A little about me

-->

     I hope some people have been reading my thoughts about current events and hopefully enjoying my commentary.  While there are many things that I could talk about today, I would like to take a few minutes and tell and bit about myself. Hopefully, this will give everyone an idea where I am coming from with some of my opinions and interpretations of the daily news.

     Most importantly I am the father of two teenage daughters and the husband of my wife and best friend. We have been married just shy of 17 years (this Friday is our anniversary) it is amazing how fast time can go by when you are not paying attention.

     I grew up in small town Ohio and was exposed to the hectic family and small town politics that comes along with living in a small town. I think I turned out pretty good in spite of that. Also being from Ohio means I am a big Ohio State fan Go Bucks!!!!!!

     I am also a 16 year Veteran of the US Marine Corps. I have served overseas several times over the years and have held many different hats while serving, it has been a pleasure (for the most part) to serve this great country.

     Now for the political stuff, growing up in the farmland I believe that I have very common conservative beliefs. I believe in limited government interference in my life, the free market will determine who are winners and losers just fine without government intervention, I am pro-life by choice but also believe that people do have a right to make their own decision, I am not a republican or a democrat, I believe there are good politicians from both parties and politicians who are looking out for themselves in both parties as well (I reserve the right to criticize anyone from either party if it is warranted).

  

     As for my qualifications to comment on political topics other than being a concerned citizen and it is my right and duty as an American citizen to do so. I have a BA in Political Science and I am currently working on my master’s degree in Political Science and Criminal justice from the University of Nebraska at Omaha, so I hold the proper education to make some informed and insightful observations.

The Thick Red Line

On August 20^th 2012, the President of the United States stood up and gave the following stern warning to the Syrian regime: "A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus."

Now let’s fast-forward eight months and six days to today. The Obama administration now says that there is proof that Syria has used the chemical weapon sarin on its own people. British and American officials have confirmed that there were at least two incidents of civilians being gassed.  Although the SECDEF minimized the use of the weapons by the use of the following statement: "The Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin." The use of the words “on a small scale” is carefully crafted to not only minimize the deaths of many, but it allows the Administration to drag their feet on any type of military response. The official response so far, is that there are varying degrees of confidence on whether or not there were weapons used and if they were, who used those weapons.  Therefore the “red line” has not been crossed.

The administration is using the miscalculation of GWB and the WMDs to invade Iraq as an excuse not to take some sort of action against Syria. On Thursday the US said that we would not take our allies reports and that we must do our own. Then less than a day later, Hagel states that we have evidence of the weapons being used, as well as Israel, France, and Great Britain have all concluded the same via there own investigations. So, how is it that four allies have all conducted their own investigations and have come to the same conclusion but we are still not sure whether or not these weapons have been used? So I ask, what does it take to cross the “red line?”

The President of the United States made a promise to the people of Syria that if the Syrian government were to attack the rebels or civilians with chemical weapons, then the United States must take some sort of action. Now that is has been confirmed that the same weapons have been used, the US is now backtracking on promises made.

Keep in mind, I do not advocate for an invasion of Syria, but there are other options that could be used to ensure that more chemical weapons are not used. Put up a no fly zone over the areas where the weapons could be launched. Place an aircraft carrier group or two in the area and ensure Syria knows that there are several thousand US Marines ready at a moments notice to stop any further use of chemical weapons. Or even make a public statement about the use of Chemical Weapons (as of this writing Obama has made no such statement instead he is speaking at a Planned Parenthood event. I guess abortion rights are more important than people being gassed in their own homes).

No action by Obama is just more proof that Obama has yet again weakened the world’s view of the United States.  

For Further reading:

http://news.yahoo.com/chemical-weapons-syria-obamas-high-bar-proof-could-232636199.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315102/Syrian-government-using-chemical-weapons-people-crosses-red-line-Britain-David-Cameron-warns.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57581556/white-house-obamas-red-line-not-crossed-on-syria-chemical-weapons/

Honoring the Iron Lady

This was my guest post that originally posted yesterday on Tripping Over My Tongue:

 

With two major incidents recently occurring in the news, the Boston marathon bombing and the ricin letters, we may have forgotten that the world lost a pioneer for women’s rights and conservatism on April 8^th, 2013. Margaret Thatcher’s death was a blow to many who grew up in the 1980s. Whether you agree with her politics or not, you must admire the way she went about her business with the same tenaciousness as any man. She was so effective as a politician; she held the office of Prime Minister for 11 years, the longest of anyone, and to a generation of Americans, she was the ally that could be counted on as the United States and the UK fought against the “evil Empire”, USSR.  I will always remember her as the “Iron Lady” and the strong ally of the United States that she was.

