. Representative Ted Poe, R-Texas, did an excellent speech on the floor of the House of Representatives recently that has since been entitled, "TURN OUT THE LIGHTS, THE PARTY'S OVER". The title is a clickable link to a transcript of his speech if you can't view the video. If at all possible, view the video as you get the full impact of the speech. The second thing Representative Poe did was a side commentary on Congress that I thought was excellent. Representative Poe literally took the Constitution and beat them over the head with it! I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
Monday, June 23, 2008
THE REAL DEAL WITH COMPACT FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS & A COMMENTARY ON CONGRESS!
Just a quick entry that I thought everyone would find interesting and enjoy. I heard this on talk radio last week and I thought this was an excellent expose' of the hazards of the compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL's) 
. Representative Ted Poe, R-Texas, did an excellent speech on the floor of the House of Representatives recently that has since been entitled, "TURN OUT THE LIGHTS, THE PARTY'S OVER". The title is a clickable link to a transcript of his speech if you can't view the video. If at all possible, view the video as you get the full impact of the speech. The second thing Representative Poe did was a side commentary on Congress that I thought was excellent. Representative Poe literally took the Constitution and beat them over the head with it! I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
. Representative Ted Poe, R-Texas, did an excellent speech on the floor of the House of Representatives recently that has since been entitled, "TURN OUT THE LIGHTS, THE PARTY'S OVER". The title is a clickable link to a transcript of his speech if you can't view the video. If at all possible, view the video as you get the full impact of the speech. The second thing Representative Poe did was a side commentary on Congress that I thought was excellent. Representative Poe literally took the Constitution and beat them over the head with it! I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
Friday, June 20, 2008
MY REPLY TO A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT
This is in response to Ryan, thatboyaintright in my entry, TERRORISTS AND PRISONERS OF WAR NOW HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS YOU DO. I will respond to each part of Ryan’s comment.
“I would strongly disagree with your assessment.
The terrorists are NOT being given more rights as any American. The court simply ruled that the US Gov't must abide by the Constitution at all times. The detainees cannot be labeled as "enemy combatants" in order to get around US Law & the Geneva Convention --- that is what the court has said, not that the detainees have any more rights than any American.”
First, these terrorists, in my opinion, now have more rights concerning their detention than American prisoners. American prisoners do not have the right to challenge their incarceration based solely on the fact they are detained. The Guantanamo Bay detainees can. The idea that they were simply “labeled” as enemy combatants is the propaganda of the left. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority opinion in this ruling, “The detainees in these cases are entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.” There was no labeling. They were captured ON THE BATTLEFIELD. In my way of thinking, if someone is ON THE BATTLEFIELD, and fighting AGAINST the U.S. and our allies, they are -----ENEMY COMBATANTS-----there is NO “labeling”. Furthermore, classifying enemies as enemy combatants DOES NOT get around the Geneva Convention (For those not familiar with it, the GENEVA CONVENTION are now four treaties that currently have been ratified by 194 countries as of August 2006. These treaties concern the treatment of non-combatants and prisoners of war). Therefore, “labeling” these terrorists as “enemy combatants” would in no wise circumvent the Geneva Convention. As far as the assertion that “simply ruled that the U. S. Government must abide by the Constitution at all times” is concerned, Justice Kennedy’s opinion contradicts this. Prisoners of war, enemy combatants, or whatever you want to call them, are in no way under the jurisdiction of civilian courts. This brings me to the next part of Ryan’s comment:
“Basically, the court has said the Bush Admin may not change the rules. The detainees must be tried either in military court under existing military laws, or in civil court under the laws of the land. A special court with special rules & without normal legal protections are simply not allowed.”
Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the majority ruling justices did not say that. It simply said these prisoners of war are “entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.” These prisoners of war now have the right, according to this ruling, to challenge their detention in
"Petitioners (terrorists) have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause's protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants . . .”
In other words, civilian courts. Never before have prisoners of war been granted access to civilian courts to appeal adverse decisions.
Ryan continued: “I would also disagree that this is the first time the court has done this. The court ruled that Lincoln couldn't suspend habeas corpus either, saying that only Congress could do that as the Civil War met the Constitutional provision. The Supreme Court today said habeas corpus may not be suspended by Bush =or= Congress since there is no meeting of the provision to suspend.” The Civil War, more accurately known as the War Between the States (although not entirely accurate either) was an entirely different situation. The Confederate States of America, that legally seceded from the United States and had its own government, was a separate entity from and no longer a part of the United States. Lincoln couldn’t suspend habeas corpus because the United States was not invaded. It was the other way around, so this does not apply here.
