Saturday, November 21, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Off to a Great Start in Rip City!
I realize that the season has only just begun, but I cannot help but be happy and hopeful with the results of my mighty Portland Trailblazers thus far. With 1/8th of the 2009/2010 season finished now, the future NBA world champions are 1st in their division, 2nd in the Western Conference, and tied for 3rd in the entire NBA!
Seeing this almost takes the sting out of my Seahawks very sad NFL season thus far. Anyway, this is just a small part of the reason why I say that deep inside EVERYBODY is a Trailblazer fan whether they know it or not! (Even my otherwise-perfect wife who refuses to admit her love for OUR Trailblazers!)
The Coming Trial of the 9/11 Mastermind
I read with dismay a posting at Honest Partisan (see the link in my left-wing blogs section) that the author of that blog, who is a partisan Democrat and attorney from New York City, actually agrees with the Obama administration’s decision to move terrorist and 9/11 mastermind Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed from his cell in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the city of New York to be afforded U.S. Constitutional rights and a trial there.
The foolishness and downright dangerousness of this decision is staggering. I heard former New York City mayor Rudy Guliani say last Friday when this decision was announced that aside from myriads of other excellent reasons for not doing this, the moving of KSM to New York City for trial puts a further burden on NYC police and security personnel and places the city at an even graver risk for an attack than the heightened chances that already exist for such an episode on a daily basis.
Basically, President Obama has changed policy on terrorism from the Bush administration where they treated such attacks as acts of war and instead went back to the Clinton era policy of treating terrorism as criminal acts that should be handled by police. The decision to do so will only serve to embolden our enemies, weaken our prosecution on the war on terror, and have the potential to seriously undermine our national defense and intelligence gathering capabilities to counteract future terror plots.
Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed is NOT some leader of a gang of inner-city thugs that are a part of his posse. He is a leader of Al Qeada and an enemy combatant that refuses to accept the dictates of the Geneva Convention as he and his ilk intentionally target civilian and military targets with equal prejudice. His regard for life is non-existent and to treat his deeds as felonious actions is ludicrous in the extreme.
Further, by affording this piece of human debris constitutional rights to a trial in New York City, KSM will have access to all sorts of intelligence gathered by the CIA, FBI, and Department of Defense personnel in order to provide for his own defense at trial. By allowing him unfettered access to this type of information, many sources of our intelligence gathering could be compromised and attacked by Al Qeada. To continue, if the wrong judge were appointed to oversee KSM’s trial, say perhaps some ACLU-terrorist-rights-liberal judge, then it is conceivable that the judge could throw out much of the evidence against KSM, including his own confessions, by saying these things were inadmissible in court because KSM was tortured to get this information. Never, mind that once KSM was water-boarded he provided invaluable information that helped us catch other terrorists and foil their operations for future attacks that were in the planning stages. Now KSM will have the right to an attorney to challenge in public court the “illegally obtained” evidence against him and have those responsible brought in to testify against him in court, regardless of the secrecy of their identities.
Evidently President Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, (A man who already is guilty of recommending the past Clinton pardons of the Puerto Rican FALN terrorists and white collar criminal Mark Rich in the waning hours of the Clinton administration) want to make the gathering of intelligence and protecting our nation even more difficult in order to provide U.S. Constitutional rights to a non-American terrorist bent on destroying the very fabric of our nation. Does this irony strike anyone else as completely absurd?
Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed should remain in Gitmo with his fellow terrorists. He should be provided a military lawyer and a military tribunal at Gitmo. He should be found guilty of the crimes he committed and confessed to having done and masterminded and he should be punished accordingly. Anything else will only show our enemy that we are no longer serious about the war on terror.
There is a reason that once President Bush changed this policy to an actual war instead of a matter for police that no other terrorist acts were successfully perpetrated on U.S. soil.
The police cannot prosecute a criminal until AFTER he has committed a crime. In the case of war, we can and have put these human scum on defense and taken the war to them.
Now Obama will take a step backward and allow the terrorists to resume being on offense. We will see future attacks on our country accordingly. It is just a matter of time. It greatly troubles and saddens me too, because it is so needless to have the future loss of property and life that will occur all for the hope that by allowing a public trial for a terrorist will show the world and the terrorists that the United States wants to be their friend.
President Obama should be impeached for this alone in my opinion. He took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the United States of America. He has done the absolute opposite on both of these accounts. I would think that this would be a step too far, even for those living in New York City where some of the worst of these acts of war occurred only eight short years ago.
