to keep his word.
9 of 10 Republicans and 8 of 10 independents said that whatever passes will add massive debt to the already over burdened deficit. Even Democrats agreed this is likely by a margin of four to three.
That fear contributed directly to the fact that the majority in this poll said they oppose the legislation now moving through Congress by a 16-point margin
The concern over the bill seems to be less about the much publicized fight over the public option or the issue of abortion coverage than it does the plausibility that the plan will be fiscally manageable.
While the Congressional Budget Office said that both the bill that recently passed the house and the Reid bill meet the Presidents goal of being budget-neutral, most experts agree currently, these bills will greatly overload an already overburdened budget.
Budget expert Douglas Holtz-Eakin says that "budget gimmicks" make it appear that Harry Reid's bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion by the year 2019.
One of those gimmicks is Reid's decision to postpone the start of subsidies to help the uninsured buy policies from mid-2013 to January 2014
long after taxes and fees levied by the bill would have begun.
So the health care financing games continue - but the challenge remains the same: Either find a way to make the promised savings real, or get back to the drawing board and craft a plan that really works without bleeding the country dry
The day after the Congressional Budget Office gave its blessing to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s version of the health reform bill - a Quinnipiac University poll of a cross section of voters - reported its results.
The poll question read: "President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade.
Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think that any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?"
The answer: Only 19 percent of those polled think he will be able to keep his word.
9 of 10 Republicans and 8 of 10 independents said that whatever passes will add massive debt to the already over burdened deficit. Even Democrats agreed this is likely by a margin of four to three.
That fear contributed directly to the fact that the majority in this poll said they oppose the legislation now moving through Congress by a 16-point margin
The concern over the bill seems to be less about the much publicized fight over the public option or the issue of abortion coverage than it does the plausibility that the plan will be fiscally manageable.
While the Congressional Budget Office said that both the bill that recently passed the house and the Reid bill meet the Presidents goal of being budget-neutral, most experts agree currently, these bills will greatly overload an already overburdened budget.
Budget expert Douglas Holtz-Eakin says that "budget gimmicks" make it appear that Harry Reid's bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion by the year 2019.
One of those gimmicks is Reid's decision to postpone the start of subsidies to help the uninsured buy policies from mid-2013 to January 2014
long after taxes and fees levied by the bill would have begun.
So the health care financing games continue - but the challenge remains the same: Either find a way to make the promised savings real, or get back to the drawing board and craft a plan that really works without bleeding the country dry
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Palin? Yes, but not now
I like Sarah Palin… A lot.
I do not however like her as President – not now at least
Here’s why
I believe the most pressing issue this country is faced with is not the economy, or health care but rather international terrorism. If we are constantly under the threat of being attacked – possibly by a nuclear armed unstable nation – then all the domestic issues we face are merely a distraction.
I am completely confident the US will be hit again and I firmly believe that attack is right around the corner and quite possibly the threat could endure for years.
On domestic policy I think Sarah Palin is a gem. On issues like immigration, taxes, gun control, healthcare reform, environmental issues she falls right in line with what I believe and know to be true.
On foreign policy issues she’s a novice. And with the unstable nature of our world, the move towards globalization, a one world monetary system, the increasing attempts by many nations to grant more power to the United Nations, tension between Israel and Palestine and a whole host of other foreign policy challenges I do not think Sarah Palin has the experience to govern as the President of the United States – not yet at least.
And with the almost certainty that we will be involved in a war for probably decades to come – a President that has a firm grasp on international affairs is no longer a luxury – it is mandatory – and the Presidency is no place for on the job training – no matter how fast a learner someone is.
Imagine this:
It’s 2:15 am, 85 days into the Palin Presidency and the phone rings. 3 Russian Subs have been spotted by the Coast Guard 8 miles off the coast of Long Island NY. They do not respond to attempts to reach them by radio contact and they’re headed this way.
Or perhaps…A Muslim bomber just detonated a nitrogen and phosphorus based fertilizer bomb hidden in a rental truck. The blast caused a gaping hole and a fire ball that reached a 100 feet into the air. The bomb was set off on the lowest level of a parking deck killing dozens and trapping hundreds of people at the Riverchase Galleria in Hoover Alabama (My home town)
Is Sarah Palin really the person you want in charge?
Now?
With this crisis unfolding?
Do her views on death panels, immigration, global warming or cap and trade legislation really matter when and not if - a major international catastrophe hits this country
Sarah Plain has many of the exact same experience flaws many of us on the right said should preclude Barack Obama from being President.
How do we justify this position to our liberal countrymen?
Many Palin supporters have sound much like the giddy Obama supporters we said we’re delusional. She is taking on that same rock star persona we warned people on the left to not become drunk on.
As this point we cannot afford to become enraptured with Sarah Palin – the stakes are just too high.
I like Sarah Palin, a lot. I think she has a long, brilliant and possibly history changing political career ahead of her
We cannot afford to put her in office simply because we like her pluck or because she’s sassy.
Not now. The stakes are just too high
I do not however like her as President – not now at least
Here’s why
I believe the most pressing issue this country is faced with is not the economy, or health care but rather international terrorism. If we are constantly under the threat of being attacked – possibly by a nuclear armed unstable nation – then all the domestic issues we face are merely a distraction.
I am completely confident the US will be hit again and I firmly believe that attack is right around the corner and quite possibly the threat could endure for years.
On domestic policy I think Sarah Palin is a gem. On issues like immigration, taxes, gun control, healthcare reform, environmental issues she falls right in line with what I believe and know to be true.
On foreign policy issues she’s a novice. And with the unstable nature of our world, the move towards globalization, a one world monetary system, the increasing attempts by many nations to grant more power to the United Nations, tension between Israel and Palestine and a whole host of other foreign policy challenges I do not think Sarah Palin has the experience to govern as the President of the United States – not yet at least.
And with the almost certainty that we will be involved in a war for probably decades to come – a President that has a firm grasp on international affairs is no longer a luxury – it is mandatory – and the Presidency is no place for on the job training – no matter how fast a learner someone is.
Imagine this:
It’s 2:15 am, 85 days into the Palin Presidency and the phone rings. 3 Russian Subs have been spotted by the Coast Guard 8 miles off the coast of Long Island NY. They do not respond to attempts to reach them by radio contact and they’re headed this way.
Or perhaps…A Muslim bomber just detonated a nitrogen and phosphorus based fertilizer bomb hidden in a rental truck. The blast caused a gaping hole and a fire ball that reached a 100 feet into the air. The bomb was set off on the lowest level of a parking deck killing dozens and trapping hundreds of people at the Riverchase Galleria in Hoover Alabama (My home town)
Is Sarah Palin really the person you want in charge?
Now?
With this crisis unfolding?
Do her views on death panels, immigration, global warming or cap and trade legislation really matter when and not if - a major international catastrophe hits this country
Sarah Plain has many of the exact same experience flaws many of us on the right said should preclude Barack Obama from being President.
How do we justify this position to our liberal countrymen?
Many Palin supporters have sound much like the giddy Obama supporters we said we’re delusional. She is taking on that same rock star persona we warned people on the left to not become drunk on.
As this point we cannot afford to become enraptured with Sarah Palin – the stakes are just too high.
I like Sarah Palin, a lot. I think she has a long, brilliant and possibly history changing political career ahead of her
We cannot afford to put her in office simply because we like her pluck or because she’s sassy.
Not now. The stakes are just too high
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