And the last point I wanted to address although it was not last in Ryan’s comment: “As for the assertion that 9/11 was an invasion, I would disagree. Nor is there a rebellion. The public safety is not threatened in any way by the gov't having to show cause to detain the prisoners.” The idea there was no invasion has its roots once again with the left. Liberals do not consider 9/11 to have been invasion or an act of war because instead of using fighter jets, rockets, and other conventional military arms, these cowards converted jet airliners into manned cruise missles. My question is, WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? This was very obviously and undeniably an invasion. These terrorists who carried out the attacks of 9/11 were part of a what? A FOREIGN organization sponsored and financed by FOREIGN COUNTRIES whose goal is the total destruction of the West. These were not Americans. The attack came from OUTSIDE theUnited States, so therefore it was plainly an invasion. There is absolutely no other way one can slice it. And since these people are TERRORISTS, and one of them has admitted to being in on the planning of 9/11, the public safety is not threatened in any way???? The World Trade Center being destroyed in ONE DAY, the Pentagon hit THE SAME DAY, nearly 3,000 Americans murdered in ONE DAY, and the Capitol building would have been gone in ONE DAY with even more dead had it not been for the heroes on one of the converted cruise missles.
The Supreme Court is still, and always will be wrong on this. Reading Justice Kennedy’s opinion, this is an obvious attempt to further expand the Court’s authority over military matters, and the battlefield. The five justices who made this ruling are known liberals. That’s really something how that worked with a conservative President in the White House. Coincidence? Unfortunately, this sends a message to our enemies that this nation does not back its military. In this day and time, this is the wrong message to be sending.
Ryan, thanks for offering a different point of view for discussion and for reading my journal!
Saturday, June 14, 2008
FLAG DAY
Today is Flag Day. I wonder for just how many Americans this day will come and go without even realizing its significance. This is something else that was once taught in school that I doubt seriously is even mentioned anymore because most can’t tell when Flag Day is (was) observed. It is really upsetting to me how lackadaisical most are towards any type of patriotic observances. We have a spoiled rotten society that has absolutely no idea just how high a price was paid and is being paid for our safety and freedom. Here is one story from USFLAG.ORG:
A Lesson For Americans by Mike Dalka
My Grandfather was a glider infantryman in WWII, an advisor in Korea, and lost one ofhis sons, my uncle Gary Edwards, in Vietnam. I worked in his auto repair station during high school and he flew his flag in front daily. One day while I was sweeping the oil dry out of the bays it began to sprinkle rain. He told me to go get the flag and I said "gimme a second." He said, "It is raining, go get the flag NOW." Well I popped off my mouth about how he should cool it, it isn't going to melt or some such typical teenage comment.
My grandfather is the toughest man I've ever met. He explained once that he thought basic training was some sort of country club during WWII, because he was used to hard work anyway, and at home he didn't have indoor toilets or hot running water! And when I said whatever it was that I said to him, he turned deep crimson and I thought, "God save me, he's going to kill me for talking back." Instead tears welled up in his eyes and he squeaked out "You don't understand what this family has paid for the right to fly that flag." Then he turned his back on me and went out and got the flag. I just stood there feeling like the smallest person to ever live. Those words cut me so deep. I wish the entire country could have heard them.
[ I ] hope that this Nation might yet have enough people who understand the cost of liberty to turn things around.
Here is the history of Flag Day from USFLAG.ORG:
The History Of Flag Day
The Fourth of July was traditionally celebrated as America's birthday, but the idea of an annual day specifically celebrating the Flag is believed to have first originated in 1885. BJ Cigrand, a schoolteacher, arranged for the pupils in the Fredonia, Wisconsin Public School, District 6, to observe June 14 (the 108th anniversary of the official adoption of The Stars and Stripes) as 'Flag Birthday'. In numerous magazines and newspaper articles and public addresses over the following years, Cigrand continued to enthusiastically advocate the observance of June 14 as 'Flag Birthday', or 'Flag Day'.
On June 14, 1889, George Balch, a kindergarten teacher in New York City, planned appropriate ceremonies for the children of his school, and his idea of observing Flag Day was later adopted by the State Board of Education of New York. On June 14, 1891, the Betsy Ross House in Philadelphia held a Flag Day celebration, and on June 14 of the following year, the New York Society of the Sons of the Revolution, celebrated Flag Day.
