Well, the political circus that takes place in our nation every four years is starting to crank up, with all of the Republican candidates busily smearing the reputations, records, and personalities of the others running against them. Even those that pledged NOT to run a "negative" campaign have reneged on that promise, so with the primaries in South Carolina but two days away things here in the Palmetto State are getting intense to say the least.
If you've been following my blog you know my disappointment with Herman Cain. He was the one candidate that I thought would absolutely make a good President, and would absolutely knock The Great Pretender right out of the Oval Office on his skinny ass. Alas, good ol' Herman has a thing for the ladies and was foolish enough to think that he could run for office and not have his sins come back to visit him, and thanks to the rabid dog of the Demoncratic party, Attorney Gloria Allred, he's now out of the running for good ala John Edwards. Too bad, he'd have made a good President.
So I spent some time about a month ago doing some research on who I was going to vote for and who I wouldn't vote for if my life depended on it, and I've come to a decision. But first, let's go over who I won't vote for and why not. We'll start with the obvious one first.
Newt Gingrich In short, Gingrich is the stereotypical politician in that he's two-faced, a liar, has the morals and ethics of "Slick Willy" Clinton, and is a bigot. He is also the only person ever to be sanctioned and fined by Congress for ethics violations while serving as Speaker of the House, and in my book that puts him even lower than Nancy Pelosi. And speaking of Nancy Pelosi, he actually sided with her while Speaker on a bill that the rest of the Republican party was opposed to, so I guess you can call him a traitor as well. In any event, if he wins the Republican nomination I'll vote for Bucky the Dancing Mule before I'll vote for him. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Mitt Romney Anyone who serves on the board of directors of a company whose business is to close down other businesses and put people out of work and then claims in his campaign that he's "pro-jobs" is either demented or a moron. He also is hesitant to release his tax reports from years past, and that makes me and the rest of the civilized nation think he's hiding something. Maybe he doesn't want us to know just how rich he really is, but to be honest I really don't care about that. It's his integrity and honesty that concerns me, and right now I just don't see it. If he wins the Republican nomination I'll vote for him, but only because he's just one step above Bucky.
Rick Perry Two BIG things against him: first and foremost, in one of the early debates last year he said that while serving as Governor of Texas he was in favor of and would sign a bill that would give financial assitance to illegal aliens over American citizens. Sorry, Rick, but that right there assures you that I'd cut my own arm off before I'd vote for you, you friggin' traitor. The other thing is that I'm a loyal listener of Pandora Internet Radio at work, and Perry has been running political ads on that station once an hour for the past week in which he claims it's his faith in God that makes him the best candidate. And that's all he says - not a word about any other redeeming quality that he has which would cause us to vote for him. Sorry, Rick, but that's an immediate turn-off for me - after all, what about the Americans who don't believe in God? Nah, you really should leave religion out of it, because folks lik me will shun you like bad news.
Rick Santorum Veteran or not, this guy's a loser with a capital "L." He voted for the "bridge to nowhere" among other things, and has the personality of a limp noodle. He lost his Senate seat several years ago by a margin of 17% because the voters in Pennsylvania - his home state - thought he was "too conservative" for them, largely in part because of his stands on abortion rights and homosexuals. He's pro-life and anti-homosexuals, and while I really don't care it's his reasons for these stands that gets me - yep, you guessed it, he's ultra-religious and is letting his faith dictate his policies. While that's good to a point - after all, our nation was founded on solid Christian principles - he's gone waaaaaay past that point, and won't get my vote. Ever. Are you listening, Bucky?
Which brings us to who I intend to vote for, which is, of course...
Ron Paul This man has been screaming about the Federal government spending too much for the past 15 years, and he predicted both the Wall Street crash and the crash of the economy years ago. I've looked him over with a fine-toothed comb, and he only has one thing on his agenda that I disagree with, that being his stand on abortion rights. But he bases his stand on his experiences as doctor, not from his religious beliefs, which is all the difference to me. In short, I like just about everything he has to say about what he thinks needs to b done to fix America, and I plan on voting for him. Rather than sing his praises here, I'll just suggest that you do some research on your own and decide for yourself.
