I've been quietly watching this years' presidential political process--not writing any blogs because of how my brain is processing information--and have not, until now, written anything because I've having difficulty writing clear, coherent and legitimate essays. However, after listening to the New Hampshire Primary coverage, I just have to write even if I don't get my thoughts out properly.
My angst comes from Newt Gingrich's recent attacks on fellow candidate Mitt Romney. Slimy Newt is accusing Romney of being "a liar...and being falsely pious" in his self presentation. Plus, Gingrich is further attacking Romney for his comment yesterday about liking to fire people...a quote taken completely out of context that is intended solely to harm Romney's bid for the presidency.
The real clincher here is that this comes from the lips of a man who resigned from Congress in disgrace over unpaid taxes and some 80+ other ethical violations; and who purposely destroyed Congressional bipartisanship in his 'Contract with America;' and who has demonstrated his lack of moral integrity and commitment by cheating on two wives, and is married to the third woman with whom he cheated on wife number two.
And he is calling another candidate a liar, and questioning his integrity? Mitt Romney has never been removed from office, he ran a successful venture capital firm, and has been married to the same woman for 40+ years. Plus, Romney ran a successful business, transformed a disastrous Salt Lake City Winter Olympics--scandal ridden and financially destitute--into the best run, most profitable Olympic Games ever, and successfully led a vastly majorative Democratic Massachusetts as a Republican Governor.
Damn that Romney. He just lies, and lies and lies. Poor Newt has never done anything but be honest his entire political career, and always takes the high road both personally and politically.
Newt Gingrich can be summed up in a single, glaring word...Hypocrite.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
LDS Church and Party Preference
An article in yesterday's Provo Daily Herald described the efforts by new Utah State Democratic Chairman Jim Dabakis to get more members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to switch to the democratic party; an effort hindered by a decades old cultural assumption that all Mormons (the common name for the LDS church) vote Republican.
This came about because a church leader once stated his voting preference in an interview (in the 30's or 40's, I believe), and church members here in Utah took his comment to mean this should also be the party preference of all LDS members. After that, this misconception took on a life of its own, and has morphed into the false thinking that all Mormons in the US have to vote republican as well--an erroneous thought that even church leadership has sought to dispel.
Here is my rebuttal to the article...
"The entire assumption that all Mormons are republican is simply ridiculous. This political mirage exists not just in Utah, but throughout the US as well. Church leadership has never told its members to vote for one party over the other. To do so would go against one of the basic tenents of church doctrine, that of Free Agency. I am so tired of hearing phrases like, "Can a good Mormon be a Democrat?", a quote that was on [local affiliate] Fox13 news last night. How preposterous, ludicrous and downright ignorant of what should be a responsible news agency.
Whether you subscribe to Democratic, Republican, Tea Party or other political philosophies, the fact that you are participating in the political process is the only vital element that anyone should be concerned about. Who an individual American chooses to vote for is a purely individual right, guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States.
The real question every American voter should be asking is, why has the political landscape grown so hostile? These men and women are working for all of us. They should be setting aside their divisiveness and working for the common good. Unfortunately, the philosophical gap only widens with every passing year. Instead of Bipartisanship, we see only political posturing, threatening and grandstanding. The parties have become so entrenched in their limited views that real compromise is nearly impossible in every level of government.
We, the people, should be writing, calling and emailing our Representatives and demanding change, cooperation and real leadership. Are YOU doing this?
Remember, this is a government that is OF the people, FOR the people, and BY the people. Everyone, of all parties, should be actively involved in some way to see that our leaders are leading us.
We don't have to agree on any particular party platform; but we should all agree to be working together to make our country, state and cities better places through a truly representative government.
THAT should be our focus, and not the political infighting and cross-aisle temper tantrums that are so glaringly apparent today."
This came about because a church leader once stated his voting preference in an interview (in the 30's or 40's, I believe), and church members here in Utah took his comment to mean this should also be the party preference of all LDS members. After that, this misconception took on a life of its own, and has morphed into the false thinking that all Mormons in the US have to vote republican as well--an erroneous thought that even church leadership has sought to dispel.
