OK, I'm baaaaaaack!!

Early in the Obama Administration, there were wholesale changes to language used in briefings and speeches from both the President and his staff. The War on Terror was changed to the Overseas Contingency Operation and an act of terrorism was to be referred to as a "man-caused disaster". Well to quote the Church Lady, "Isn't that special?"

Some of you may be wondering why I am recycling this bit of information from well over a year ago in my first post back after being on hiatus? Hang with me for a minute, I think you'll see where I am going. In attempts to control the messages this Administration, although they aren't the first to do so its only magnified in our current 24/7 media cycle, has attempted to change the lexicon of both recent and not so recent history.

Early in his presidency, Obama gave a speech on immigration in which he told the story of Emma Lazarus who was inspired to write "The New Colossus" for the Statue of Liberty in 1883. President Obama told the story that she was inspired by what she saw and heard, so she penned the sonnet and donated it to help with the construction of a new statue - The Statue of Liberty which was in part funded by donations by people across the country. Great story right? Problem is, it isn't true. The Statue was a gift from France, the PEDESTAL was in part constructed by donations from Americans. Just semantics, right?

Let's take a look at taxes. President Obama assured us that there would be no tax hikes on people who make under $250,000 all during his campaign to win the White House. Healthcare reform has reversed that by 180 degrees. Now we have "healthcare reform" that the President, in a recent interview with George Stephanopolous, defended against its being called a tax.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.

However now the Administration is forced to defend its healthcare reform in a lawsuit. And what is their very first argument? In a recent document, the Justice Department (under the superior tuttelage of Eric Holder) says that the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay a penalty is "a valid exercise" (or did he mean excise) of "Congress' power to impose taxes". Semantics again, right?

Yesterday I was listening to the President's speech at the Disabled Veteran's of America Conference in Atlanta. In a portion of the speech (that I doubt very many people other than the attendees and news junkies like me saw) the President made the following remark, "When the terrorists and militias plunged Iraq into sectarian war, our troops adapted and adjusted". Does that scare anyone as much as it did me when I heard it?

After a year and a half of backing away from using the term terrorist or terrorism and using that same time revising history, I am more than a little concerned that the Administration has so tacitly and nonchalantly decided that it is okay to use terrorist and militia in the same sentence. It sends a disturbing message to the people of the United States don't you think? Or is that just semantics too and we shouldn't worry?

Stop the insanity!

Around this time of year, I normally develop what I affectionately call my "playoff aneurysm"; pain that invades my head when the Red Wings have issues in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Pain that is usually alleviated when either they win the Cup or a few months later when they start playing hockey again. I think that the current political climate has morphed my playoff aneurysm into a permanent fixture and I think that yesterday it started to burst.

One of the headlines yesterday was enough to send me into apoplectic shock. The words screaming from the screen "California Students Sent Home for Wearing U.S. Flags on Cinco de Mayo" made me seethe with anger before I even read the entire story. I was upset a few weeks back when a student in Florida was threatened with suspension for wearing a breast cancer support bracelet but this situation just leaves me incensed.

Five students at Live Oak High School in Morgan, CA were told to either reverse their shirts bearing the American Flag or be sent home. WHAT?! School officials said that shirts, the American Flag shirts, were deemed as incendiary on Cinco de Mayo. The American Flag is incendiary? The Principal of Live Oak High School has sunken to an all new level of insanity. He apparently feels that the American Flag had the possibility to trigger violence between those celebrating and those not.

So let me get this straight: students, who are in large part either immigrants themselves or children of immigrants, might be offended by other students wearing an American Flag. That doesn't even make sense. First things first either they or their parents made a conscious decision to come to this county (either legally or not) and have additionally made the decision to take advantage of the public school system. So having said that, they should never view the American Flag as something to be opposed to rather than to admire and respect after all you chose to be here.

Secondly, Cinco de Mayo isn't even a Mexican National holiday. It is a regional celebration in Puebla, Mexico and is widely ignored in the rest of the country. Here in the United States, Cinco de Mayo is an advertising tool for beer companies and restaurants that serve margaritas. So in reality, the revelers on Cinco de Mayo in California have CAPITALISM to thank for the celebration being as well known as it is.