The foolishness and downright dangerousness of this decision is staggering. I heard former New York City mayor Rudy Guliani say last Friday when this decision was announced that aside from myriads of other excellent reasons for not doing this, the moving of KSM to New York City for trial puts a further burden on NYC police and security personnel and places the city at an even graver risk for an attack than the heightened chances that already exist for such an episode on a daily basis.
Basically, President Obama has changed policy on terrorism from the Bush administration where they treated such attacks as acts of war and instead went back to the Clinton era policy of treating terrorism as criminal acts that should be handled by police. The decision to do so will only serve to embolden our enemies, weaken our prosecution on the war on terror, and have the potential to seriously undermine our national defense and intelligence gathering capabilities to counteract future terror plots.
Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed is NOT some leader of a gang of inner-city thugs that are a part of his posse. He is a leader of Al Qeada and an enemy combatant that refuses to accept the dictates of the Geneva Convention as he and his ilk intentionally target civilian and military targets with equal prejudice. His regard for life is non-existent and to treat his deeds as felonious actions is ludicrous in the extreme.
Further, by affording this piece of human debris constitutional rights to a trial in New York City, KSM will have access to all sorts of intelligence gathered by the CIA, FBI, and Department of Defense personnel in order to provide for his own defense at trial. By allowing him unfettered access to this type of information, many sources of our intelligence gathering could be compromised and attacked by Al Qeada. To continue, if the wrong judge were appointed to oversee KSM’s trial, say perhaps some ACLU-terrorist-rights-liberal judge, then it is conceivable that the judge could throw out much of the evidence against KSM, including his own confessions, by saying these things were inadmissible in court because KSM was tortured to get this information. Never, mind that once KSM was water-boarded he provided invaluable information that helped us catch other terrorists and foil their operations for future attacks that were in the planning stages. Now KSM will have the right to an attorney to challenge in public court the “illegally obtained” evidence against him and have those responsible brought in to testify against him in court, regardless of the secrecy of their identities.
Evidently President Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, (A man who already is guilty of recommending the past Clinton pardons of the Puerto Rican FALN terrorists and white collar criminal Mark Rich in the waning hours of the Clinton administration) want to make the gathering of intelligence and protecting our nation even more difficult in order to provide U.S. Constitutional rights to a non-American terrorist bent on destroying the very fabric of our nation. Does this irony strike anyone else as completely absurd?
Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed should remain in Gitmo with his fellow terrorists. He should be provided a military lawyer and a military tribunal at Gitmo. He should be found guilty of the crimes he committed and confessed to having done and masterminded and he should be punished accordingly. Anything else will only show our enemy that we are no longer serious about the war on terror.
There is a reason that once President Bush changed this policy to an actual war instead of a matter for police that no other terrorist acts were successfully perpetrated on U.S. soil.
The police cannot prosecute a criminal until AFTER he has committed a crime. In the case of war, we can and have put these human scum on defense and taken the war to them.
Now Obama will take a step backward and allow the terrorists to resume being on offense. We will see future attacks on our country accordingly. It is just a matter of time. It greatly troubles and saddens me too, because it is so needless to have the future loss of property and life that will occur all for the hope that by allowing a public trial for a terrorist will show the world and the terrorists that the United States wants to be their friend.
President Obama should be impeached for this alone in my opinion. He took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the United States of America. He has done the absolute opposite on both of these accounts. I would think that this would be a step too far, even for those living in New York City where some of the worst of these acts of war occurred only eight short years ago.
The XXVIII Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
I have an idea to help reign in our politburo congress and their self-regard to rights that they think that only they should be afforded and to which We The People should not.
Amendment XXVIII
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the
United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or
Representatives of the United States Congress.
Congress shall also make no law that applies to the Senators or
Representatives of Congress that does not apply equally to the
citizens of the United States.
Now let's throw out every last member of congress that refuses to endorse this Constitutional amendment! Ahhh, if only it were that easy to actually do!
When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the
government fears the people, there is liberty. -Thomas Jefferson
Amendment XXVIII
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the
United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or
Representatives of the United States Congress.
Congress shall also make no law that applies to the Senators or
Representatives of Congress that does not apply equally to the
citizens of the United States.
Now let's throw out every last member of congress that refuses to endorse this Constitutional amendment! Ahhh, if only it were that easy to actually do!
When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the
government fears the people, there is liberty. -Thomas Jefferson
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Would You Have Approved?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and that he is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9 /11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved..
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W.. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 9 months -- so you'll have three years and three months to come up with an answer.
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9 /11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved..
