Did you really not ask for military?

Recently I was looking at a post about something that happened to one of our veterans. It was a sad story and thinking about the loss that soldier's family had suffered was saddening as well.

What was most troubling to me was that in the comment section someone got on and (trolling?) said, "Well I do not care what happened to that soldier or his family, I never asked him to serve."

I would like to respond as follows.

You say you did not ask for anyone to join the military.

I hate to tell you this but… You did.

Every man and woman who serves or has served does so because of you. It is for your freedom and the freedom of your family and friends that they signed up to serve.
Oh they may not know YOU personally, but the oath they took did not say "except for Mr. Smith because he did not ask for us to be there."
The oath that all of us who served took is for ALL our fellow citizens who need our help.

Think about all the things that our armed forces do.
From rescuing people when they're homes are flooded or in harms way to fighting fires alongside forest service personnel.
From guarding our borders to going to foreign countries far from their loved ones to fight. They do these things because they are in the interests of protecting our country, our livelihood and our homes.

Yours included.

If YOU had joined the military they would not have needed to do so for you.
But the freedoms you enjoy are given to you and kept for you by those people whom you have "not asked."
Just like you did "not ask" for someone to become a police officer or a fire fighter and you do not "ask" for them to come to your house when It is burning or you are in need.

Still,if you will be honest with yourself, you know if they did not come, if they did not stand in the gap you would be complaining that you do not get the protection and service you expect of the government.

So in your silence and in your need, without SAYING so you DO ask for them to do this, Every day.

Maybe you do not like what they are doing because you find it morally offensive, maybe you think we do not need to be wherever they are. But that is not their fault. They do not get to pick and choose where they will fight. If anyone is to blame for where they are sent or how they are used then look to the leaders of the nation who sent them... Or better yet, Look at yourself, because YOU are the one who voted those leaders into office.

So kindly, Please keep that in mind the next time you want to denigrate them or post hateful things.

Gay Scouts.

Recently I have been in several discussions.

In one of those discussions, I relayed my concerns about how it seems the “Homosexual lobby” seems to be trying to impose their will on people while whining that they are being targeted with the same kind of behavior.

Someone told me that I was “succumbing to the scare tactics and rhetoric of the conservative right.” So I took a moment and though about it and do you know what? That person, on MANY levels, was mistaken.

the main one is, I was NOT succumbing to anything. This is NOT just rhetoric. There are many examples all over the place from “Gays” suing businesses for not making them wedding cakes to gays marching protesting and even causing violence against people.
They claim that these businesses are promoting hate or prejudice when the opposite is true, they just have a different idea of what is moral. And thus "they HAVE to be wrong".
These are businesses and organizations that simply disagree with them… (Focus on the Family, Chick-Fil-A etc…)
But I think the most obvious example is The Boy Scouts of America.

Think about it, The BSA came out with a statement that they were thinking about ruling that the individual units could decide whether or not they would allow homosexuals to be in the BSA.

This was even before they limited it to boys so the idea was simply any Homosexual who wanted to be in scouting would be able to join a troop that was open to the idea of allowing gays in.

I heard a spokesperson for the Homosexuals involved in this, state, WITH HIS OWN MOUTH, that “this [allowing units to permit gays in to the units] would not be enough”.
A “HOMOSEXUAL LOBBYIST” said “THIS WOULD NOT BE GOOD ENOUGH”!
What else could the national center for BSA do? What else could homosexuals possibly want?
The only other option, the next step if you will is that the national council would FORCE units to accept gays. If this is not Forcing others to accept behavior against their wishes then what is???

Honestly think about it. The largest participants in BSA is the Mormon church. The Church, as far as I know, still considers Homosexuality (or Sodomy) to be a sinful behavior. You are telling them that they HAVE to accept gays in Even though it is against their religious beliefs.

This is not “fear mongering” and it is not rhetoric or hyperbole. And it is also not anecdotal! This is exactly what I have said it is. This is a bald faced attempt by the Homosexuals to impose their wills on everyone else in spite of what values morals or beliefs those others may have on their own.
This is denying people their basic freedoms to live life as they want to live it by forcing them to accept values that are against their beliefs.

This is what the gays want to claim people like me are doing but I want to take a moment here to state, I think gays ought to live their lives however they want to live. Their choices and the results of those choices are between them, their partner/s and God. I really have no place in there I am willing to "live and let live". But they are not.