Here is my rebuttal to the article...
"The entire assumption that all Mormons are republican is simply ridiculous. This political mirage exists not just in Utah, but throughout the US as well. Church leadership has never told its members to vote for one party over the other. To do so would go against one of the basic tenents of church doctrine, that of Free Agency. I am so tired of hearing phrases like, "Can a good Mormon be a Democrat?", a quote that was on [local affiliate] Fox13 news last night. How preposterous, ludicrous and downright ignorant of what should be a responsible news agency.
Whether you subscribe to Democratic, Republican, Tea Party or other political philosophies, the fact that you are participating in the political process is the only vital element that anyone should be concerned about. Who an individual American chooses to vote for is a purely individual right, guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States.
The real question every American voter should be asking is, why has the political landscape grown so hostile? These men and women are working for all of us. They should be setting aside their divisiveness and working for the common good. Unfortunately, the philosophical gap only widens with every passing year. Instead of Bipartisanship, we see only political posturing, threatening and grandstanding. The parties have become so entrenched in their limited views that real compromise is nearly impossible in every level of government.
We, the people, should be writing, calling and emailing our Representatives and demanding change, cooperation and real leadership. Are YOU doing this?
Remember, this is a government that is OF the people, FOR the people, and BY the people. Everyone, of all parties, should be actively involved in some way to see that our leaders are leading us.
We don't have to agree on any particular party platform; but we should all agree to be working together to make our country, state and cities better places through a truly representative government.
THAT should be our focus, and not the political infighting and cross-aisle temper tantrums that are so glaringly apparent today."
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
President Obama's Work Bill
Last week, President Obama asked to speak to a joint session of Congress. During his address, the President introduced legislation that he claims will put Americans to work, and stimulate the economy. Plus, he claims that the $450B price is already paid for, and that Congress "Must pass this bill now!"--a phrase he pushed numerous times during his address. An article in today's Deseret News reiterated that same call from a speech the President made today in Ohio. The following is my reply...
After reading portions of this bill, and listening to and reading the debate, it seems clear to me that the President is pressing Congress to pass this bill so hard because he knows that this is bad legislation, and wants the provisions enacted before anyone takes a close look at the language, outcome of enaction and financial/budgetary consequences.
If this was a solid bill, then I would certainly expect an invitation to scrutinize the legislation. All we hear is, "Pass this bill!" From his Congressional address [in introducing the bill] to his campaign rhetoric; that same call resonates constantly, and should be a warning to Congress. They should study, calculate and scrutinize everything in the language. If not, they could very well be caught in yet another legislative blunder that is eroding public policy and confidence in our elected leaders.
After reading portions of this bill, and listening to and reading the debate, it seems clear to me that the President is pressing Congress to pass this bill so hard because he knows that this is bad legislation, and wants the provisions enacted before anyone takes a close look at the language, outcome of enaction and financial/budgetary consequences.
If this was a solid bill, then I would certainly expect an invitation to scrutinize the legislation. All we hear is, "Pass this bill!" From his Congressional address [in introducing the bill] to his campaign rhetoric; that same call resonates constantly, and should be a warning to Congress. They should study, calculate and scrutinize everything in the language. If not, they could very well be caught in yet another legislative blunder that is eroding public policy and confidence in our elected leaders.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Personal Commentary
Dear Readers,
I want to apologise for my lack of current commentary on the many important events surrounding all of us. The fact of the matter is that my health has declined to the point that my energy is nearly non-existent, and my ability to write coherent, educated and rational commentaries has declined in a like manner.
My fight against this aggressive kidney disease is nearing a critical point. I hope to be able to be writing again in the near future. Until I do, please continue to check on my blog so you know when I've begun commenting on the idiocies of our world once again.
Thank you.