I wonder if the principal (at Live Oak) removed the American Flag that flies outside his school on Wednesday or if he instructed his teachers to remove the Flag from public view inside the school's classrooms. And if he didn't (and I have seen no evidence as such) then how are the students inciting violence or supporting something that the schol itself has already endorsed? Was there even a policy regarding the wearing of patriotic symbols on May 5 or any other day? I think not, lest we would have heard about it by now. And if there was no policy, were these five students supposed to psychic?

Nick Boden, the principal at Live Oak, has opened himself up to not only controversy but to a dangerous precedent. If we can't wear American Flags on days that we as AMERICANS choose to celebrate the heritages of other countries, should we all be required to participate in the holiday as an exercise in global citizenship and lessons in diversity. And if our participation is mandatory, do we then have the guarantee that no one will be harassed or viewed as being racist? In October, should we all dress like Snooky and "The Situation" to celebrate Columbus Day? Or will the same people who want to sue MTv for perpetuating a stereotype come out of the woodwork? In March should we all dress as leprechauns and drink lots of Guiness and get into fights to celebrate St Patrick's Day? And in February (as a friend asked me today) are we to refrain from wearing white shirts or should we all just go in black face? My point exactly!! These ideas are just as ridiculous as the idea that an American should ever be told that he can't wear the flag on ANY or EVERY day of the year.

And now today, protests and violence are expected to be targeted at these students for standing up for their rights. Americans told not to wear the Flag and then targeted for violence for doing so. If this was happening to any other group of people the ACLU and the left would be screaming that we are violating civil rights - much like the protests against the Arizona immigration law. Seriously what are we becoming and who is going to stand up for us and STOP THE INSANITY!

Daisy is Calling

When Janet Napolitano took office as the Secretary of Homeland Security she was at the forefront of transforming the language used to describe the War on Terror and Terrorists. Someone (and I can't say that it was in deed Secretary Napolitano although I wouldn't find it difficult to believe) uttered the phrases "overseas contingency operation" and "man-caused disasters" and thought that they might be a good idea.

Since January 2009, our country has been attacked no less than three times. Once by Major Hassan at Ft. Hood, once by Abdulmutallab on Christmas Day, and now again in the middle of Times Square. Now maybe I am missing something but I think that it the span of time between September 12, 2001 and January 2009 we were attacked a whopping total of ONE time - Richard Reid's shoe bombing attempt. That's once in seven years but now we've been attacked three times in just over a year. Apparently the new language that was implemented has not affected the men seeking to cause the disasters quite as much as the Secretary and the Administration thought that it would.

Instead of staying the course with a hard line approach to those who wish to do harm to our way of life we in turn make sure that the rest of the world isn't mad at us because we spoke badly about the terrorists. It seems as if everything the Administration does requires the blessings of the world community or else we aren't being responsible global citizens. Apparently making sure that the criminals, who harbor those who want to kill us, feel warm and fuzzy is more important than making sure that they don't actually get to us and kill our children.

Hassan killed 12 and wounded 31 at Fort Hood in November and Abdulmutallab attempted to murder 289 people on Christmas Day. The car bomb in Times Square had the potential to kill a great number of people although I do wonder if that was a calling card and not the real attack, time will tell on that theory. By relaxing our language, it appears that the Administration has also experienced the "unintended consequence" of also relaxing our vigilant stance against such attacks. At least the folks in New York City haven't relaxed - without them and the "if you see something, tell someone" post-9/11 attitude this past weekend's attempt very well could have been a tragedy.

Secretary Napolitano was forced in an interview with Chris Wallace to actually acknowledge that the Times Square attempted car bomb was in fact Terrorism. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs almost choked on his tongue as he had to answer yes to a direct question as to whether or not the White House viewed the attempt as an attempted act of terror. Maybe its time that we ramp up out rhetoric again so that maybe the TERRORISTS will know that we are onto them and are coming after them

Maybe we should actually follow the clues that are in the wide open as in the Hassan case. We need to race forward in the intelligence community and do whatever is necessary to find people who are planning to hurt us instead of simply hoping that the terrorists continue to be as hapless as the Christmas Day and Times Square idiots. If these two individuals had been a little more on top of their game, we would be having an entirely different conversation.