Unfortunately, I really don't think Paul has much of a chance of winning the primary for the simple reason that he scares the hell out of people by being right about serious things all the time, and for that reason the mainstream media won't give him the coverage that they're giving Newt and Mitt. Without media coverage you're pretty much dead in the water, and while his popularity is on the rise I just don't think he's going to be able to take the nomination.
And that means I'm gonna have to vote for Mitt, because I'm pretty sure he's the one that's gonna get the nomination. I just hope he has the popularity to beat NObama - but I'n not so sure about that.
Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
IHC
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
NObama and the NDAA
Picture this, if you will: a family is gathered in the living room, relaxing and enjoying the evening together, when there is a knock on the front door. The man gets up to answer the door, and when he opens it he is greeted by the sight of a half-dozen members of the nation's military in full uniform and combat gear. They ask for the man's name, and when he gives it they announce that he is under arrest, seizing him and placing him in handcuffs. When he asks what he is being arrested for, he is told that the charge is "committing a belligerent act against the nation" in a time of war. What war, the man asks, and he is told "the war on terrorism." He demands to see an arrest warrant, and is roundly ignored by the soldiers; instead, he is hustled off to a waiting vehicle, shoved inside, and taken away for detention at the nearest military facility. Hours later, when the wife contacts the commanding officer of the base and inquires as to how long her husband is to be held, she is told "indefinitely, or until hostilities cease." She asks for proof of a crime and is told that there is no requirement to produce such proof, after which the line goes dead.
Sounds like something out of Cuba, Russia, or Nazi Germany, doesn't it? We here in this nation have no need to worry about something like this ever happening here because we're protected by the Constitution, right?
WRONG.
It most certainly CAN happen here, effective December 31, 2011, when the President of the United States signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law. With the stroke of a pen, The Great Pretender granted the authority to the US military to detain, without providing a writ of habeus corpus, any person located in the United States to include American citizens, and detain them at a military installation indefinitely or "until hostilities cease." And if you're talking about the war on terrorism, you could very well be talking about years.
The simple fact that a sitting President of the United States would sign into law ANY bill which allows a US Citizen to be taken into custody by military authorities without providing a writ of habeus corpus, and that the citizen can be detained indefinitely disgusts and angers me to no end. The last President to do something like this was Abraham Lincoln when he suspended the writ of habeus corpus in 1862 so he could imprison and thereby silence the many editors of the Northern newspapers who were critical of him and his illegal war on the Southern people. Congress later sactioned him for this, but by that time he was dead at the hands of John Wilkes Booth. In this case, however, I don't expect us to see any sanctioning by Congress of the President since the Congress is responsible for drafting and approving the law in the first place. In my eyes they are almost as guilty as the President.
But it's the President who bears the brunt of the blame for this travesty against liberty and justice, for it's the President of the United States who swore in his Oath of Office that he would "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." By signing this bill into law he has violated and made a mockery of that oath, and I despise him for it. It is my opinion that this man is the single worst President this nation has ever had, and he has taken a bold step forward into depriving American citizens of their civil liberties and their personal freedoms. It is my learned opinion that, should this buffoon win re-election and a second term in the White House, he will begin that term with an all-out attack on our Second Amendment rights. He will have nothing to lose since he is prohibited by law from running for or serving a third term, so it only stands to reason that his second term will be the one in which he moves on the Second Amendment. He now has a law in place that will allow him to drum up charges on minimal evidence - if any - and have American citizens arrested by the US military, and the next logical step to assure complete control over the people is to disarm them.
I would only hope that the members of our military would stand up and tell NObama to kiss their collective ass should he ever order them to arrest an American citizen. I know I would.
