If anything good came from the recent resignation of General Stanley McChrystal, it was the selection of General David Petraeus to take over running the War on Terror (as I still prefer to call it as opposed to “overseas contingency operation”) in Afghanistan. His leadership in Iraq, particularly in carrying out the highly successful surge, makes the case quite well for his leadership in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, it won't be up to General Petraeus to determine how long our troops will be in Afghanistan.
Clifford Thies, writing at Libertarian Republican, opines about the recent decision from the G-8 summit in Canada in which it was announced that international commitment in Afghanistan will continue for another five years, and this on top of the fact that President Obama has in the past committed to a withdrawal of our troops beginning in July of next year.
My opinion on the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, when it comes to the withdrawing of our troops, has always been this: Finish the job there, and then bring the troops home. Unfortunately, with President Obama's commitment to a fixed timetable of withdrawal and now the G-8's own fixed commitment to stay for five years, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind Afghanistan is being used as a pawn for political purposes; something which should've been made perfectly clear the moment the President began using the phrase “overseas contingency operation”.
The only thing I can say about this is a wishful question: Why can't we let General Petraeus finish the job and bring the troops home knowing we have accomplished our missions there?
Monday, June 28, 2010
The Second Amendment Wins Again!
Today, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, overturned Chicago's nearly thirty-year old gun ban. This is good news alright. As with the Heller decision, the McDonald decision will help to solidify the individual right to keep and bear firearms, as given to us by God and stated in the Bill of Rights.
Naturally, of course, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley will seek to undermine the decision (as Mayor Adrian Fenty is doing in Washington, D.C.) any way he can. Well, frankly, Mayor Daley, bring it on. We're in the right on this, and I have no doubt at all that the right will prevail.
My deep thanks to the five members of the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of setting straight what our God-given rights are.
Naturally, of course, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley will seek to undermine the decision (as Mayor Adrian Fenty is doing in Washington, D.C.) any way he can. Well, frankly, Mayor Daley, bring it on. We're in the right on this, and I have no doubt at all that the right will prevail.
My deep thanks to the five members of the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of setting straight what our God-given rights are.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Ohhhhh Brother No. 26: Palin-"busters" busted
One of the continuing reasons cited for Sarah Palin's resignation was so she could make tons of money, an absurd reason supposedly proven by a recently issued report, as noted in a post at Free Republic. Looking at the title of the post, however, makes it quite clear who got busted, and it isn't Sarah Palin:
Notice the second half of the title? They note the state of Alaska offered to foot part of Sarah's legal fees, but who would've paid for it? The taxpayers of Alaska, of course, and therein lies the real reasons for Sarah's resignation: the continuing filing of ethics violation charges kept distracting the Governor from doing her job, and the cost of the legal battles which ensued would have to be paid for by the taxpayers. Her resignation enabled Alaska to continue on without the burden of a Governor being deluged with constant legal battles, and (with the formation of her legal fund) spared her constituents having to pay for it.
Of course, try telling that to the Palin-"busters", of which I can only say: Ohhhhh brother!
Palin and Supporters Busted - Alaska Offered to Pay Palin Legal Costs
Notice the second half of the title? They note the state of Alaska offered to foot part of Sarah's legal fees, but who would've paid for it? The taxpayers of Alaska, of course, and therein lies the real reasons for Sarah's resignation: the continuing filing of ethics violation charges kept distracting the Governor from doing her job, and the cost of the legal battles which ensued would have to be paid for by the taxpayers. Her resignation enabled Alaska to continue on without the burden of a Governor being deluged with constant legal battles, and (with the formation of her legal fund) spared her constituents having to pay for it.
Of course, try telling that to the Palin-"busters", of which I can only say: Ohhhhh brother!
Thursday, June 24, 2010
The Power of Sarah Palin
As you can see in the ad, a group called Friends for Barbara Boxer paid for the ad, expecting somehow that the image of Sarah Palin will alienate enough Californians to vote for Senator Boxer in November over her Republican opponent.
It makes me wonder if supporters of Barbara Boxer really understand the power of Sarah Palin's endorsements, if they really know what an endorsement can do in an election.