I am tired of the "unintended consequences" from policies and proposed legislation that focus on problems and issues from the wrong (or even any) angle. Health care "reform" was rammed down the throats of the American public who was overwhelmingly against it. Tea Party members were lambasted as an angry mob spreading lies not the least of which was that health care was going to cost taxpayers loads of money only to be proven right less than a month after the bill's passage. Cap and Trade is a joke but will now be looked at by some and touted by the left as a viable option given the recent oil spill in the Gulf. Stop playing on the fears of the American public to further an agenda to relegate us to a compliant Global Citizen. Rather, utilize the fear of the American people (a la New Yorkers who have no problem saying that they see an SUV on fire) to move forward and continue to make the United States of America the strongest and most feared country in the world.

Yes, I did say most feared. I do not want to be nice, I don't want the terrorists to think that we're sitting ducks. Act first. Close the border. Enforce immigration law. Drill for American oil. Utilize natural gas. Fix the economy. Work with people who actually have experience in the fields in which they advise. Treat homegrown terror groups with swift and steadfast justice that does not include side deals. Stop allowing world leaders who denigrate our way of life to enter our country and spew their venom when all the while they are harboring the very terrorists who we are supposedly hunting. Somehow I think that if underling operatives in these rogue nations and organizations had real fear of us it would be much harder to convince them to attack us. Stop issuing sanctions and start dropping calling cards - Daisy....Daisy Cutter.

Author's Note: This post has been edited from its original publication to include Richard Reid's attempted shoe bombing of a plane which was inadvertently omitted. I do not however link the anthrax mailings, the DC Sniper or various other examples sent to me in response to this post as terrorism as they were crime sprees aimed at specific targets not at the American way of life. Remember its called "In My Humble OPINIONS"!

Conspiracy?

We are about to be faced with an environmental emergency of large proportions in the Gulf of Mexico. Last week's oil rig explosion has left the well leaking hundreds of thousands of gallons of sweet crude into the Gulf and conditions are rapidly moving the slick toward land and valuable resources.

Currently estimates on the repair of the leak number in terms of months not days which will keep this story on the front burner for at least as long. Twenty years ago the Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of oil in Alaska and at the current estimated rate of leakage, the Deepwater Horizon spill will eclipse the Exxon Valdez tragedy in 52 days or less.

The oil slick coming from the Deepwater Horizon is already reaching parts of the US shoreline and is also being seen in the Mississippi River. Weather conditions are primed to continue to bring the slick toward the coastline threatening the entire way of life for folks along the coast in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas. Its not just wildlife that is going to be impacted by this oil slick. Yes, the oil will be toxic and deadly for birds, fish and other sea life (the Valdez spill was the cause of the decline of 31 different species) but it will also adversely affect the people whose livelihoods are dependent on fishing the rich Gulf Coast waters. In addition to fishing, the tourism industry of at least FIVE states will be affected and this also has the potential to be even farther reaching if the oil reaches the Mississippi River and the flow of traffic along the nation's busiest and arguably most important waterway is slowed or stopped. No doubt there will be more job losses in areas already affected by the current economy and past hurricanes.

The Obama Administration has already backed off their new position on new offshore drilling and issued a statement that no new drilling will be considered until it is determined what went wrong at the Deepwater Horizon. How convenient that the Administration is able to back off from a position on offshore drilling that they were never really in favor of. The language issued by the President last month in return of the chants of "Drill Baby, Drill" was for the most part an olive branch to Republicans in order to get their support on energy policy. No new wells were even being considered to have begun drilling for years so the idea that they are now backing off and stopping any new wells from moving forward simply because of this tragedy is utterly ridiculous.

The intense scope of this tragedy is going to keep this story on the tips of the lips of newscasters for months. I wonder how many stories we will miss hearing about because we are focusing on the people in the Gulf Coast. Mid-term elections, cap and trade legislation, unemployment numbers, the failing economy, Federal immigration policy and who knows what else might fall through the cracks of coverage.