Following the suggestion of Colonel J Granville Leach (atthe time historian of the Pennsylvania Society of the Sons of the Revolution), the Pennsylvania Society of Colonial Dames of America on April 25, 1893 adopted a resolution requesting the mayor of Philadelphia and all others in authority and all private citizens to display the Flag on June 14th. Leach went on to recommend that thereafter the day be known as 'Flag Day', and on that day, school children be assembled for appropriate exercises, with each child being given a small Flag.
Two weeks later on May 8th, the Board of Managers of the Pennsylvania Society of Sons of the Revolution unanimously endorsed the action of the Pennsylvania Society of Colonial Dames. As a result of the resolution, Dr. Edward Brooks, then Superintendent of Public Schools of Philadelphia, directed that Flag Day exercises be held on June 14, 1893 in Independence Square. School children were assembled, each carrying a small Flag, and patriotic songs were sung and addresses delivered.
In 1894, the governor of New York directed that on June 14 the Flag be displayed on all public buildings. With BJ Cigrand and Leroy Van Horn as the moving spirits, the Illinois organization, known as the American Flag Day Association, was organized for the purpose of promoting the holding of Flag Day exercises. On June 14th, 1894, under the auspices of this association, the first general public school children's celebration of Flag Day in Chicago was held in Douglas, Garfield, Humboldt, Lincoln, and Washington Parks, with more than 300,000 children participating.
Adults, too, participated in patriotic programs. Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior, delivered a 1914 Flag Day address in which he repeated words he said the flag had spoken to him that morning: "I am what you make me; nothing more. I swing before your eyes as a bright gleam of color, a symbol of yourself."
Inspired by these three decades of state and local celebrations, Flag Day - the anniversary of the Flag Resolution of 1777 - was officially established by the Proclamation of President Woodrow Wilson on May 30th, 1916. While Flag Day was celebrated in various communities for years after Wilson's proclamation, it was not until August 3rd, 1949, that President Truman signed an Act of Congress designating June 14th of each year as National Flag Day.
In closing, I'll only repeat the last line of Mr. Dalka's article:
"I hope that this nation might yet have enough people who understand the cost of liberty to turn things around."
Thursday, June 12, 2008
TERRORISTS AND PRISONERS OF WAR NOW HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS YOU DO
For the first time in U. S. history, the Supreme Court has extended its authority even (unconstitutionally) further. The Supreme Court ruled today (actually, now yesterday, at least on the East Coast that is!) that TERRORISTS, captured on the battlefields of Aghanistan and Iraq, now have Constitutional protection. They can contest their detention at GUANTANAMO BAY as prisoners of war. They have the same rights now under this ruling as YOU and I to appear in Federal Court and demand their release. According to the FOX NEWS website, the Court held that, “Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause's protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo."
“The Suspension Clause is a constitutional guarantee that blocks Congress from suspending habeas corpus.” A writ of habeas corpus is a court order to prison officials to bring a prisoner before the court to determine if the prisoner is being detained legally, and whether or not the prisoner should be released. Terrorists now have that right. Don’t get me wrong with what I’m about to say. I don’t have any sympathy for anyone breaking the law and being sent to prison. There are penalties for breaking the law. But, prisoners here are American citizens, and in my opinion, Al Quaeda and Taliban terrorists have more rights than American prisoners.
Anyway, here’s where the Court is just simply WRONG. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Wouldn’t the attacks of September 11, 2001 sort of be “an invasion”? Absolutely. The Court is wrong, period.
I would like to look at a couple of things. First, since when does ANYONE that is not a citizen of the United States entitled to protection under our Constitution? Does the Constitution say ANYWHERE that it extends to foreign nationals? Especially foreign nationals that have the utmost hatred for ALL OF US? Here is a link where you can read it for yourself:
Next concerns the authority of the Supreme Court. For way too long, the Supreme Court has been allowed to overstep its Constitutional authority and make laws. Here is the scope of the power of the Supreme Court as defined by the Constitution:
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Does it say anywhere that Supreme Court rulings BECOME law? No. One of the purposes of the Supreme Court is to INTERPRET the law. Does it say anywhere that the Supreme Court has any kind of authority over military matters? No. So today, the Supreme Court, once again, overstepped it’s authority.