ScottW
I want to apologise for my lack of current commentary on the many important events surrounding all of us. The fact of the matter is that my health has declined to the point that my energy is nearly non-existent, and my ability to write coherent, educated and rational commentaries has declined in a like manner.
My fight against this aggressive kidney disease is nearing a critical point. I hope to be able to be writing again in the near future. Until I do, please continue to check on my blog so you know when I've begun commenting on the idiocies of our world once again.
Thank you.
ScottW
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The Founding Fathers and The Role of Religion in Shaping the USA
I read an article today by Thomas Kidd of The Free Lance-Star that sought to accurately portray the religious aspect in the founding of the United States. Overall the article was well-researched and well-written. (Having done my own exhaustive research on the subject, I knew that Mr. Kidd was coming from a place of fact; not history that has been distorted and rewritten.) My only objection was the neat little wrap-up of the article...it just seemed like the author ran out of steam so he ended the article. Anyway, the following is my written response to the article...
"Up until the 1860's history books included the religious aspect of the founding of the US. Religion was a common, publicly accepted attitude and was, in one form or another, a prevalent way of life in post-colonial American society.
It was the rise of secularism that caused history to be rewritten, and of historians who would distort the truth to suit their personal interpretation of events that became the real catalysts for the exclusion of religious reference amongst the Founding Fathers.
Today's secularists would have you believe that the supposed "Separation of Church and State" is an actual Constitutional emplacement in law; when in fact, the Jefferson letter only coined the phrase as a matter of clarification. Nowhere in the Constitution are the words "Separation of Church and State." They don't exist! Supreme Court rulings of the late 1800's and early 1900's popularized the phrase amongst those seeking to further rewrite history to a more convenient, secularist interpretation, and to instill their selfish individual views upon the populace as a whole.
Anyone wanting to learn the REAL history of the US has only to do their own research and to not rely on history that has been rewritten."
I have not yet received any rebuttal from my response; though I'm certain secularists or atheistic respondents will attack me and the truth of what was stated [in the article or in my response] simply because they don't want history to be the truth; but to be as they envision it as a matter of convenience in order to justify their position.
"Up until the 1860's history books included the religious aspect of the founding of the US. Religion was a common, publicly accepted attitude and was, in one form or another, a prevalent way of life in post-colonial American society.
It was the rise of secularism that caused history to be rewritten, and of historians who would distort the truth to suit their personal interpretation of events that became the real catalysts for the exclusion of religious reference amongst the Founding Fathers.
Today's secularists would have you believe that the supposed "Separation of Church and State" is an actual Constitutional emplacement in law; when in fact, the Jefferson letter only coined the phrase as a matter of clarification. Nowhere in the Constitution are the words "Separation of Church and State." They don't exist! Supreme Court rulings of the late 1800's and early 1900's popularized the phrase amongst those seeking to further rewrite history to a more convenient, secularist interpretation, and to instill their selfish individual views upon the populace as a whole.
Anyone wanting to learn the REAL history of the US has only to do their own research and to not rely on history that has been rewritten."
I have not yet received any rebuttal from my response; though I'm certain secularists or atheistic respondents will attack me and the truth of what was stated [in the article or in my response] simply because they don't want history to be the truth; but to be as they envision it as a matter of convenience in order to justify their position.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Baseball and Interleague Play
I read an article today from Mike Schmidt, former Phillies great and HOF'er, who stated his position on Interleague play in Major League Baseball. He was clearly against further play stating that the "experiment should be over" as the fans are disinterested, the players are angry, and baseball is hurt by the two circuits playing games during the regular season.
My response to his article, as well as to the one respondent (thus far) who agreed...a poor response by the way. This respondent nearly echoed the words or article writer Schmidt...
"I disagree with the article. Interleague play is long overdue. I grew up in an AL city and always wished I could see the NL teams. Unfortunately, the All Star game and the playoffs (if my team made it) just didn't sate my hopes of seeing the "Senior Circuit" on a regular basis.
