Taking a Stand of Our Own

Oh, the delicious Irony!  In case you missed it, The Journal News in White Plains, NY, has published an interactive map showing the homes of all people who hold firearms permits in 2 New York counties.  They obtained the list from FOI requests to the county clerks, and are currently preparing additional maps based on pending requests.

Reaction has not been all positive as you can imagine.  Complaints run the gamut from outrage at treating legal activity as if it were a sex crime (these are permit holders, not necessarily gun owners), to fears that criminals will target such people in search of firearms, to fears that some law enforcement personnel on the list now have their addresses published for criminals to attempt retributive strikes on their homes, to fears that some battered women who have armed themselves while hiding from their abusers are now exposed to further harassment and abuse, to fear that criminals, now knowing where the guns aren’t, will target the homes of those who DON’T appear on the list.

The one thing the paper claims it wanted – a discussion about guns in our society – is the last thing that is actually happening as a result of this publication.

So where’s the irony?

Calls are currently being made for a boycott – not of the newspaper itself, but of the newspaper’s advertisers.  Ironically, the “featured advertiser” at the Journal’s website this week is….wait for it….

http://www.lohud.com/section/navpromo

Target!

The store that uses a “bullseye” logo should now be firmly in the cross-hairs of believers in privacy and the 2nd Amendment everywhere.  They should be receiving e-mails, and phone calls, and a flood of negative feedback based on their support of what is clearly an attempt by the Journal to intimidate permit holders and paint them all as “nut jobs waiting to explode!”

The Sandy Hook shooter would NOT have appeared on this map.  He did not own a gun.  He was not a permit holder.  As a matter of fact, the one thing that might have helped the community have a “discussion” about his disposition was his mental health history.  Let’s see the newspaper get such information published without breaking Federal Privacy laws.

This is, of course, another irony.  The mentally deranged psychiatric patient who WOULD shoot up a school has more privacy rights than a law-abiding, mentally sound gun permit holder!

Let’s see how “committed” the Journal is when their revenue stream starts to dry up.  I wonder if the owners are willing to….ironically….”take a bullet” for the Editor In Chief when there’s no profit in it….

That Darn FISCAL CLIFF!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Here we go again!

Another Four Years of This….

So Barack Obama, judged worthy to lead despite the overwhelming evidence against him, has been given another four years to….to do what?

What did he promise in his long campaign?  What exactly are his plans for America?

The Great Keynesian apparently is going to spend us out of this recession.  I’m thinking we’ve got another $6 to $8 Trillion dollars of debt to look forward too, and no sign that he is “bending” any curves.

My friends assure me that 30 million people who were not insured before will now have insurance, but I don’t see how that is possible.  I can’t believe that 30 million people are suddenly going to be able to afford health insurance when they couldn’t before, and I really don’t see there being 30 million people who were just “opting out” of buying health-care coverage and selfishly making the rest of us pay their bills.  It won’t get cheaper, because of all the new mandates regarding preexisting conditions and mandatory benefits, so what does Obamacare get us?  One step closer to England’s wonderful healthcare system, where they come up with great ideas like the LCP?

My friends assure me that we’ve had 32 months of job growth.  But it’s such anemic growth that it’s not even keeping up with the demographics of new workers coming of age.  The ranks of the unemployed and underemployed grow, and for many they are becoming increasingly unemployable – thanks in no small part to the policies of the Obama Administration, that says a kid you pay to sweep the sidewalk in front of your shop and do odd jobs must now earn the equivalent of $15.00 an hour in pay and benefits.  Sorry Tommy, I can’t afford you.

My friends tell me what a wonderful place the world will be now that we have a president who embraces Gay Marriage!  I’ve written extensively on this in another posting – but even so, is that really an issue that affects more than 3% of the population. Really?

The EPA is set to issue regulations that will stifle energy production in the United States and make our power grid less reliable.  Obama is keeping his promise that “electricity bills will necessarily skyrocket” under his administration, because wind and solar are just so much better for us than safe, reliable, and arguably more environmentally friendly coal, natural gas, and oil.  Cuisinarts of the air cutting down endangered bird species by the hundreds and thousands verses low-emission, reliable power.  No wonder we’re going to be shivering in the dark cursing those evil power companies that keep raising rates and providing less reliable service.  Just ask the people of England how that’s working out for them?

