November 13, 2009
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R AZ) issued the following statement on the Obama Administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and four other Al-Qaeda terrorists suspected of planning and executing the September 11th attacks in the United States Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York:
“I am extremely disappointed with the Obama Administration’s decision to try in U.S. civilian courts the Al-Qaeda terrorists who planned, supported, and conducted the September 11th attacks. These terrorists are not common criminals. They are war criminals, who committed acts of war against our citizens and those of dozens of other nations.
“Terrorists who have declared war against our country should be treated as war criminals and tried for their crimes through military tribunals. In a letter sent to Congress just last week, hundreds of families of victims of the September 11th attacks urged the Administration to try these terrorists in military tribunals, and I fully respect and agree with their position. I have worked tirelessly with my colleagues in Congress and with the Obama Administration to make our military tribunals system better able to dispense justice efficiently and fairly while protecting secure information. If military tribunals are suitable for the terrorists who attacked our sailors aboard the U.S.S. Cole, as the Obama Administration has decided, then military tribunals are certainly the right venue to try the Al-Qaeda terrorists, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who murdered thousands of innocent civilians on September 11, 2001.
“Today’s decision sends a mixed message about America’s resolve in the fight against terrorism. We are at war, and we must bring terrorists to justice in a manner consistent with the horrific acts of war they have committed.”
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Senator Jon Kyle on upcoming Terrorist Trials in civilian court
November 13, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) today made the following statement in response to the Obama Administration’s decision to transfer 9-11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, among other terrorists, to the United States to stand trial in a civilian court:
“It’s an unnecessary risk to bring the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9-11 attacks to downtown Manhattan.
“Past trials of terrorists have proven that our civilian courts are not the appropriate venue to handle international terrorism trials. As a result of the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, also known as the ‘Blind Sheik,’ al Qaeda obtained valuable information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods, thereby making the job of fighting terrorists tougher. Military tribunals – which have been used by Presidents dating back to George Washington – are the most appropriate, and secure, forum to try those who commit acts of war against the United States.
“It is a constant amazement to me that there are some who seem more concerned about extending legal protections to terrorists than security protection to Americans.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) today made the following statement in response to the Obama Administration’s decision to transfer 9-11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, among other terrorists, to the United States to stand trial in a civilian court:
“It’s an unnecessary risk to bring the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9-11 attacks to downtown Manhattan.
“Past trials of terrorists have proven that our civilian courts are not the appropriate venue to handle international terrorism trials. As a result of the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, also known as the ‘Blind Sheik,’ al Qaeda obtained valuable information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods, thereby making the job of fighting terrorists tougher. Military tribunals – which have been used by Presidents dating back to George Washington – are the most appropriate, and secure, forum to try those who commit acts of war against the United States.
“It is a constant amazement to me that there are some who seem more concerned about extending legal protections to terrorists than security protection to Americans.”
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
America... home of the FREE
OK. I THINK I GET IT
Let me see if I understand all this....
IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER, YOU GET SHOT.IF YOU CROSS THE TURKISH BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU SPEND THE REST OF YOUR LIFE IN PRISON!BUT, IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET:
A DRIVERS LICENSE A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD WELFARE FOOD STAMPS AND, FREE HEALTH CARE? Oh well sure. That makes perfect sense
Wake up America, before it's too late!
Let me see if I understand all this....
IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER, YOU GET SHOT.IF YOU CROSS THE TURKISH BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU SPEND THE REST OF YOUR LIFE IN PRISON!BUT, IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET:
A DRIVERS LICENSE A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD WELFARE FOOD STAMPS AND, FREE HEALTH CARE? Oh well sure. That makes perfect sense
Wake up America, before it's too late!
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Treasurer's Report
Last Thursday, I heard our State Treasurer, Dean Martin, speak at a luncheon I was attending. Dean is a very bright, articulate gentleman who knows finance like I know the inside of my closet, and he pretty much spelled out the financial dilemma our state is in. Unfortunately, I think the majority of states in our Union are in the same boat, so you might want to take a little time to listen in to Dean's presentation by clicking here.