These deep water oil rigs are supposed to be equipped with something called a blow out preventer. For one reason or another (and not a reason that is currently known) the blow out preventer did not work. One single piece of equipment not working (or not being monitored properly) is the catalyst for what is sure to be an environmental and societal tragedy of colossal proportions that could effect our wildlife and economy for twenty years or more.

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person. Sometimes they are plausible, sometimes not but in almost all cases they are interesting enough to capture the attention of a lot of people. I wonder if this one will?

Maybe, just maybe

The Daily Caller this morning reported that the Debt Commission that President Obama has assembled will carry a price tag of $500,000. Now I know that sounds like a lot of cold hard cash adding to our debt in order to discuss getting us out of debt but is it really? Let's take a look.

Bruce Reed said that he and a few staffers are collecting a salary. So one would assume that the other seventeen members and some of their staffers will also collect some type of salary. For illustration purposes though, let's just say that the eighteen members of the commission receive a small salary that might equal $500 per weekly session. The commission plans on meeting each week (in person) until their report is due in December, that is approximately 32 weeks. So, again with no intimate knowledge of the exact amount of the salaries, the salary portion of the budget is potentially $280,000 not including any staffers.

Mr. Reed, the executive director of the commission, has also said that the commission will enlist several unpaid staffers as well. Well I certainly hope that they don't ask those unpaid staffers to do any clerical work because that would be in violation of regulations regarding internships wouldn't it and interns of course don't ever do something that someone else could be paid for huh?

Now let's look a the travel and lodging budget. The average priced coach class flight from Raleigh to Washington DC (where I would guess that Erskine Bowles would fly in and out of unless of course he had to travel from elsewhere due to scheduling) is $149 and the average priced coach class flight from Wyoming to DC is $601 (although Alan Simpson has already stated that he prefers to fly first class and take the loss on the difference in price). So allowing for the fact that there is probably a flat fee for each flight instead of a separate amount for each of the eighteen member panel which although the right way to do I doubt that the government works that efficiently, that would put the airfare budget around $288,000. Again for the purposes of this example, let's say that each staffer would stay over in DC one night for each meeting and the average DC hotel is $200 per night. That would mean that the housing budget would be approximately $115,200.

Of course, we don't want anyone to be hungry so I would have to believe that there is also a per diem for food. Let's use a round figure of $100 per meeting, which would add another $57,000 for just the eighteen members of the commission (no staffers).

So even though the commission is meeting in the White House (at least the first time) which alleviates the need for an outside facility rental fee, there is probably at least lunch brought in. One would figure that even if provided by the White House kitchens, the cost is probably at least $20 per person which adds an additional $11,520 to the overall budget. Lest we forget paper and pens, we should add into the budget the cost of at least one legal pad, one ream of copy paper, two pens and two highlighters per panel member per session. That would add another $2384.46 unless of course they don't shop at Staples and instead go to that government warehouse where the toilet seats cost over a thousand dollars.

So without factoring in any money for any staffers that the executive director has already said would be paid, the budget for the above expenses is already$754,104.46. Does this surprise anyone? Are my estimates really out of control?? So once again the people who are tasked with finding a way to get us out of debt are apparently incapable of providing a realistic budget to work within themselves.

Why is it that the Administration continues to think that the American public is too stupid to see the writing on the wall and to do simple math? Why can't these meetings be held over video chat? That idea was squashed according to the Daily Caller's report. I would think that since the Obama Administration thinks that all Americans have a right to broadband Internet then they must have heard of something called video conferencing? Skype is free - use it and some common sense and maybe, just maybe, we'll have a chance!

Klaatu barada nikto

President Obama has created yet another commission to study something. Rather than sitting down with economists himself which would no doubt infringe on his abilities to continue his love affair with his teleprompter on television every other minute, he has created a "bi-partisan"debt commission tasked with finding a way of getting America out of debt. And given the most recent developments (the climate bill) in the realm of bi-partisan politics I am not sure that we should hold our breath.