One doesn't have to look any further than South Carolina, and see how Sarah's endorsements of Nikki Haley and Tim Scott, the Republican nominees, respectively, for Governor and Congress, was a deciding factor in their winning the nominations. One can also look at New Mexico, and see how Susanna Martinez, a longshot early on for Governor, suddenly rocketed to the top once she was endorsed by Governor Palin, and is now the Republican nominee.
Putting the power of the endorsements aside, there's also the matter of how popular Sarah is in California. I live far enough away from California that I don't have the foggiest idea what Californians think of her, but if support for her is strong there, an ad like this from Friends of Barbara Boxer could easily backfire for Senator Boxer.
So, I say this to supporters of Barbara Boxer: Keep it up! I'm sure Carly Fiorina appreciates all the hard work you're doing for her campaign!
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The 3rd District Caucus: Witnessing the unexpected
I know I said I would have this written up by Sunday, but due to circumstances beyond my control, I couldn't do it until now. Anyway, now to the post: I expected nothing but the unexpected when I left for the Indian Springs Middle School in Columbia City to witness the election of a nominee from the Republican Party for Congress in the 3rd District. (I have plenty of pictures if you want to see them)
After parking right next to this car (talk about dumb luck!), and after waiting for some time for the caucus, things got rolling at about 10:15 a.m. After an introductory speech by Indiana GOP chairman Murray Clark, a motion was called by a precinct committeeman to have one election to decide who the nominee would be in both the special and general elections. Because the candidates agreed to support the winner of the special election caucus, however, the motion was ultimately withdrawn.
At 10:40 a.m., the candidates, introduced by select individuals, began speaking to the committeemen, with all of them talking about their strengths as candidates, or what they would do if elected, or criticizing the actions of the Obama administration. Shortly after noon, the 1st round of voting commenced, and at about 12:24 p.m., voting was closed.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Operation Indiana Liberty: Fort Wayne
Other speakers included fellow Dekalb 9/12 members Gary Bowser (left), a Patton with a lower-pitched voice, and Michael Lewinski (below), the epitome of what a 9/12'er should be, with both of them talking about the need to get out the votes, and Mr. Bowser talking as well about the need for conservatives to unite.
Now while the course of the past year and a half has left me concerned about the state of America and of We the People, listening to Mr. Weddle left me with even greater concerns about the state of America, about what is happening to us now, and what we must do to stop this here in Indiana.
During the rally, it was also discussed what our goals would be and our plans of action. It gave me the reaffirming feeling of knowing that we are not a conglomerate of organizations composed of summer soldiers and sunshine patriots, to borrow from Thomas Paine. It also served as a reminder of what kind of fight we're in: a long one. And with God's help and blessing, it is a fight we will win, in Indiana, and in America.
Stutzman Wins!
Marlin Stutzman won the Republican nomination for Congress in the special and general elections, both of which are to be held November 2nd. I'll have more on the caucus by tomorrow, as well as more on yesterday's rally on interposition at Franke Park in Fort Wayne tonight.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The Ever-Changing Circus
I've been behind lately in writing about the latest news on the 3rd Congressional District race here in Indiana; now to write about the changes.
First off, another individual threw his hat into the ring. A man from Goshen, Scott Welsh, announced his candidacy this past Tuesday. His plan, if elected, is to serve only one term in Congress, and his focus during that one term is on reducing spending across the board and tax reform, among other things.
The other news also came Tuesday with the announcement of Phil Troyer to withdraw from the race and focus on another special election, for State Representative in the 83rd District, which covers portions of Allen, Whitley and Noble counties.
Although I understand why Mr. Welsh is running to replace Mark Souder (as the Goshen News article I linked to notes), I'm not looking for a single-term Congressman. Nevertheless, I wish him the best in his efforts. As for Mr. Troyer, I also wish him the best in his newly focused efforts to become State Representative in the 83rd District. He's a good man who would've made a good Congressman, and he'll make a good State Representative, in my opinion.
First off, another individual threw his hat into the ring. A man from Goshen, Scott Welsh, announced his candidacy this past Tuesday. His plan, if elected, is to serve only one term in Congress, and his focus during that one term is on reducing spending across the board and tax reform, among other things.