Now that interleague play is here, I am greatly enjoying seeing the various NL teams playing my lifelong favorite. The addition of NL teams on the schedule has actually increased my interest in baseball. I don't think interleague play hurts anyone besides the snooty baseball purists who firmly believe that any tinkering with their hallowed sport is blasphemy.
Interleague play is good for fans, good for players--a majority of whom, according to a recent poll, stated they enjoy interleague play--and good for the sport and health of Major League Baseball."
My response to his article, as well as to the one respondent (thus far) who agreed...a poor response by the way. This respondent nearly echoed the words or article writer Schmidt...
"I disagree with the article. Interleague play is long overdue. I grew up in an AL city and always wished I could see the NL teams. Unfortunately, the All Star game and the playoffs (if my team made it) just didn't sate my hopes of seeing the "Senior Circuit" on a regular basis.
Now that interleague play is here, I am greatly enjoying seeing the various NL teams playing my lifelong favorite. The addition of NL teams on the schedule has actually increased my interest in baseball. I don't think interleague play hurts anyone besides the snooty baseball purists who firmly believe that any tinkering with their hallowed sport is blasphemy.
Interleague play is good for fans, good for players--a majority of whom, according to a recent poll, stated they enjoy interleague play--and good for the sport and health of Major League Baseball."
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
TSA Taking Illegal Liberties
**The following article appeared in the 22 June 2011 edition of the Seattle Times. Full credit is given**
"TSA curbs checkpoint photography by travelers — but it's legal"
By Christopher Elliott
Tribune Media Services
Mind your camera when you're traveling this summer.
Taking an innocent snapshot in a public area in the U.S. may get you in trouble, even if photography is allowed. It almost landed Ryan Miklus behind bars when he flew from Phoenix to Reno with his parents recently.
When Miklus tried to videotape an altercation between his mother and a TSA agent, another officer tried to stop him. "You are not allowed to film," the officer says on the video. "You need to go. You cannot film us."
"Where does it say that?" Miklus asks. "Show me the law. Show it to me and I'll stop."
The agent doesn't answer, but leaves and returns with several airline employees, one of whom tells Miklus that it's "against the law" to take photos at a security checkpoint.
"Put down the camera!" the employee orders. Miklus continues taping. A police officer later refuses to arrest him.
Such incidents are becoming increasingly common, making shutterbugs hesitant to take pictures that they're well within their rights to take. They include security guards harassing a photographer shooting in a Los Angeles park and a man being threatened for videotaping a whale in the Florida Keys. TSA screening areas are a flashpoint for these encounters, with officers sometimes threatening passengers, blocking their view or citing nonexistent rules in an effort to force them to stop taking photos.
"I used to deal with one of these a month," says Mickey Osterreicher, the general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). "Then it was weekly. Now it's almost every day. Citizens are being told that they can't take pictures out in public — whether it's a building, a bridge or a train."
Travelers are confused. Bridget Garrity, an attorney from Torrington, Conn., recently spotted a sign at BWI Marshall Airport suggesting that taking photos of TSA screeners is illegal. "It was hung on the wall right above the entry to the security lanes for the machines," she says. "It did have some reference to a federal code, but I couldn't get it all down." Garrity was tempted to take a picture of the sign, but was afraid that she might be breaking the law.
Jonathan Dean, a spokesman for BWI, confirmed the signs near the screening area, saying that they're there because "TSA typically discourages photography at its checkpoints."
Why the crackdown on photography? Carlos Miller, a Miami-based multimedia journalist and author of the blog Photography Is Not a Crime, says that law enforcement agencies have felt threatened by photographers since the videotape of Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King made the rounds in 1991. It accelerated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and has spun out of control with the development of social media, location-based technology and cellphones with easy-to-use digital cameras. "Cops feel as if they have to protect themselves," he says.
There's a second reason why photography in public places is frowned upon, according to Miller and others. Officials assume that there's a link between photography and terrorism, so anyone taking pictures of airports, screening areas, parks, bridges or any other site that terrorists could put in their crosshairs becomes a suspect, they say.