The heads of this commission are Erskine Bowles, a failed Democratic Senatorial candidate and outgoing president of the University of North Carolina, and Alan Simpson a former Republican Senator from Wyoming. These two will head an eighteen member panel charged with the task of reducing the deficit to $550 BILLION by 2015. The deficit for the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2009 was $1.4 Trillion so the commission apparently have their work cut out for them.

As the president of the University of North Carolina system, Bowles was ultimately responsible for the budget and in the current fiscal year had to make cuts totaling $162.5 Million. These cuts included 935 jobs. Ninety percent of the job cuts were administrative positions eliminated "in order to protect the Academic core" of the system. Mr. Bowles has also stated that further cuts will have to be made - namely approximately $100 million from the 2010-2011 operating budget - but that those will no doubt unfortunately have to be stripped from the University's Academic core. Convenient that Mr. Bowles has announced his retirement from the presidency before he is associated with the cuts and with the permanent damage that will lead to a path of mediocrity.

After leaving the Senate, Alan Simpson (once named by a tabloid as an alien) taught at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. In 2001, Senator Simpson became Honorary Chairman of the Republican Unity Coalition (a gay/straight alliance within Republican party that has since disbanded) and then supported a former Democratic candidate (over a much more conservative choice) in the 2002 Wyoming gubernatorial race. So I guess that I shouldn't be surprised at the inclusion a liberal leaning Republican as the Administration's attempt at bi-partisanship.

Is trimming administrative positions, those positions that are usually vital to the day-to-day operations of most of the programs that they will no doubt want to continue to fund, the answer? Once we do that, are we then faced with the trimming of the "Academic core" of America? And will that lead the country down the path of mediocrity - more so than even some say we already are?

I fear that when Alan Simpson this time utters "Klaatu barada nikto" it will be too late to call off the President's destruction of our beautiful country.

Have you seen the pigs?

So if I had to choose just one place in this big beautiful country to move, I think that hands down I would have to choose our 48th state Arizona. A reminder of Old West history, Arizona is home to 28 national parks, the most famous of which is the Grand Canyon. And apparently there are actually residents in Arizona who remember the ones who came before them (like Cochise or Geronimo) who fought for freedom and what was right and among them is the current Governor,who may just be my new hero.

When President Obama nominated Janet Napolitano to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the line of succession elevated Jan Brewer, then the elected Secretary of State, to the office of the Governor. And apparently not afraid of poll numbers, Governor Brewer is now leading the call of the average Arizonan (and quite frankly the average American too) and fighting the fights that the people deem important and necessary. Personally I would love to have a governor (or any representative actually) who actually seems to govern and represent based on the will of the people. She's surrounded by a patriotic bunch of people that include Senator John McCain, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and State Senator Russell Pearce.

Just yesterday, Governor Brewer signed into Arizona law the nations toughest immigration enforcement policy to date. This legislation requires Arizona cops to question a person's residency status (during a stop or detention for just cause) if they have good reason to suspect that the person is in the country illegally. Yesterday's signing comes on the heels of recent legislation that will allow Arizonans to carry concealed weapons without a permit, a bill that gives the Governor the ability to circumvent the state Attorney General and sue over the healthcare overhaul as well as a bill introduced in the state House that would require presidential candidates to provide a copy of their birth certificate to be on the ballot.

Governor Brewer was clear in her statements at the signing ceremony when she said " And it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona remain solid - stable and steadfast." President Obama, after the immigration legislation was signed into law this afternoon, called the bill "misguided" and has ordered the Justice Department to see if it it legal. Opponents of the bill (obviously including President Obama) are afraid of potential civil rights violations as well as the idea that hispanics might be afraid to report crime for fear of being deported. So let me get this straight Mr. President. You're a constitutional scholar. Am I to believe that you don't have the ten minutes (that it just took me) to read the seventeen pages of the bill to determine if it is legal or not. Yet it is perfectly sane for you to think that the American people are just going to take your word for it when you tell us that the healthcare bill isn't going to cost us money, raise our taxes or strip us of our liberties when we are forced to purchase health insurance??!?