The problem with this particular ruling is, that contrary to how the mainstream media is spinning it, it is NOT a loss for the Bush Administration. It’s a loss for the United States and national security. The Bush Administration had the consent of Congress on this, so this being construed as a loss for the President is misrepresentation.
In keeping with my general policy of who should accept responsibility for their actions, here are the names of the justices who made this ruling:
Justice Anthony Kennedy
Justice John Paul Stevens
Justice Stephen Breyer
Justice David Souter
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
These are the justices that don’t care about your safety or national security. These five justices actually believe that prisoners of war captured ON THE BATTLEFIELD, and in addition are TERRORISTS, INCLUDING ONE THAT ADMITTED HE HELP PLAN THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 ATTACKS, that hate all of us and wish us all dead, now have at least the same rights, if not more rights than AMERICAN CITIZENS accused of a crime or who are already serving time in prison.
I don’t know how, but the Supreme Court needs to be put back into its Constitutional place. The Supreme Court is accountable to no one, not even the President, and especially NOT TO US, the people. They have become almighty, all powerful, and allowed special interest groups such as the ACLU to bypass the established legislative process (Congress and the President) in order to promote a leftist agenda.
One last thing: I do want to thank those justices who stood for what was right:
Chief Justice John Roberts
Justice Antonin Scalia
Justice Clarence Thomas
Justce Samuel Alito
We do have four justices that know the Constitution.
I do hope that Congress once again reaffirms our Constitution and that the Supreme Court, a civilian court, has no jurisdiction over military matters.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
IT'S NOT SO MUCH WHO YOU VOTE FOR, BUT WHAT (CONTINUED)
Today I'm continuing my posting of party platforms. I'll most likely be interjecting posts about the Presidential candidates in between as news happens. Here's more of the Democratic party's platform:
DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON CORPORATIONS
DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON CRIME
DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON DRUGS
DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON EDUCATION
DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON OIL
First is on education. The Democratic party does not support school vouchers which allows parents to send their children to the school of their choice. You notice this gives parents freedom to determine what school is best for their children. School vouchers creates healthy competition among schools in order to vie for students. Under the current system, public schools do not have to compete for students, but they have a monopoly. Therefore, no incentive to improve the quality of education. And with the United States ranking EIGHTEENTH out of TWENTY-FOUR industrialized nations (click HERE for my post about this), I think we need to have vouchers nationally and stop the social experiments that have been going on for the past forty years.
"Enact new tax programs to enable more lifelong learning". Oh boy, that's just all we need, is yet another "tax program". And just how is this "lifelong learning" supposed to work? Unless you make school mandatory throughout adulthood, just where would this tax money go? Into another black hole where no one could tell you what happened to it as is the case with much of our tax dollars now.
Next, take a look at their stance on oil. "We cannot drill our way to energy independence." Oh, really? The United States is sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world. So large, in fact, that Red China, Cuba, and others are drilling for our oil offshore of the United States. Your Congress and mine has made it illegal for us to drill offshore for it, so why not just let our sworn enemies have it, and trust them in their drilling practices more than we trust ourselves? That's how the Democratic Party sees it.
Next point: "Develop renewable energy and efficient vehicles." As has been shown over the past thirty plus years since the fuel mileage standards were signed into law in the early 1970's, you can't conserve your way out of a situation. With the fuel efficiency of vehicles climbing steadily for all this time, our dependence on foreign oil has done what? If you guessed gone down, wrong! It was forty percent then, and the last figures I saw was sixty percent. It may be more than that by now.
What can be done to start telling the Middle Eastern countries to take a hike? Increase production here in the States. There's enough oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR) alone to supply the equivalent of all the imports from Saudi Arabia for the next thirty years!
Whether you agree with going back to producing our own oil here or not, the politicians (on both sides of the aisle) don't need to be acting like they're out working so hard to fix this problem. THEY'RE THE ONES WHO CAUSED IT! We, the people, didn't vote to make it illegal to drill offshore or in ANWAR or anywhere else. THEY DID!
Friday, June 6, 2008
D-DAY, INVASION OF NORMANDY, 1944
Today is June 6, 2008. It is the forty-forth anniversary of the Allied forces in World War II landing at Normandy, France during Operation Overlord. France of course was occupied by Nazi Germany. It was the largest invasion from the sea at the time, By the end of June 1944, over 850,000 Allied troops had crossed the English channel. It was a very bloody, but decisive Allied victory. Troops from the United States, Canada, Free French Forces, and the United Kingdom made the landing. Later, Poland,Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, and the Netherlands joined the initial forces. Most of these countries also provided air support along with the Royal Australian Air Force, Royal New Zealand Air Force, and the Royal Norwegian Navy (I hope I didn’t leave anyone out).
