It is great to see a former governor really taking a stand on the places government should not be. I have written extensively on the same topics, of where government should end and basic freedoms begin.
He also eloquently states that little division between church and state that seems to get less clear each day.
Watch it, take serious note of the arguments, and remember that our nation must work to maintain status as a free nation.
Lost in the vociferous debate being waged between congressional democrats and the White House over proposed funding increases to the SCHIP program, a children’s health insurance initiative, was the near-unanimous passage of the Department of Defense budget. The bloated, $471 billion spending measure passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support, sliding through the House of Representatives and Senate with nary a voice raised in opposition.
The new defense budget is a near $80 billion increase over last year’s spending measure. It covers things like buying new ships for the navy, pay raises for military personnel, and increasing the rolls of the Army and the Marines. It does not cover the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the funding for which is contained in a separate, “emergency” spending measure.
These two spending proposals illustrate where the American Government’s priorities lie better than a thousand policy speeches ever could. Just to break it down; congress decides that our country, which already spends a higher percentage of its GDP on defense than any developed nation in the world, needs an $80 billion bump, and no one bats an eye. Yet when someone raises the idea that we ought to be ensuring that poor children can afford to buy medicine and receive the medical care they need, a huge political fight ensues.
Is this what we have become as a nation? Do the American people really value Destroyer-class warships and advanced weaponry over caring for our children? Have we become so callous that we elect to devote more of our resources to stockpiling the tools of destruction over taking care of the most vulnerable members of our society? Do we place the ability to kill over the ability to save lives?
We may be beyond redemption if the answers to these questions are yes. Fortunately, these spending measures do not represent the true will of the American people. Instead, they represent the disconnect between Washington policies and American values. Ask most average people whether we ought to be focusing more on education, health and social welfare, or on stuffing the pockets of defense contractors, and nine out of ten would want us to invest in our people.
The problem is that most people are unaware of our wasteful, reckless policy of ever-expanding defense spending. The reason they are unaware is that it has become uncontroversial in Washington; not only are most elected representatives scared to death of voting against funding for the military, they’re afraid of even discussing it. Anyone who speaks out against buying new billion dollar submarines is suddenly soft on national security, and therefore must want the terrorists to win.
This culture of fear must be reigned in. As we pump an ever-more irresponsible amount of our tax dollars into defense, our social programs, health system, and national infrastructure are deteriorating to dangerous levels. We are witnessing a decline in the essential services provided by our government at a time when tax receipts are at a record high. This neglect must be brought to an end, or we will put our entire society at risk.
A responsible government will invest in the health and education of its citizens. Washington must re-direct their priorities to get in line with what is best for the American people, before it’s too late. Otherwise, we risk becoming a modern-day Sparta, or worse, Soviet Union; pouring our resources into our military at the expense of our citizens’ daily lives.
The Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would decide whether handguns can be banned in the nation’s capital, a case that could produce its first ruling in nearly 70 years on the right of Americans to bear arms.
This bit of information was new to me and very interesting. The right to bear arms is perhaps one of the most controversial hot-button topics that every person has a strong opinion about.
No matter what opinion comes forth from the Supreme Court, the decision will be very serious. To have the constitutionality come before our high court at all is already a matter of great importance. It does raise the question of whether our founding fathers ever really envisioned the development of large, rather well-armed urban centers. Not only that but it can be generally assumed that those with firearms are not organized for any particular purpose of defending our nation from tyranny from outside or from within.
Despite lengthy criticism from both safety conscious liberals and a variety of nations that have banned personal firearm ownership, what would the consequences be? Regardless of whether you like the Bush administration, the vocal critics have certainly painted it as an overbearing authoritarian regime. If for any this style of leadership became a trend, what would happen to a de-clawed population?
You really can’t say it much better than Colbert about the anti-trust efforts of America.
This of course is all surrounded by the new decision by the FCC that telecoms have grown too large once again. But I will report on how that effects us latter.
I read an interesting report at Think Progress about more comments on the war by President Bush. The comments are not about why we should stay the course, or even about how Iraq is connected to terrorists, this time they were about how he wished he could serve in Iraq.
The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin highlights comments made recently by President Bush to a group of military bloggers. Blogger “N.Z. Bear” reported that Bush told the group he wishes he could be serving in Iraq — except that he’s too old:
Responding to one of the bloggers in Iraq he expressed envy that they could be there, and said he’d like to be there but “One, I’m too old to be out there, and two, they would notice me.”
Dan Froomkin also noted that Bush’s total time spent in Iraq seems to go against his statements of really wanting to have fun in the desert.
Maybe Bush was just making idle chit-chat. But this would not be the first time the president has appeared unaware of the hardships his war has caused hundreds of thousands of American troops — while expressing a misguided sense of bravado.
He certainly hasn’t ever put himself in harm’s way. The president who avoided serving in Vietnam as a young man has made only three visits to Iraq since declaring that major combat operations were over more than four years ago. All three of the visits were unannounced and featured extensive security. Bush’s total time in country? Less than 15 hours.
So, the man who would really like to volunteer himself to serve in Iraq - except for being old and noticeable - has spent 15 hours in Iraq over four years. Now there are certainly a number of security concerns with any president being in or near a combat zone, but you should never say “Sure wish I was there” when your actions clearly show the opposite. Luckily Laura Bush has made sure that the President is not alone in saying dumb things. Laura had this to say:
“…no one suffers more than their President and I do.” From Anne Curry on the Today Show
Certainly making hard decisions and being alone in having to make them can weigh on a person. The stress of managing a war and angry public opinion can also put stress on a family. However, a bit of stress and actually being in Iraq for a year or more, or losing a family member might just rank higher. The many disabled veterans of this conflict could probably also give some keen insight on what suffering can mean.
No matter what position of power you are in, don’t say things to try to make yourself seem like a big tough braggart. The only thing you end up doing is being only a braggart, and not actually being tough at all.
Learn more about creating a Sustainable system of government and life for our nation. Bring back responsibility and fresh thinking in way most politicians would never consider, with radical change. More