The new immigration law has the support of 70% of Arizonans, clear language outlining its abilities and its text (which did I mention was 17 pages?) sat on the Governor's desk for 4 days before she signed it. Healthcare reform consists of almost 3000 pages, well over one-half of the country opposed the action and the text (let me reiterate, almost 3000 pages) was signed into law less than 48 hours after it was voted upon. I think that I finally understand how the Obama administration works - analyze the situation and then do the exact opposite of common sense and the will of the people! Oh and if the people don't thank you, well then chastise and laugh at them because that goes over so well.

So I guess that I have been wrong. It is not a good idea to make something that by definition is illegal a crime and we shouldn't salute those who are working tirelessly to protect our borders and our citizens. I am sorry that I have questioned the exalted intellect and infallibility of the Administration and I will right now sit down and write a thank you note so that you know how much I appreciate the higher taxes and loss of liberty that I will experience as we watch healthcare reform grow.

Yeah, that's the plan because I just looked out the window and saw a couple of pigs flying by.

Wait! Is it too late to call for St. Patrick?

The new week brings the President's nuclear summit to Washington, D.C. Forty-seven world leaders are meeting in our nation's capital to discuss the nuclear future of the world. Noticeably absent are the two biggest nuclear threats within the globe - North Korea and Iran.

Is it just me or is anyone else worried about the staying power of these agreements given the President's history on campaigning for other people, places or things? And isn't that what this summit is all about anyway? Asking or campaigning for the other attendees to come around to our (as the host) way of thinking?

President Obama campaigned quite fervently for the Chicago Olympic bid for the 2016 games, even going as far as to fly himself and the First Lady and Oprah over to Copenhagen to plead in person. That worked out famously as we all know. The President then threw his support to some high-profile candidates in a few of off-year races that were held in November and the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat held in January. Those endorsements were held in such high esteem and voters were apparently fired up and ready to go after listening to the President's justifications for elections since they were able to defeat Jon Corzine, Martha Coakley and Creigh Deeds. Yet even with an 0-4 record, there are still those willing to keep the President campaigning on the country's behalf.

Recently the President made a surprise jaunt to Afghanistan so that he could visit with our troops. During his trip. he visited with the Afghan President Hamid Karzai. That meeting went so well that within a week, Karzai was threatening to resign his Presidency and join the Taliban. That event was on the heels of the announcement (during Vice President Joe Biden's visit) that Israel was going to approve more construction on the West Bank.

Now we have President Obama meeting with the leaders of forty-seven nations trying to hammer out the details on a successful nuclear strategy for the rest of the world. After a productive first day of talks, it was announced that China was on board to maybe possibly think about moving toward the Obama way of thinking on Iran and the Ukraine decided to give up its highly enriched uranium. Given the fact that China could really care less about sanctions on Iran and the President's own spokesperson wasn't sure where the uranium was to be sent (namely to us or to Russia - who might or might not give it to other countries for power generation) I think our not inviting some countries to the summit has allowed us to dodge an onslaught of rats.

I am glad that North Korea and Iran did not attend this summit. We could have been left with the fallout from a boobonic plague of a Presidential campaign that I don't think that we have enough stores of potassium iodide to combat.

I'm firing up the DeLorean

In September 2001, President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were lambasted in both the US based main stream media as well in International media outlets for (in the wake of the attacks of September11) stating that Osama bin Laden was "Wanted Dead or Alive" or even that we wanted "his head on a platter". Where is the same outrage now as the current Administration adds an American born Muslim cleric to the "kill or capture" list?

The Bush Administration was admonished over and over for using bellicose and "Texas-style" rhetoric with regards to the terrorist responsible for murdering 2998 Americans. President Bush was accused of stripping Americans of their freedoms with the Patriot Act. The main stream media became firmly entrenched behind those who opposed the policies of President Bush. Groups like Code Pink, MoveOn.org, and the Media Fund were lauded in their vocal protests by the media. Anyone who expressed opposition to these media darlings were charged as trying to quiet the voices of dissent.