If I were fear mongering I would probably be cynically stating that this is an attempt by the homosexuals to remake the BSA into an all Homosexual organization and exclude all heterosexuals. But I am not saying that. I am pointing out that there is no real consistency with their arguments. It is all a bunch of hypocrisy.

I do believe that the choice/s they are making is sinful (wrong). But it is their choice to make, I believe they will have to answer to God for those choices, and it does not matter how many people here on earth follow their views. God’s word and law is the same. It will not change just because some people want it to.

Now I am not trying to force homosexuals to be straight, again that is between them and God. They can live their lives however they want to, BUT I DO NOT want them teaching these values to my children, I do not want them forcing their views on me against my wishes and I do not want them to make the whole world like them.

They claim they value diversity but when you force everyone to be like you there is no diversity. By trying to make me and my kids turn into people like you, you are eliminating that which makes us all different.

So stop trying to change everything and learn to practice what you preach and celebrate that diversity that you claim to be so fond of.

What's guns got to do with it?

There were a few events that happened at the beginning of this year that really made a big impact in my life.

1. Sandy hook elementary school.
2. I saw the Hobbit.

How do these two link?

Well since watching the Hobbit that meant I HAD to re-watch the LOTR trilogy.
In the Two Towers, King Theoden had something very profound to say, and I think it fits very well with what happened in Sandy hook and in other places as well.

Speaking of the flowers that are growing on the graves of his father and grandfather and so on, Theoden says,
“Now [they] shall cover the grave of my son: Alas that these evil days should be mine. The young perish and the old linger, that I should live t see the last days of my house.
No parent should have to bury their child.”

He was right, NO parent should have to bury their child. I know some of the grief that a parent might feel at the loss of their child. My wife had a couple of miscarriages. And I know that it rips a hole in your life and in your heart.
The problem is that ever since then, the government and several national media personalities have been going on and on ad infinitum that this means we need more gun laws, bigger gun laws, stronger gun laws…

But Guess what! ALL those measures they want to put in place would have done nothing to stop what happened at Newton Connecticut. In fact many of these gun laws would make it easier for someone to bring harm to the innocent and the vulnerable.

We can see, if we bother to do the research, that many more crimes are stopped because of the presence of guns owned by law abiding citizens. I saw a recent sarcastic post on facebook that detailed the statistics of Chicago Illinois and Houston Texas.
The point that it was making was these two cities, very similar in size, economy and everything else had very different levels of crime and violence.
The obvious difference that might have been the reason was that Chicago residents were not allowed to own guns and there were no gun stores or anything in the city so they were vulnerable, while Houston is much more open to gun ownership. But there was onr little point (this is where the sarcasm comes in) that Chicago’s temperatures tend to be much colder than Houston’s THEREFORE the only reason that there can be any disparity is the temperature causes violence.

Any thinking person can see that for the silliness that it is. But unfortunately it seems that there are too many people who really do think that way. That is, they take a disconnected measure, something that has absolutely NO bearing on the reality that exists, and they try to claim that this is what we have to measure by.

Finally, Now the AP understands

I know that it has been a while (almost half a year) since I last posted anything. I would like to say that I have been super busy, but the truth is I have been lazy. Still I am back with some new stuff to say and I will now do so.

Last night, on the radio, I heard a lady with the AP come onto the talk radio and voice her opinion of what the government is doing, vis a vis, The recent actions of taking the phone records of AP reporters.
She was absolutely LIVID and she was not afraid to state so.

One of the things she was saying was essentially, “HOW DARE THEY!”

The host of the talk show tried to ask her about Benghazi, The “attacks” by the IRS on conservatives and the subsequent cover ups in those areas.
Her attitude though was, “those do not matter, they are not as important as this ‘egregious’ attack on the rights of free speech, through these actions, by this government.”

She even said as much.

But I would respond with this.

You ask “how dare they”? I will tell you how they “dare”.

They dare to attack your right to freedom of speech because they already attacked the right for people to bear arms and you said nothing, In fact YOU CHEERED THEM ON!
They dare to attack your free speech because they already attacked the rights of people to freely assemble and again you said and did nothing.
They dare to attack your free speech because they already attacked American citizenry with drones and military force denying them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and YOU LET THEM.