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid remain on course for bankruptcy, insolvency, broke, whatever you want to call it – and the Obama Re-Election bid spent a year scaring current beneficiaries so badly that any meaningful “reform” is now out of reach.  The programs are projected to be less than 75% funded when I start drawing benefits in 20 years – hope you youngsters are ready for higher taxes on whatever jobs you DO find!

And now we’ll have “four more years” – of blaming a past President for the current problems that the new President’s polices can’t fix.  “Four more years” of failed leadership abroad as Al-Queida renews its strength in the strongholds of Afghanistan, and the newly fertile fields of Libya and Egypt.  “For more years” of “containing” Iran as they develop nuclear weapons.  “Four more years” of Trillion Plus deficits, no budgets from the Democrats in the Senate, and economic malaise.  “Four more years” of hearing how proud we are of this empty suit who spends more time on the Golf Course and Vacation than at National Security Briefings.

And “Four more years” of hearing how it’s all about “race,” and “Bush’s fault,” and the obstructionism of the Republicans.

“We aren’t broke!  We need $16 TRILLION Dollars to get BACK to Broke!”

So what are we Paying Obama For?

At the height of the Benghazi debacle, Hilary Clinton announced that the “buck” stopped with her on security requests for the Libyan Consulate.  Apparently making a career out of “taking one for the team,” Hilary said that she was the one responsible for denying the additional security requested by Ambassador Stevens prior to his death at the hands of Islamic Militant Terrorists in a “spontaneous Youtube Video” demonstration.

Which, I guess, answers the question posited in my last post about “who’s in charge here?”

Realizing what a debacle it is during the election season to not appear “presidential,” Obama eventually claimed responsibility for security at the Consulate, after Biden assured millions of Americans that “we” (the White House) never knew about the requests.

And now e-mails have been leaked showing that the President’s vaunted “Situation Room” – you know, where HE personally made the easiest decision in the history of his “kill list” career to go after Osama Bin Laden – was made aware of claims of responsibility by the terrorist organization that mounted the attack on your embassy in Libya mere hours after the attack.

You know, 10 days before Ambassador Rice said the attack was an “anti-youtube demonstration” that got “hijacked” by militants.

Of course, now that the truth is coming out, I have one question.  What the hell are we paying Barak Hussein Obama for?  He’s skipping intelligence briefings, he’s not in charge of statements coming out of our embassies, and he’s not in charge of security at our embassies.  What, exactly, are we paying him for, other than golf outings and “scouting vacation spots” for Michelle?

The Obama Administration’s “Battered Wife Syndrome” – Updated

NOTE:  It turns out the Egyptian Embassy may have issued its apologetic statement prior to the actual assault on the Embassy. [Reuters]  That one occurred within hours of the other is what caused the confusion.  The fact that the White House claims regarding the apologetic statement (that it wasn’t cleared through the WH, etc) still leads to the Valid Discussion over “Who’s in charge here?”  The Lie remains the same.  And yes, we apologized for being ourselves PRIOR TO the incident.  Apparently in an attempt to “head off” the beating we anticipated…

Original Post:

So protesters upset about a YouTube video they were told was an insult to Mohammed stormed the American Consulate in Cairo, tore down the American Flag, and put up a black “Al Queida” banner proclaiming “Allah Ahkbar (God is Great).”  Like all great powers in the last 500 years, the American Government immediately filed a protest against the action with the Egyptian Government, demanding that international treaties and laws governing the sovereignty of embassies be enforced and that they control their more passionate members of their society…..wait, that didn’t happen?

Apologized for Being Ourselves

What did happen is even more embarrassing than failure to control our own sovereign territory.  We apologized to the Egyptian people for being ourselves.  Like some “Battered Wife” who’s husband has gone off on her again for some minor or imaginary affront, the United States Of America apologized to those who are abusing us!  “We’re sorry people actually use their freedoms!  Really!”  It’s as if we’re apologizing for not cleaning the house or overcooking the bacon!