The other news also came Tuesday with the announcement of Phil Troyer to withdraw from the race and focus on another special election, for State Representative in the 83rd District, which covers portions of Allen, Whitley and Noble counties.
Although I understand why Mr. Welsh is running to replace Mark Souder (as the Goshen News article I linked to notes), I'm not looking for a single-term Congressman. Nevertheless, I wish him the best in his efforts. As for Mr. Troyer, I also wish him the best in his newly focused efforts to become State Representative in the 83rd District. He's a good man who would've made a good Congressman, and he'll make a good State Representative, in my opinion.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Why I Say NO To Bob Thomas
In my latest blog post, I once again stated my intention of voting Libertarian should Republican candidate Bob Thomas become the nominee at the 3rd District caucus in Columbia City this coming Saturday. I linked the post on Facebook, and a friend of mine commented that should Mr. Thomas be nominated, we must support him in the hopes of avoiding the maintaining of a Democrat majority in the House of Representatives.
In other elections, his argument is very much valid, but not this one.
My beef with Bob Thomas is because he is a liar. A serious accusation, but not one without proof. Shortly before the primary election was held, a radio ad approved by Mr. Thomas aired on WOWO that attacked Phil Troyer, falsely claiming he supported gay marriage and was given a D rating by the NRA, when in fact the NRA gave Mr. Troyer a B rating. When Mr. Troyer pointed out the false ad, a spokesman for the Thomas campaign claimed the ad correctly cited the NRA rating, and also an article from Sylvia Smith of The (Fort Wayne) Journal-Gazette to back their claim on the issue of gay marriage. Listening to the radio ad and considering what Mr. Troyer says about gay marriage, the spokesman was wrong on both counts.
Now what does this have to do with the general election should (God forbid) Bob Thomas be nominated? I have a question for you: Would you support a candidate you knew had lied about an opponent? You might say, Bob Thomas is the lesser of two evils in this case; I couldn't disagree more. This is not a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils here, but possibly a matter of having a choice between an incompatible candidate and a liar; a matter which throws the philosophy of the “80% choice” out the window, as far as I'm concerned.
Bob Thomas may very well be closer to where I stand on the issues than the Libertarian nominee, Scott Wise, and the Democrat nominee, Tom Hayhurst, but because Mr. Thomas has willingly lied in the course of trying to win a seat in Congress, I can't trust his word. No matter whether he might be more conservative than Mark Souder was, I can't trust him when he says he is that kind of candidate.
And for those who bring up the genuine concerns of a Democrat majority still in place come January of 2011, if we agree to support a liar like Bob Thomas for the sake of expediency, the sake of convenience, wouldn't that be a case of the ends justifying the means? How is supporting a liar a good thing? And what if he is elected? How can any of us be certain he will be as conservative a Congressman as is hoped he will be? Well, Mark Souder lied to us when he was in Congress, you might say, but when did he lie about his primary opponents when he sought his first term in 1994?
On a final note, this whole thing may turn out to be irrelevant, since there are 14 other individuals seeking the GOP nomination, and Bob Thomas's name has never been brought up in discussions about who the likely front-runners and dark horse candidates are, but this does serve as a reminder of being wary of people like Bob Thomas. You might think his lying about one of his opponents wasn't a big deal, but for me, it is. I cannot vote for someone I know has lied to get ahead (or stay ahead) in an election; to do so is unconscionable.
If Bob Thomas becomes the Republican nominee, Scott Wise will have my vote in November.
In other elections, his argument is very much valid, but not this one.
My beef with Bob Thomas is because he is a liar. A serious accusation, but not one without proof. Shortly before the primary election was held, a radio ad approved by Mr. Thomas aired on WOWO that attacked Phil Troyer, falsely claiming he supported gay marriage and was given a D rating by the NRA, when in fact the NRA gave Mr. Troyer a B rating. When Mr. Troyer pointed out the false ad, a spokesman for the Thomas campaign claimed the ad correctly cited the NRA rating, and also an article from Sylvia Smith of The (Fort Wayne) Journal-Gazette to back their claim on the issue of gay marriage. Listening to the radio ad and considering what Mr. Troyer says about gay marriage, the spokesman was wrong on both counts.