Once again, today will come and go and the vast majority of Americans will not know the significance of it. As I said in my Memorial Day post, we have largely forgotten about those who made it possible for us to be free and secure. I’m not just talking about those who fought in World War II either. We still have something like 60,000 troops in Japan, and many, many more still throughout Europe maintaining what the Allies accomplished in defeating the AXIS POWERS.
Thank a veteran today, especially if you know or see a World War II veteran, for their service – we owe them so much. THANK YOU TO ALL OUR SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN, PAST AND PRESENT!
Here's a video I found of a reunion of D-Day Veterans which includes some photos of what it looks like today.
VET WHO WON MEDAL OF HONOR AT AGE 17 DIES (this is a clickable link to the article - his story in World War II is really something - please take acouple of minutes to read).
Thursday, June 5, 2008
REPLY TO A QUESTION
In my last entry, katerh99 posted a comment asking for my solution to the Iranian nuclear threat. Here's is katerh99's comment:
"And your solution is??? I'd really be interested in knowing. Eveeryone seems to skirt the answer.
Bluntly put, are you suggesting we bomb the hell out of Iran before they do the USA?"
I thought that I had expressed the solution to the Iran problem rather clearly in my last paragraph:
" . . . the only thing terrorists understand is force which is a military response. And if Iran has not gotten the idea by now that we mean business, then we should go ahead and take care of business before Iran develops nuclear weapons."
To put it more bluntly and clearly, we need to go ahead and attack Iran before we have to fight them in a nuclear war. The Ahmadinejad regime needs to be overthrown. Ahmadinejad said again this week how he plans to destroy Israel. If we wait, Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons. In an interview on CNN, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pointed out that Iran has so much oil that they don't need it all, so there is no need for nuclear power plants as Iran claims is the purpose their uranium enrichment program.
Need more? An article on the FOX NEWS website entitled "Tehran's Nuclear Defiance Hand-in-Hand with Attacks in Iraq" by Alireza Jafarzadeh on May 28, 2008 indicated a few more details of the International Atomic Energy Agency referenced in my previous post. The report also stated that Iran was building more advanced centrifuges for uranium enrichment. We don't need to go into the details of the use of centrifuges here. Just know they're used in the process, and more advanced centrifuges produce a higher yield in a shorter time.
"The latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report corroborated bombshell revelations by Mohammad Mohaddessin of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), that, the Iranian regime's nuclear project had entered a new phase in April 2007. The Chairman of the NCRI's Foreign Affairs Committee told a press conference in Brussels in February that a command and control center, known as Mojdeh site, had been established to head up the drive to complete a nuclear bomb. Many of the activities at the site are disguised as part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps'(IRGC) Malek Ashtar University.
"Plenty of other information indicates that ayatollahs' regime has in fact expedited its nuclear weapons activities, and that the IRGC has assumed command of a much larger segment of the nuclear drive. As the NCRI revealed, the Mojdeh site in Tehran houses a vast research and development facility where scientists are experimenting with neutron initiators and triggers for an atomic bomb; casting and machining of uranium metals; and researching fissile material needed for the production of a bomb, among other activities. At Khojir, a Defense Ministry site 72 miles southeast of Tehran, researchers are working on building a nuclear warhead. None of these activities is necessary for nuclear power generation."
Mr. Jafarzadeh adds, "If they are not stopped, we are looking at a nuclear-armed state-sponsor of terrorism with an aggressive agenda that extends beyond neighboring Iraq."
Below is a video of an interview with Mohammad Ghannadi Maragheh who is the Research and Energy Director of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization that was aired on Iranian television on April 8, 2008.
Maragheh talks about the more advanced centrifuges mentioned in the IAEA report. He also mentions that despite sanctions against Iran, Iran is SEVENTH PLACE in UF6 production according to the IAEA, World Nuclear Association, and other international organizations. (UF6 is the chemical form of uranium that is used during the uranium enrichment process). That's SEVENTH PLACE folks.
This is a repeat of history. Iran is a parallel 1938 Germany right down to Iran's desire to destroy Israel. Iran better be stopped now while the situation can be dealt with by conventional warfare.
Here is the interview I mentioned above with Benjamin Netanyahu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