The embassy released the following statement:

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

Not Only a Lie, But a Damned Lie!

Where was the Embassy of the United States in Cairo when “Religulous” was released a few years ago?  What about “The Last Temptation of Christ?”  Or maybe “Saved!”  Or that new series on TV called “GCB?”

No, the Embassy in Cairo has not spent the last few decades constantly opposing and condemning mocking of all religions.  They also didn’t condemn the Danish Cartoons of Mohammed, the Van Gogh movie, or the burning of the Koran by some nutjob in Florida.

They have been silent on most issues that don’t affect them, or the country they are in.  Of course, this is to be expected.  Most embassies would look foolish if they constantly condemned the actions of people in other countries, or the perfectly legal and constitutional acts of those living in their own country.  But they look equally foolish when they make broad, sweeping, and essentially untrue statements about issues when forced to comment on them.

Who’s In Charge Here?

Now, there are those who will attempt to paint the statement released by the Cairo Embassy as “not the official Administration response.”  Well then, who’s in charge of the Embassy if not Obama’s State Department?  Do we now have rogue embassies, issuing statements at odds, or at least not in line with, Official US Policy?  They’re writing statements up for the consumption of the world, and then sending them out without being vetted?

Which is more comforting to believe?  That the Obama Administration is apologizing for “over-boiling the water” or that Obama is not in control of his own Foreign Policy implementers?

We Deserved It

So now, like some battered wife constantly beat for our “misbehavior,” we have apologized again.  Sorry we burned the toast.  Sorry we didn’t make the bed.  Sorry we’re breathing your air!  We’ll try and do better.  It’s not you, it’s us!

Nobody, and I mean nobody, I know would say “Well, a battered wife needs to figure out why her husband is so angry at her.”  And yet, I hear people saying we have to figure out why “the Muslims” are so angry at us!

Get the State Out of the “Marriage Business”

The biggest problem facing the advocates of “Same Sex Marriage” is that, despite all the platitudinous statements our country may make about “Separation of Church and State,” marriage is our one willful blind spot.  “Marriage” is, in the eyes of most religions and a majority of religious people in the United States, a spiritual union of two people deriving sanction from a governing Deity.  That the State recognizes this union and provides certain legal and social benefits is nice – but that sectarian “blessing” is not important.  The Roman Catholic Church does not even recognize the “marriage” of two people if it is performed contrary to the laws and customs of the Church, regardless of what the state may say.  Other churches have different stances as to how a “valid” marriage is performed, but they hold the same general view – Marriage is Sacred.  Marriage is a Sacrament.

On the other hand, the United States Government, and the governments of all the individual States, view marriage as a legal contract.  They do not care what any particular church, mosque, or synagogue may have to say about it – it is strictly a legal union for purposes of inheritance, power of attorney, and family creation.  My spouse is, in the eyes of the state, the most closely related person in the world too me.  Not related by blood, but by legally binding contract, until such time as that contract is declared null and void by a judge.  If I am lying in a hospital bed, and decisions have to be made, my spouse is the one who makes them.

The point of these two complementary situations is this; the state needs to get out of the “marriage” business.  To sanction marriage, to perform marriages, to claim to be the “authority” that binds two people together in a spiritual covenant, unnecessarily blurs the line between Church and State.  The State takes the roll of priest in these situations, when what really needs to happen is that the State needs to grant only one thing – legal spousal status.

In my opinion, the State needs to take the same attitude about “Domestic Partnerships” that the Roman Catholic Church takes about “Marriage.”  That is, the state shouldn’t care who you choose to marry at your church.  You should be able to marry whomever you please.  If you wish to marry two, or three, or four people, and you find a church willing to perform the ceremony, why does the state care?  Such marriages, performed by a priest or rabbi or imam, would be spiritual in nature, and have no legal status.

What the state needs to do is be in the “Domestic Partnership” business.  This would look a lot like “marriage” to the world, but unlike marriage, which comes with way more religious baggage than is good for the state right now, it would simply be the “legal side” of the equation.  You would go to a “priest” for your marriage, but you would go to a judge or otherwise authorized bureaucrat for your “Domestic Partnership.”  While you may have an unlimited number of “spiritual spouses” if your religion permits it, you get one “legal spouse.”