In 2003, MSNBC talking head Keith Olbermann hailed the anti-Bush protests and stated, "It is political dissent that created this country and sustained it and improved it." A mere six years later, Olbermann showed his Kerry-esque flip-flop ability (in August of 2009) saying that anti-Obama protests were "societal sabotage" and insisted that "the protesters are not interested in hearing any voices other than their own". CBS's Katie Couric was quoted as saying (with regards to the Bush administration) that there was "a sense of pressure from corporations who own where we work and from the government itself to really squash any kinds of dissent or any kind of questioning of it" Hello Pot? This is the Kettle!

A little over a year after taking office, we have now seen the Obama Administration make significant changes to National Security language. The words jihad and Islamic radicalism have been removed from a key document outlining the US security strategy. We've seen a policy released that states that we will won't use nuclear weapons on most countries no matter what they use on us. We've seen the Attorney General of the United States say that (another) 9-11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, should be tried in a Federal court in New York City but that Osama bin Laden would "never be tried in a US court" because he would most likely be killed before he was captured and they wouldn't "read Miranda rights to his corpse." We've witnessed Homeland Security (under the Obama Administration in April 2009) issue warnings that there will be rises in terror threats from home grown right-wing extremist organizations because they may be gaining new recruits by playing on fears about the recession and the election of the first African American president.

What we have also witnessed however is two very clear attacks on American soil (the first since September 11, 2001). In November 2009, Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 American citizens and injured another 30. On December 25, 2009, Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab was apprehended after attempting to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Both of these attacks are now linked to a Muslim cleric who is also an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki and the Obama administration has now authorized the killing of this American citizen.

So can someone please tell me the difference between issuing a "Wanted Dead or Alive" type of statement about a monster who claimed responsibility for killing almost 3000 Americans and the authorization of a "kill or capture" order for an American born Muslim? Why do we issue vast warnings about right-wing extremists when there wasn't a single arrest of a tea party protester at any of the hundreds of tea parties (at least none that the author is aware of since I am sure had there been the main stream media would have been all over the story) across the country over the past year? Why do we remove "Islamic radicalism" from our National Security language when actual attacks on our homeland are attributed to a Muslim cleric? Why do we joke about reading Miranda rights to a dead Saudi man but then turn around and issue a kill order for an American citizen? And why do we vilify a President who uses the Patriot Act to assist in our protection yet we glorify another President who strips us of the right to choose our own (or lack thereof) health insurance and who has lied time and time again in his bid to take over one sixth of the economy?

I am confused and befuddled by this seemingly parallel universe and sometimes wish for a DeLorean so that I can speed down the road at 88 miles per hour so that I can get back to the future where I hope that this mess has been fixed by another trip back in time.

Please feel free to follow me on Facebook

We have a history

Is it right to continue with something just because there is a history behind it? By definition, everything and every situation has a history.

Should we continue to deny women voting rights simply because there is a history that did not allow them to? Or should slavery still be a mainstay in the south because there used to be plantation owners who owned slaves? Both of these statements are as ridiculous as the blanket statment "We have a history."

History cannot be changed that is true but our interpretations and reactions to past events can be changed. We must strive to make informed decisions on future actions based on consequences from previous experiences.

George Santayana said "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it. " I think that this (and its many variations) might be my favorite all philosophical quotes because it applies to almost every possible situation in life.

What do you think that we could have avoided repeating if we studied the history (plainly written in an autobiography) and learned that President Barack Obama was the type of man who would find it necessary to surround himself with Marxists and Communists. If we had studied our history would we now be surprised that the President fills the Oval Office with the likes of Van Jones, Ron Bloom and Reverend Jim Wallis.

What do you think that we would learn if we studied the history of any of the politicians that we elect to represent us and write our laws? We would find that there are some who cheat on their wives, their taxes or their business partners. We would also find some who are honest and hard-working individuals who have histories that feature service to our country and their communities . Which history should we use to aid us in the election of lawmakers that will be charged with caring for the future for our children?

The answer is both. So please do your homework. Study your history. Before you enter the ballot box know the history of the people for whom you press the button or pull a lever. The truth is some history should be avoided and some should be revered.