Too often you have stood by and refused to report on the actions of this administration because you liked what they were doing. You liked the idea of disarming the citizens, you liked the idea of telling people who disagreed with you that they were wrong and you liked the idea of liberals being in charge without any kind of scrutiny when they screwed up.
That is how and WHY they “dare” to commit an “atrocity” like this.

Furthermore, Because they were allowed to attack the constitution in those areas it is only a natural progression to move on attacking other rights, as I and others have warned for a long time now.
We warned you this was coming and you said, "oh that is just fear mongering, this will never happen."

You have nothing to say about it. Because, you are part of the problem.

To paraphrase an old saying:

They came for the Conservatives and I did nothing because I am not a conservative,
They came for the Christians and I did nothing because I am not a Christian,
They came for our veterans and I did nothing because I did not serve,
They came for the gun owners and I did nothing because I do not own a gun.

Now they come for me, and there is no one to help me because all those who would, have already been taken.

In other words, You, my dear lady, are now reaping that which you have sown. DEAL WITH IT!

Debate 2012 part deux

Well there was another debate last night.

I have got to say that it was invigorating that Obama actually showed up!

I do believe that Romney started out better, and the deciding points were really made at the beginning, within the first 30 minutes. Then they were relatively evenly paired for the balance.

Of course I was listening on the radio not watching the tv so there might be a difference in the two venues.

Anyway, I am certain that Obama’s supporters are going to count this one as a win. And I will agree that he did far better in this debate than he did in the first.

But I think that if they are going to be honest about it the best they can really say is that it was only a better performance than the president turned in last time.

The only way the idea of Obama winning works is if you do not count that the real issues were where Romney won, economy, foreign relations, track records… it was the petty things that were not issues where Obama could “speak with authority”.

Personally I think Romney had the lead from the beginning… but then I may be adding more to what I heard than really happened.

But let me make the points that I feel most support my theory.

When asked about gun control or fast and furious Obama turned the talk to community colleges.

When asked about gas prices, Obama basically said high prices were a good thing. (not in MY world, I am not getting paid more but I have to pay more.)

When asked about better pay for women, Obama talked about contraceptives for women.

And, just like the vice-presidential debates, Obama continuously interrupted Romney and would not let him finish an answer.

For that matter so did the moderator. I felt that the debate was structured to favor Obama because of that and for other points.
The majority of the questions the moderator allowed were geared toward Democrat talking points, yet on every one I heard Romney give a decent refutation.

In the meantime, most of the time, when a point came up where Obama needed to provide a counter proof or refutation he could not.

Romney also stayed on topic far better than Obama even bringing the debate back from whatever lah lah land that Obama took it to, and gave an answer to the actual question.

Obama did not stay on topic most of the time.

(This, notably, happened in the discussions about the economy, energy and gun control.)

I did feel there were points that Romney COULD have made but he failed to do so. For an example, I would have liked to see Romney make a better point facing down Obama on the issue of Libya.

I also would have liked Romney to make more points using the numbers that are out there. A common complaint the liberals like to come up with the past two weeks has been that the Romney / Ryan team are not providing enough details.

Conveniently these same people are the ones who forget that Obama’s entire plan when running four years ago were “Hope and Change.” And “I’m different than George Bush.” you do not get much more vague than that.

I feel Romney did a good job with pointing out the failures of Obama to actually accomplish the, few, promises he DID make four years ago.

When Romney pointed out that Obama had promised “unemployment down to 5.4%” or that the deficit would be “cut in half” or that Obama had promised his Obama care plan would “reduce the costs for middle class families insurance by $2,500”.

Then Romney went on to point out that the unemployment is 7.8% which is a difference of 9 million Americans. Worse, that figure forgets the thousands of people of working age who have simply left the work force.
Also Romney mentioned that the deficit is doubled from what Obama inherited and the middle class now pays $2,500.00 MORE on their health insurance then they did AND that is going to go up another 2,500 when Obamacare is fully implemented.

Romney also pointed out that welfare recipients have gone from 30 million to 47 million.

All of that, as Romney said, was even though Obama had a super majority in BOTH houses of congress for the first two years of his term.

On top of those, Obama failed to lower any other prices for the middle class or raise the standard of living for any of us.

I would also have added that he has not closed down Guantanamo bay prison.