Now what does this have to do with the general election should (God forbid) Bob Thomas be nominated? I have a question for you: Would you support a candidate you knew had lied about an opponent? You might say, Bob Thomas is the lesser of two evils in this case; I couldn't disagree more. This is not a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils here, but possibly a matter of having a choice between an incompatible candidate and a liar; a matter which throws the philosophy of the “80% choice” out the window, as far as I'm concerned.
Bob Thomas may very well be closer to where I stand on the issues than the Libertarian nominee, Scott Wise, and the Democrat nominee, Tom Hayhurst, but because Mr. Thomas has willingly lied in the course of trying to win a seat in Congress, I can't trust his word. No matter whether he might be more conservative than Mark Souder was, I can't trust him when he says he is that kind of candidate.
And for those who bring up the genuine concerns of a Democrat majority still in place come January of 2011, if we agree to support a liar like Bob Thomas for the sake of expediency, the sake of convenience, wouldn't that be a case of the ends justifying the means? How is supporting a liar a good thing? And what if he is elected? How can any of us be certain he will be as conservative a Congressman as is hoped he will be? Well, Mark Souder lied to us when he was in Congress, you might say, but when did he lie about his primary opponents when he sought his first term in 1994?
On a final note, this whole thing may turn out to be irrelevant, since there are 14 other individuals seeking the GOP nomination, and Bob Thomas's name has never been brought up in discussions about who the likely front-runners and dark horse candidates are, but this does serve as a reminder of being wary of people like Bob Thomas. You might think his lying about one of his opponents wasn't a big deal, but for me, it is. I cannot vote for someone I know has lied to get ahead (or stay ahead) in an election; to do so is unconscionable.
If Bob Thomas becomes the Republican nominee, Scott Wise will have my vote in November.
Friday, June 4, 2010
The 3rd District Forum
The free-for-all election to replace former Congressman Mark Souder, now at 15 candidates, saw a candidates' forum at IPFW last night, where 14 of the candidates spoke to both the public and some of the more than 500 precinct committeemen in the district. The location for the forum, the ballroom at the Walb Student Union, was filled with nearly 300 people, about 30-40 (I think) of them were precinct committeemen.
I arrived there at about 6 p.m., and helped out as a volunteer for Marlin Stutzman. The event started at 7 p.m., with four rounds of questioning for the candidates. Pat Miller of WOWO got the ball rolling with the questions, taking a break during the third round while someone else gave the questions, and for the fourth and final round, questions submitted by the audience were asked of the candidates, concluded by closing arguments.
Issues ranging from the borders and illegal immigration to the economy and the bailouts, from abortion to the “Don't ask, don't tell” policy, from education to the War on Terror, were discussed during the forum, and the candidates gave satisfactory answers.
Prior to the debate, I came in with my opinions set on four of the candidates (I fully support Marlin Stutzman, I like Phil Troyer & Greg Dickman and would support them if nominated, and I dislike and distrust Bob Thomas enough that I'd vote Libertarian if he wins). When the debate ended, and I went over what the candidates said and how they did. Here's what I thought of their performances:
I arrived there at about 6 p.m., and helped out as a volunteer for Marlin Stutzman. The event started at 7 p.m., with four rounds of questioning for the candidates. Pat Miller of WOWO got the ball rolling with the questions, taking a break during the third round while someone else gave the questions, and for the fourth and final round, questions submitted by the audience were asked of the candidates, concluded by closing arguments.
Issues ranging from the borders and illegal immigration to the economy and the bailouts, from abortion to the “Don't ask, don't tell” policy, from education to the War on Terror, were discussed during the forum, and the candidates gave satisfactory answers.
Prior to the debate, I came in with my opinions set on four of the candidates (I fully support Marlin Stutzman, I like Phil Troyer & Greg Dickman and would support them if nominated, and I dislike and distrust Bob Thomas enough that I'd vote Libertarian if he wins). When the debate ended, and I went over what the candidates said and how they did. Here's what I thought of their performances:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)