Monday, September 14, 2009
The following editorial appeared in our local newspaper on September 2:
Tea Party tour won't fix what ails health care
OUR VIEW: Monday's rally in Flagstaff appeared to be more about TV ratings driven by controversy than mobilizing supporters around a solution. Wednesday, September 02, 2009 At their most basic, rallies are a chance to let off steam.But whether they drive a meaningful public agenda or distract us from it depends on your point of view. Rallies, of course, come in many shades.There are pep rallies to get students excited about an upcoming football game.There are campaign rallies aimed at firing up supporters on behalf of a candidate.And then there are protest rallies designed to tell elected officials that their constituents are upset with their programs and policies.The last takes on symbolic value depending on the turnout. Attract enough people to your protest and the news media take notice, thus amplifying your message far beyond the reach of your bullhorn.A generation ago, mass protests were centered on civil rights, the Vietnam War and the environment. The Baby Boom generation was coming of political age, and when politics-as-usual didn't get the results they wanted, they took to the streets.Since then, grassroots political activism has added many more tools beyond rallies, including neighborhood organizing, mass-mail fundraising and social networking. Getting everyday citizens involved in the political process is as much about marketing as about educating them, making it difficult to determine who is acting on genuine sentiment when making a campaign contribution or planting a candidate's sign on the lawn.But the gold standard in political organizing still remains how many people you can convince to get off the couch, turn off the TV and attend a rally in person. Critics of Obama's reform platform have seized on that truism through their "tea party" metaphor: The colonists took matters into their own hands, even if it was just the dumping of a couple hundred pounds of taxed tea into Boston Harbor.Monday's tea party rally in Flagstaff turned out about 1,000 people, but it appeared to raise as many questions about this protest movement as it answered.-- For starters, the event was part of a national tour, not locally organized.-- Its timing and staging during the evening hours appeared to be calibrated toward receiving prime time coverage on sympathetic cable network talk shows. As anyone who watched the Fox Cable Network Monday night could see, the protests seemed more scripted than spontaneous.-- The message, when it did come through the slogans, lacked the coherence of an "Out, Now" or "End Racial Discrimination" or "Stop Air Pollution." Do the protesters not want the federal government involved in health care at all, or do they just want the feds to run Medicare and Medicaid better? If the latter, how?At base, we are worried that such rallies seem like wasted opportunities to advance the cause of civic literacy among people who are clearly engaged with issues and their political context. There has been no line drawn in the sand yet with health care reform as there was with the Vietnam War or the Civil Rights Act. It remains fluid and subject to negotiation. A rally strategy that takes a dogmatic approach to something as complex as national health care reform ill-serves that process while failing to motivate participants to get involved in the hard work of finding solutions.That hard work is ongoing in Congress, and our representative, Ann Kirkpatrick, is in the thick of it. After a false start in Holbrook several weeks ago that saw constituents frustrated by a one-on-one meeting format in a supermarket, she has agreed to hold a town hall forum Thursday night in the high school auditorium. Rallies and the enthusiasm they generate have their place, but not at deliberative forums designed primarily for information-sharing and constructive dialogue. Protesters who have already made up their minds can take their yelling outside for the TV crews and the passing cars. The rest of us have hard work to do.
Below is my response, which was printed on September 13:
To the editor:
First off, with or without media coverage, folks who are attending the Tea Parties are there because they share grave concerns and beliefs. Folks there on the 31st were from all parties, and the common theme was we are tired of the government trying to run our lives and do our thinking for us; we are appalled at the extremes the government is going to in order to get their way. We have come together in Flagstaff three times this year, and each time our numbers grow. And we will continue to fight against the insanity of putting our nation further and further in debt to enact these bills that are designed to wrest control from the voter and force them into programs that they are against. As for assertions that we have no alternative plan to the plans that are currently being pushed by the libs, we have repeatedly pushed for tort reform to enable doctors to care for patients without having to order tests simply to protect them from liability issues.As to fostering competition in the Insurance industry, why not open up the barriers between states to allow people who are looking for coverage to compare all available coverage?Those changes could go a long way to increase coverage and reduce the cost of health care without risking the chaotic changes that could come about as a result of the current bills being considered.