ALL of those were promises that Obama made ALL if them he failed to complete and he failed in these EVEN THOUGH he had a, filibuster proof, super majority of democrats in congress when he first took office.
That means the republicans could NOT have done anything to stop him if he wanted to pass this legislation. It did not need to be bipartisan.
In fact, to prove it, there were a couple of bills that he did pass that did not have any republican support whatsoever.

So why couldn’t he have done the same on all these things he made a promise on?

I feel that Romney COULD have done a better job pointing at these things but even though he didn’t take it all the way, Obama still failed to adequately answer the points that came out of that.

Of course Romney was playing against a stacked deck.

Like the time that Candy Crowley claimed that Obama had called Libya terrorism when he hadn’t, or the way that she kept blocking Romney, stopping him from being able to respond to claims made by Obama.
Or the way that in this debate Obama got 9% more time to talk than Romney got.

So for those reasons I have to say I think that Romney did show himself to be the better man, and thus the winner, in this debate as well.

Now it is out there for the people to decide.
They will be the ones who will make that decision in three weeks.

To them I say good luck.

Vice presidential

So the Vice Presidential debates happened last night.

I was expecting a little bit more from Ryan and less from Biden than actually happened. But I do believe that Ryan still carried the day.

Honestly with the way that Biden kept snorting and chuckling whenever Ryan was trying to talk made him sound like a rude Boor. Add to that the fact that Biden kept whining about Ryan getting “more time” to make his points when it turned out in the timing that Biden had a minute more than Ryan, well that made him sound childish.

Ryan on the other hand came across as a gentleman, well versed in the issues and ready to address them.

Biden did have a few points that I might have liked to have expanded on. On the other hand I think that Ryan was smart in not addressing what programs they would specifically cut funding for.

Think back what was the BIG, Specific proclamation that Obama made before being elected? “The day I am elected I will sign the paperwork to close Guantanamo Bay Prison!”

Here we are four years later and Gitmo is still doing business as usual. Sometimes the exigencies of politics would not allow it. In this issue it seems a case of a no win scenario. If Romney/Ryan make specific promises they will be totally castigated for not keeping their promises. By not saying specifics they are open to make the changes they need without breaking promises.

This is an important point. I think what this means is that we are facing people who are not liars. Talk about a novelty in politics. But whether they are trying to cover their bases or simply not reveal too much I feel they are in a no win anyway. Those people who are against Romney and Ryan to begin with are going to do whatever they can to make Romney and Ryan look bad.

I would caution those people though not to start throwing those stones. Obama was elected just on the vague thought that he would bring in “hope and change” you can’t get much more nonspecific than that.

Also I would like to see some back and forth. If the Obama/Biden ticket is going to make points about specificity or records being hidden or anything else than they need to be prepared to show the exact same regard for the Romney Ryan side.

I do totally expect that the liberals will come out crowing about how well their guy did… and they have reason to. Biden avoided a total melt down screw up, which is VERY rare for this man. But I do not count this one as a win for the liberal side.

First blood vs death match.

So the consensus of the debate last night seems to be that the obvious winner was presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
Obama came across as week, unprepared and unknowledgeable. While Mitt looked certain, confident and capable.

I happened to be at work last night as the debate was going on. That means that, unfortunately I was unable to watch the debate, BUT I did get to listen to it live on the radio as it happened.
To me, listening to this debate, it sounded as if the president was on the defensive for most of the event. He was hemming and hawing and he sounded like he was just not all there. Added to that there was a sense that he was trying to be evasive.

When the moderator asked about one thing Obama had to go over miles of things that he wanted to talk about. He, seemingly, could not stay on one topic throughout the whole debate.
He was consistently using up more time than he was allotted, and he was shaky, only providing generalities when he WAS on topic.

Romney on the other hand generally kept his answers within the time limit EVEN when tracking down ALL the different points to refute that Obama brought up, and his answers tended to have just a little bit more substance.

I heard from people soon after it was over though, and, with a few notable exceptions, they all pretty much said the same things.
“Obama was not engaging, he refused to look Mitt in the eye or look into thew cameras.”
“Obama seemed bored at times.”
“Obama appeared nervous or unprepared.”

On the other side of the coin…

“Romney was confident.”
“He [Romney] had his points well ordered and he expressed himself well.”
“Romney was Confident and appeared honest.”

All good points, and ones that make a real difference.

In trying to find something positive the liberal media outlets seemed to only be able to say
“Obama got in the first Zinger”.

Well wowie! And whoop dee doo!