There are some who argue that this differentiation opens the door to other issues.  What if I want more than one legal spouse?  What if I have a dozen “spiritual spouses” and I die?  Those questions are not new, nor do they have to be dealt with any differently than they are today.  The democracy can make the same rules for Domestic Partnership that we have for “marriage.”  However, by removing the word “marriage,” we remove the religious entanglement which is at the crux of the current problem.

What about all the marriages that currently exist?  Obviously, they are grandfathered in under these rules.  However, going forward, if you want to be married, you go to a priest or other religious official, or just start telling people you’re “married,” if that satisfies you both.  However, the designation “Domestic Partner” requires a “piece of paper” from the state.  A Spouse then becomes your Legal Partner.

The upside to this arrangement is that we no longer discuss whether the State should recognize “Same Sex Marriage,” because the State no longer cares about “marriage.”  The State cares about legal status, and that’s all it should care about anyway.

We Could Put a Man on the Moon….but not anymore!

America’s NEW solution to getting men into space!

Something happened on July 14, 2012 that’s hard to explain. A Russian Soyuz rocket blasted off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan carrying a crew bound for the International Space Station that included an American Astronaut.  It’s not that America chose to use the Russian rocket after weighing the pros and cons on a cost-balance sheet and deciding it was cheaper to ride with the Russians than to launch ourselves.  It was that we have no choice.

We Can Put A Man On The Moon….

When I was young, growing up in the heady days of Appollo and Neil Armstrong’s (RIP Neil – 8/25/2012)  first baby steps into the oceans of the cosmos, a common advertising theme was “We can put a man on the moon but….”  The “buts” ranged from “can’t make a good cup of coffee” to “can’t seem to solve world hunger.”  I never realized, until now, how much hope, and pride, and enthusiasm were tied up in the first part of the phrase.  We – America – at the time COULD put a man on the moon!  We had done it!  If we can do that, we can do anything!

Now, Apollo is  a distant memory.  The Shuttle Fleet is retired.  NASA languishes from lack of vision, and we quietly and almost meekly accept a ride from the Russians, like some inter-stellar hitchhikers with our collective thumb out.   “Hey buddy, you going into orbit?  Can I grab a ride?  We’ll split gas….”

In the Wilderness, Again….

We’ve been here before.  In the late 70s, NASA seemed to languish.  The manned space program had all but come to an end with the joint “Soyuz-Apollo” flight in 1975.  For 6 years, there were no manned space flights launched by the United States.  The shuttle – that workhorse of NASA that most of today’s Americans grew up taking for granted – was over budget, behind schedule, and starting to look as if it would never get off the ground.  The public had lost interest in space – the thrill was gone, and we had more important things to do – like ending that pesky world hunger.

People have always questioned the wisdom of spending billions on a space program.  The dangers inherent in a manned spaceflight effort, the extra costs associated, and the abject failure of many proponents to expound on the advantages gained make the public apathetic or even belligerent to the expense.  It’s hard to measure the benefits of the technologies developed, the knowledge gained, or even the pride and national morale that comes from being able to put a man on the moon, or even into orbit!

Where’s Moses When You Need Him?

What we need now is a leader willing to articulate the dream.  No, NASA isn’t going to solve world hunger, or reduce the crime rate, or even show a profit – ever.  What NASA will do – what a manned space program does – is give America a sense of pride.  A morale boost.  A sense of wonder and accomplishment all at the same time.  We CAN put a man on the moon.  We CAN cure cancer.  We CAN make a good cup of coffee!  We just need to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

Our current leadership in Washington seems content to be the guys who USED to do these things.  We’re not exceptional anymore.  We’re not “in a position” to take risks, spend money, be in charge of our own space destiny.  We might as well get used to having our thumb out.

It may be a while, but I believe that a politician who grabs hold of this concept – that America is still the place that can put a man on the moon – will win the hearts and minds of the people.  That politician will lead America back to where it belongs – the driver’s seat.  Not riding shotgun in a borrowed ride….