Tea Party tour won't fix what ails health care
OUR VIEW: Monday's rally in Flagstaff appeared to be more about TV ratings driven by controversy than mobilizing supporters around a solution. Wednesday, September 02, 2009 At their most basic, rallies are a chance to let off steam.But whether they drive a meaningful public agenda or distract us from it depends on your point of view. Rallies, of course, come in many shades.There are pep rallies to get students excited about an upcoming football game.There are campaign rallies aimed at firing up supporters on behalf of a candidate.And then there are protest rallies designed to tell elected officials that their constituents are upset with their programs and policies.The last takes on symbolic value depending on the turnout. Attract enough people to your protest and the news media take notice, thus amplifying your message far beyond the reach of your bullhorn.A generation ago, mass protests were centered on civil rights, the Vietnam War and the environment. The Baby Boom generation was coming of political age, and when politics-as-usual didn't get the results they wanted, they took to the streets.Since then, grassroots political activism has added many more tools beyond rallies, including neighborhood organizing, mass-mail fundraising and social networking. Getting everyday citizens involved in the political process is as much about marketing as about educating them, making it difficult to determine who is acting on genuine sentiment when making a campaign contribution or planting a candidate's sign on the lawn.But the gold standard in political organizing still remains how many people you can convince to get off the couch, turn off the TV and attend a rally in person. Critics of Obama's reform platform have seized on that truism through their "tea party" metaphor: The colonists took matters into their own hands, even if it was just the dumping of a couple hundred pounds of taxed tea into Boston Harbor.Monday's tea party rally in Flagstaff turned out about 1,000 people, but it appeared to raise as many questions about this protest movement as it answered.-- For starters, the event was part of a national tour, not locally organized.-- Its timing and staging during the evening hours appeared to be calibrated toward receiving prime time coverage on sympathetic cable network talk shows. As anyone who watched the Fox Cable Network Monday night could see, the protests seemed more scripted than spontaneous.-- The message, when it did come through the slogans, lacked the coherence of an "Out, Now" or "End Racial Discrimination" or "Stop Air Pollution." Do the protesters not want the federal government involved in health care at all, or do they just want the feds to run Medicare and Medicaid better? If the latter, how?At base, we are worried that such rallies seem like wasted opportunities to advance the cause of civic literacy among people who are clearly engaged with issues and their political context. There has been no line drawn in the sand yet with health care reform as there was with the Vietnam War or the Civil Rights Act. It remains fluid and subject to negotiation. A rally strategy that takes a dogmatic approach to something as complex as national health care reform ill-serves that process while failing to motivate participants to get involved in the hard work of finding solutions.That hard work is ongoing in Congress, and our representative, Ann Kirkpatrick, is in the thick of it. After a false start in Holbrook several weeks ago that saw constituents frustrated by a one-on-one meeting format in a supermarket, she has agreed to hold a town hall forum Thursday night in the high school auditorium. Rallies and the enthusiasm they generate have their place, but not at deliberative forums designed primarily for information-sharing and constructive dialogue. Protesters who have already made up their minds can take their yelling outside for the TV crews and the passing cars. The rest of us have hard work to do.
Below is my response, which was printed on September 13:
To the editor:
First off, with or without media coverage, folks who are attending the Tea Parties are there because they share grave concerns and beliefs. Folks there on the 31st were from all parties, and the common theme was we are tired of the government trying to run our lives and do our thinking for us; we are appalled at the extremes the government is going to in order to get their way. We have come together in Flagstaff three times this year, and each time our numbers grow. And we will continue to fight against the insanity of putting our nation further and further in debt to enact these bills that are designed to wrest control from the voter and force them into programs that they are against. As for assertions that we have no alternative plan to the plans that are currently being pushed by the libs, we have repeatedly pushed for tort reform to enable doctors to care for patients without having to order tests simply to protect them from liability issues.As to fostering competition in the Insurance industry, why not open up the barriers between states to allow people who are looking for coverage to compare all available coverage?Those changes could go a long way to increase coverage and reduce the cost of health care without risking the chaotic changes that could come about as a result of the current bills being considered.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
545 vs 300,000,000
EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does.You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does.You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board, because that problem was created by Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated is responsibility to a privately held bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force Congress to accept it.The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.If the Army & Marines are in Iraq, it's because they want them in Iraq.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.There are no insoluble government problems.Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses, provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper. What you do with this article now that you have read it, is up to you.
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does.You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does.You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board, because that problem was created by Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated is responsibility to a privately held bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force Congress to accept it.The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.If the Army & Marines are in Iraq, it's because they want them in Iraq.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.There are no insoluble government problems.Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses, provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper. What you do with this article now that you have read it, is up to you.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Health Care Reform - new links
In an effort to better educate myself on potential alternatives to government run health care, I am doing research to determine what proposed solutions are already out there. I came across a couple of interesting articles this morning, and I am posting links here and on the right side panel as well:
First is from the Council for Affordable Health Insurance's Issues and Answers, Sept. 2009
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/n156GuaranteedAccess.pdf
Next is an article from the Wall Street Journal, entitled 'McCain is right on interstate Health Insurance, October 1, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122282743245193057.html
Both articles go into detail about how interstate health insurance can help make coverage affordable for all who do not currently have coverage, and how 'high risk pools' would be paid for.
I am also doing research on Medical Malpractice Reform to see what facts are currently out there, and to get a better idea of how savings would be realized as a result of implementation of reforms, so stay tuned.
First is from the Council for Affordable Health Insurance's Issues and Answers, Sept. 2009
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/n156GuaranteedAccess.pdf
Next is an article from the Wall Street Journal, entitled 'McCain is right on interstate Health Insurance, October 1, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122282743245193057.html
Both articles go into detail about how interstate health insurance can help make coverage affordable for all who do not currently have coverage, and how 'high risk pools' would be paid for.
I am also doing research on Medical Malpractice Reform to see what facts are currently out there, and to get a better idea of how savings would be realized as a result of implementation of reforms, so stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