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W.. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 9 months -- so you'll have three years and three months to come up with an answer.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Take This War Seriously, Mr. President!
During the campaign, then-senator Obama promised that if he were elected he would pull out troops from George Bush's war in Iraq and concentrate on the real war on terror in Afghanistan. Well since becoming president, Obama seems to have completely forgotten, or more likely chosen to renege on his promise. He even changed the "war on terror" to some asinine politically correct phrase of "man-caused disaster" so as not to offend our enemies, I suppose.
General McChrystal, the commanding general for the war in Afghanistan, played hell even trying to get a meeting with our commander in chief to discuss the war for the first eight months of Obama's presidency. When they finally did meet, General McChrystal laid out his reasons why he needed at least 40,000 more troops to be deployed in order to accomplish his mission in Afghanistan.
President Obama has since been weighing his options on what to do for the past month and half since then; meanwhile the situation continues to degrade and more unnecessary deaths mount for Afghani's and Americans while Obama dithers around in indecision.
Well it was reported today what Obama's decision will be regarding his choosing of one of the four separate plans presented to him to help win the war in Afghanistan. His choice? None of the above. Obama is not happy with any of these choices and wants everyone to go back to the drawing board on options for him.
His timidity and indecision only emboldens the Taliban and al Queda while weakening the morale of our military as they encounter higher casualties because of the fact that they are spread too thin. This is totally unacceptable for Obama. Either he needs to give the troops requested by General McChrystal to finish the job, or he needs to pull everyone out of the area RIGHT NOW.
Pulling everyone out would have disastrous long-term consequences and would likely kick the can down the road to 2012 when we have a new president in office that will hopefully not be cowardly and will actually look at this war as a necessity for our national security and not a political conundrum.
While I strongly disagreed with most of Obama's past domestic and foreign policy decisions, I tried to keep my personal feelings for him as objective as possible. However, when he shows such huge disregard for our servicemen, let alone our national security, I can no longer give him even the benefit of the doubt. He is a politician in the very worst sense of the word and his landslide defeat to come in 2012 cannot come here soon enough. I will pray for those that are put in harms way needlessly because of his fecklessness and timidity, which will only serve to bolster the courage of our enemies.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this after Obama spent the first two minutes of a national press conference to address the terrorist killings of our soldiers at Fort Hood by giving a shout out to people and discussing native American rights. George W. Bush did a lot, even most things, wrong, but he could be counted on to look out for our servicemen and our country's defense. Evidently this is another way in which Obama chooses not to be like his predecessor.
General McChrystal, the commanding general for the war in Afghanistan, played hell even trying to get a meeting with our commander in chief to discuss the war for the first eight months of Obama's presidency. When they finally did meet, General McChrystal laid out his reasons why he needed at least 40,000 more troops to be deployed in order to accomplish his mission in Afghanistan.
President Obama has since been weighing his options on what to do for the past month and half since then; meanwhile the situation continues to degrade and more unnecessary deaths mount for Afghani's and Americans while Obama dithers around in indecision.
Well it was reported today what Obama's decision will be regarding his choosing of one of the four separate plans presented to him to help win the war in Afghanistan. His choice? None of the above. Obama is not happy with any of these choices and wants everyone to go back to the drawing board on options for him.
His timidity and indecision only emboldens the Taliban and al Queda while weakening the morale of our military as they encounter higher casualties because of the fact that they are spread too thin. This is totally unacceptable for Obama. Either he needs to give the troops requested by General McChrystal to finish the job, or he needs to pull everyone out of the area RIGHT NOW.
Pulling everyone out would have disastrous long-term consequences and would likely kick the can down the road to 2012 when we have a new president in office that will hopefully not be cowardly and will actually look at this war as a necessity for our national security and not a political conundrum.
While I strongly disagreed with most of Obama's past domestic and foreign policy decisions, I tried to keep my personal feelings for him as objective as possible. However, when he shows such huge disregard for our servicemen, let alone our national security, I can no longer give him even the benefit of the doubt. He is a politician in the very worst sense of the word and his landslide defeat to come in 2012 cannot come here soon enough. I will pray for those that are put in harms way needlessly because of his fecklessness and timidity, which will only serve to bolster the courage of our enemies.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this after Obama spent the first two minutes of a national press conference to address the terrorist killings of our soldiers at Fort Hood by giving a shout out to people and discussing native American rights. George W. Bush did a lot, even most things, wrong, but he could be counted on to look out for our servicemen and our country's defense. Evidently this is another way in which Obama chooses not to be like his predecessor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