In the mean time there's an organization out there that an old military buddy of mine told me about, and now that this bill has been signed into law I think it's high time I joined it. The organization is called "Oath Keepers," and thier motto is "Not On Our Watch." It's made up of active/former/retired military and law enforcement people, and they've adopted ten orders that they have stated they will not obey. The third order they will not obey is this: "We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal."
In other words, they're not going to obey any order given by any President citing the NDAA as the reason a citizen is to be taken into custody. PERIOD.
And neither will I.
It has finally reached a point in our nation where we as a people must do something about the inept, socialistic buffoon who is sitting in the Oval Office; we must also do something to protect ourselves, our liberty, our freedoms, and our country. And I know just what I'm gonna do.
First, I'm gonna join Oath Keepers. Second, I'm gonna vote NObama out of office in November.
What are YOU gonna do?
IHC
http://www.oathkeepers.org
Sounds like something out of Cuba, Russia, or Nazi Germany, doesn't it? We here in this nation have no need to worry about something like this ever happening here because we're protected by the Constitution, right?
WRONG.
It most certainly CAN happen here, effective December 31, 2011, when the President of the United States signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law. With the stroke of a pen, The Great Pretender granted the authority to the US military to detain, without providing a writ of habeus corpus, any person located in the United States to include American citizens, and detain them at a military installation indefinitely or "until hostilities cease." And if you're talking about the war on terrorism, you could very well be talking about years.
The simple fact that a sitting President of the United States would sign into law ANY bill which allows a US Citizen to be taken into custody by military authorities without providing a writ of habeus corpus, and that the citizen can be detained indefinitely disgusts and angers me to no end. The last President to do something like this was Abraham Lincoln when he suspended the writ of habeus corpus in 1862 so he could imprison and thereby silence the many editors of the Northern newspapers who were critical of him and his illegal war on the Southern people. Congress later sactioned him for this, but by that time he was dead at the hands of John Wilkes Booth. In this case, however, I don't expect us to see any sanctioning by Congress of the President since the Congress is responsible for drafting and approving the law in the first place. In my eyes they are almost as guilty as the President.
But it's the President who bears the brunt of the blame for this travesty against liberty and justice, for it's the President of the United States who swore in his Oath of Office that he would "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." By signing this bill into law he has violated and made a mockery of that oath, and I despise him for it. It is my opinion that this man is the single worst President this nation has ever had, and he has taken a bold step forward into depriving American citizens of their civil liberties and their personal freedoms. It is my learned opinion that, should this buffoon win re-election and a second term in the White House, he will begin that term with an all-out attack on our Second Amendment rights. He will have nothing to lose since he is prohibited by law from running for or serving a third term, so it only stands to reason that his second term will be the one in which he moves on the Second Amendment. He now has a law in place that will allow him to drum up charges on minimal evidence - if any - and have American citizens arrested by the US military, and the next logical step to assure complete control over the people is to disarm them.
I would only hope that the members of our military would stand up and tell NObama to kiss their collective ass should he ever order them to arrest an American citizen. I know I would.
In the mean time there's an organization out there that an old military buddy of mine told me about, and now that this bill has been signed into law I think it's high time I joined it. The organization is called "Oath Keepers," and thier motto is "Not On Our Watch." It's made up of active/former/retired military and law enforcement people, and they've adopted ten orders that they have stated they will not obey. The third order they will not obey is this: "We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal."
In other words, they're not going to obey any order given by any President citing the NDAA as the reason a citizen is to be taken into custody. PERIOD.
And neither will I.
It has finally reached a point in our nation where we as a people must do something about the inept, socialistic buffoon who is sitting in the Oval Office; we must also do something to protect ourselves, our liberty, our freedoms, and our country. And I know just what I'm gonna do.
First, I'm gonna join Oath Keepers. Second, I'm gonna vote NObama out of office in November.
What are YOU gonna do?
IHC
http://www.oathkeepers.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)