Here is the thing… I liken this debate to a… well, a duel or a sparring match.

Even if Obama got in the first zinger, that means nothing. I mean after all it is like when in a duel, one of the fighters gets in a cut on his opponent and draws first blood, in some “duels” that would count as a win. BUT this match was not a first blood match. This was a match to the end, or to stay colorful, Death.

See you have to realize that, in a death match, who drew first blood really does not matter. What matters is who gets in the final kill. That is the “blow” that counts, that is the point that wins.

And the general idea seems to be that that person was Mitt Romney.

Sadly after the debates I looked into some of the news feeds that I follow and I found one place where people were commenting on the debate. There were three young men there who were talking about how they thought Obama was the better choice and the better debater.

None of them talked well about it, they could not offer any kind of substance to their contention. Two of these young men were Americans and both had profile pictures that hid their faces completely, almost like they were ashamed. The third man was from England and he kept trying to compare what they have in England to what we have and he was touting the system they have as the better one.

Of course I love to make the point when this comes up that America is NOT England or France or Canada or Australia or…
We are AMERICA and I have always said if you want to live in a country like England then you ought to move to England . the same applies for every other country choice.

I did not actually use that argument in this case but I did point out a few things that seemed to slip his mind. Although I do have to admit that he made one very good point. When another “debater” said “stay out of this, this is American politics, you worry about your queen and royals.” He said that “America does not end at [her] borders, decisions made in America affect the whole world.” His examples of such were

1. America (Bush) “started” the war in Iraq.
2. The collapse of the American Housing market [was a major contributor to] the global recession.
(actually he said it was the collapse of the American economy that CAUSED the global recession.)
3. American conservatives keep supporting the “oppressive” nation of Israel and that is leading to instability in the middle east.

He is right about some of that. But I tried reasoning with him, though I am not sure if I got through.

I tried to respond nicely, I pointed out that we did not start the war that it was terrorism that led to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said “the planes that were flown into the WTC did not come from Iraq.” I agreed then pointed out that every one of the allied “spy” groups were certain that the hijackers who grabbed the planes DID get trained in Iraq and that was the basis for the war.

I also pointed out that while it is nice to think that we are solely responsible for the financial conditions we are in, America was NOT the only problem and other nations are turning out to be worse than us in that regard. (it is Greece, Italy and Spain that are having the real problems right now that Europe has to keep bailing out.)

And finally, it is the Palestinians, NOT the Israelis who have declared Jihad against Jews and have stated that the only way there will be peace is when “ALL the jews are dead!”

But I am getting off topic.

One of the young (American) men there, was saying that He felt Obama won . What did he base this idea on?…


Honestly, come to think of it, I do not know. He was unclear and imprecise. Hmm I guess much like Obama himself. Just kidding.

But really where is the evidence that Obama stepped up? It just does not exist.

This young man (who identified himself as someone who relies on the government to survive… maybe that was why he needed Obama to win so bad.) would only say that “Romney is a liar”. Every time he was asked to substantiate his claim he could not. Every time he was challenged he resorted to name calling foul language and threats.

He stated at one point that he was smarter than any of the people he was debating and all of them were just so far under his “intelligence level” that he didn’t know why he bothered.
One of the people he had been debating said “since I have been tested with an I.Q. of 165 and am a member of MENSA, I think the question of who has more intelligence is aimed the wrong way.”

All the other young man could say at that moment was “well you are just an idiotic *^%$% &&(& %^$# %$@# (&%%.”

Talk about an intelligent answer!
But that is the problem, these people are basing their politics on feelings and emotions. They are reaching out trying to get whatever they can with little or no regard for the needs or welfare of others or the nation.

They are reacting to things on a visceral level instead of careful, Sober, thought and facts.

Now if you have followed my blog for any period of time, or if you know me then you realize where my opinion lies. And yes I am rough on those who tend to think differently than I politically speaking.

But this debate was not Obama’s shining moment. As I listened to the debate I identified many places where I though t Romney could have done a better job expressing himself. I do not think that the debate performance that Romney turned in was the best he could have done. BUT it did far outshine the job that the president has done.

And come to think of it, Romney may not be the absolute best choice we could have. But he is what we have to choose from. And in reality I think he will do the same in the presidency as he did in last night’s debate. Maybe not perfectly, but a HECK of a lot better than his opponent.