Instead of treating the death of a significant leader of our biggest ally in the world with the respect due her, the Obama Administration decided that they were too busy with other affairs to send someone from their administration to pay the respects of a nation. Instead, Obama opted to leave it up to the former presidents and the civil servants who had worked with Thatcher.

I can understand if the President doesn’t want to take time away from his arm twisting and plotting the demise of the 2^nd amendment of the Constitution to go himself, but what was VP Biden up to, or even better yet, where was the Secretary of State? This falls directly under the responsibility of the SOS, so what was Secretary Kerry doing on Wednesday that he couldn’t travel to UK to attend the funeral? He was testifying on Capitol Hill about the Benghazi attacks on 9/11. This could easily have been moved to another day so that Kerry could have made a showing at the funeral.

The White House said they were too busy to attend but I believe that they did not want to attend the funeral of one of the longest serving conservative leaders in the world. The left does not like Thatcher for her standing up to the labor unions in England and helping England come out of the financial crisis they were in when she took office. Not to mention the close relationship between Thatcher and Ronald Regan, whom in the eyes of the left, does the younger President Bush only match in his evilness.

Politics is why America did not have an elected official or a high ranking member of the Administration at the funeral. I, as an American, am embarrassed by the blatant disrespect this president shows to all conservatives.

Repercussions of the Boston Marathon Bombings

This was posted on Tuesday on Tripping Over my Tongue, a specail thanks to Trishaj for allowing me to use her site :)

 Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect Formally Charged

 

                  In the week (and a day) since the Boston Marathon bombing, the country has gone from extreme lows to a euphoric high by the time Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured late Friday (4/19/13) night. Not since shortly after 9/11 have I seen a community come together and support its first responders with such reverence. It was an amazing sight to see when people were cheering on the local police and other agencies as they were leaving the scene for hours.

                  However, now that several days have passed and it looks like the bomber is going to survive the injuries sustained during his shoot out with the police, we now have to get down to the business of prosecuting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for the crimes he and his brother (allegedly) committed.  The first couple of acts have been put in place. To begin with, the White House has decreed that the United States will not treat this guy as an enemy combatant and will prosecute him instead in US Civil Court. Usually I would be up in arms with this ruling. Any Muslim that comes to the US and causes the death of three people and wounds a hundred or more should have a one-way ticket to Gitmo. However, these guys came here over ten years ago and used the system. They applied for and received political asylum and from what I can see, did everything that they were supposed to do. The Tasrnaev’s received their green cards and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev became a naturalized citizen on September 11, 2012, ironically enough.  My entire reasoning is that once you are a US citizen, the government should not be able to try you in a military court for any reason. James Homes is not being tried in a military court, nor are the Sandy Hook shooters and they killed many more people than did the Tsarnaev brothers.

                  There is one big difference between the Tsarnaev brothers and the other mass shooters of the last few years; they are not natural born US citizens and they are subject to lose their citizenship status. As I mentioned earlier, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev became a US citizen seven short months before he (allegedly) took part in this bombing plot. I have a very hard time believing that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was 100 percent truthful in his interviews and applications during the naturalization process and he certainly was not honest about the oath of citizenship when he raised his hand and swore his allegiance to the United States. It is not believable that he went from wanting to be a citizen to wanting to kill Americans en mass in just seven months. With the level of fraud and deception that he had to use to become a citizen, the State Department should ensure that his citizenship is revoked. Once it is revoked, then he should be immediately re-categorized as a terrorist and be moved to a military court.

                  I am not an advocate of trying Americans in military court nor am I an advocate for revoking a natural born/naturalized citizen’s citizenship, that is unless he takes arms up against the United States for a militaristic purpose, which is what I believe happened in this case.

Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections

Nearly 7 years after Indiana passed a law that requires people voting in person to provide a form of identification, the US is in the middle of a prolonged debate over voter ID laws.

The Democrats say making people show an ID at the polls amounts to an insurmountable poll tax that is designed not to prevent voter fraud but instead to prevent the poor minorities from voting. Lets look at this logically for a second I have to show an ID to purchase a gun, which is also a right guaranteed to me in the constitution, but that is not deemed unconstitutional. Now I know that I am going to be accused of taking the argument to extreme ends to try to make a point. I, however, believe that this is not an extreme position. The constitution does not rank our rights, no right is more or less important than another. So why can the government place restrictions on my right to own a firearm but when a state wants to ensure fair and proper elections is is called racist?

Because that is what the Democratic Party does, if your policy disagrees with one off there then you are a racist or sexist. I do not want to pay higher insurance premiums so that others can get birth control free. I have been told that this position makes me sexist and takes the woman's rights movement back 100 years. But keep in mind if a insurance company is required to provide a service to all people even though only a few will use the service we all have to pay for it. It's is basic economics, read Mancur Olson's writings on interest groups for a complete explanation.

Now back to the issue at hand. The Supreme Court has already ruled that voter ID laws do not violate the constitution. In Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections the court ruled that the state has an inherent right to protect the sanctity of their elections and that requiring voters to show ID was not an considered to be a poll tax.

I call for every state in the union to pass similar laws to that of Indiana and to continue ton clear the voter roles of deceased persons and persons who no longer live in their states

The General Assembly

In the coming week the UN General Assembly will be meeting in New York. The UN will be meeting just two weeks after the 9/11 attacks on the US embassies and during the session they will be having a meeting on religious freedom. With the uproar caused throughout the Middle East over a supposed video that cast Mohammed in a bad light, will the UN look to ban all speech against Islam? Islam forbids anyone to make an image of any prophet, so this video offends the masses and the Muslim extremist use it as cover to spread their anti-western hate and violence.

Now back to the UN. On the 27 of September the UN will hold a high level meeting on religious freedom. I am concerned that the freedom of religion the UN is likely to side with is the right of the Muslims to be offended by someone's right to free speech. I look to see the UN try to outlaw any speech that is designed to inflame Muslims. So what does it matter to the US what the UN does? If the US doesn't sign then there is no problem however lets look at this logically because I believe the President will sign as a move of goodwill to appease the Muslim world.

- The US would sign it as the President knows the Senate would never ratify a treaty that limits freedom of speech. Once the treaty is rejected by the Senate, the US would not be bound by it within the US. However the rest of the world would treat US citizens as if it had been ratified because the US signed it. This would allow Muslims to hold Americans accountable for exercising their freedom of speech. So what sounds like a goodwill gesture will eventually limit our freedom of speech as Americans.

I know I sound very conspiracy theorist but that is my concern.

 

The More Things Change...

This week in Congress the Republican majority is pushing an ill-conceived attempt to pass a repeal of Obamacare. I know this is a time honored tradition of the majority in Congress, no matter which party is in control of that particular session. Wasting taxpayers time and money to pass bills and resolutions that have absolutely zero chance of being addressed by the Senate.

This is what I see as one of the major problems with the hyper-partisan politics. There are many pressing issues that are silently waiting in the corners of Congress just waiting to be addresses. Issues such as unemployment, how to get the US out of Afghanistan with dignity, voter ID laws, meaningful immigration reform and of course passing a budget that stands a chance of getting signed by the President. However, during an election year, Congress would rather spin there wheels making some grand gesture rather than doing something that helps pull the country out of the economic hell we are currently in.

I do not need grand gestures made by Congress. What I need is a Congress who is willing to work on both sides of the aisle to tackle the pressing issues of our time.

Most of the 2010 Republicans won their seats because they were Washington outsiders but are they really? If they are outsiders they sure have learned a lot from Pelosi and the Democrats when they last controlled Congress. We have, for far too long, gone without a Congress who is willing to put party loyalty behind what is good for the citizens of the US.