The Miklus incident has prompted the TSA to review its policy on photography at screening areas, according to a post on the agency's website. Many agency-watchers worry that the government will try to ban photography, but when I asked the TSA about the review, it said that the statement on the website has been misinterpreted. "We recognize that using video and photography equipment is a constitutionally protected activity," TSA spokesman Greg Soule told me.
The agency is only reviewing its guidance to officers, he said, "to ensure consistent application" of its regulations. TSA posted a clarification on its site shortly after my inquiry.
What really are the rules?
So what are the rules? And what should you do if you're told to stop filming or photographing?
Osterreicher says that there are only two public areas in the United States where you can't shoot pictures: military bases and nuclear facilities. "The warnings are clearly posted," he says. "Otherwise, if the public is allowed, then so are their rights."
But officials don't necessarily agree with that broad interpretation. For example, the TSA's current policy is that photography at security screening areas is permitted, as long as it doesn't interfere with the screening process. But what, exactly, constitutes interference? The agency also prohibits photography of its screening equipment, specifically the screen that shows scanned items. But that rule would appear to contradict federal law, since the screening equipment is in a public area.
And while it's OK to take personal photographs in state and national parks, commercial photos usually require a permit. Park police who don't want you to take pictures can exploit that rule by drawing a fine line between an amateur and a professional photographer.
Indeed, what constitutes the difference? Is it the tripod, the price of the camera or the quality of the footage? When I tried to take photos in Florida Caverns State Park near Marianna, Fla., last year, a park official told me that I would have to pay $75 for a photography permit. But I could avoid the fee if I left some of my equipment in the car — specifically my tripod.
It's an odd predicament, since we travel in a surveillance society. Law enforcement agencies can place cameras in public areas and monitor our comings and goings, but when we try to take pictures, we're sometimes told that it's not allowed. Why the double standard? Should you stand up for your constitutional rights the next time you try to take a snapshot of your family at the airport and a stern-faced security agent tells you that it's illegal?
If you're on vacation, it's probably not worth it. That's the advice Osterreicher gives NPPA members, too: It's not worth a trip to jail. "Be courteous, be respectful and don't get into an argument," he says. "Should you have the time and want to push the issue, ask to speak to a supervisor or report the incident to that agency as soon as possible. Otherwise, they have a badge and you may lose the argument."
"Just say, 'Yes, officer, thank you, officer.' And walk away."
The reader comments accompanying this article were uniform in their alarm at this clear indication of a leap forward in governmental intrusion, and against civil rights. I've stated before that the TSA is a dangerous entity that must be curbed, or even eliminated. They consistently trample the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and expect everyone to just accept it without question.
As citizens of the United States, it is our duty and obligation to question the government, and push for change when change is needed. The TSA is overstepping its authority once again. Write to all of your elected officials and insist that change happens. Let them know the TSA is not only a black hole for taxpayer money, but it is, as evidenced by repeated Constitutional abuses, time for it to go! If your elected officials don't speak out, then get involved in your local politics and support candidates who advocate change. Do something constructive; don't just sit around and complain.
"TSA curbs checkpoint photography by travelers — but it's legal"
By Christopher Elliott
Tribune Media Services
Mind your camera when you're traveling this summer.
Taking an innocent snapshot in a public area in the U.S. may get you in trouble, even if photography is allowed. It almost landed Ryan Miklus behind bars when he flew from Phoenix to Reno with his parents recently.
When Miklus tried to videotape an altercation between his mother and a TSA agent, another officer tried to stop him. "You are not allowed to film," the officer says on the video. "You need to go. You cannot film us."
"Where does it say that?" Miklus asks. "Show me the law. Show it to me and I'll stop."
The agent doesn't answer, but leaves and returns with several airline employees, one of whom tells Miklus that it's "against the law" to take photos at a security checkpoint.
"Put down the camera!" the employee orders. Miklus continues taping. A police officer later refuses to arrest him.
Such incidents are becoming increasingly common, making shutterbugs hesitant to take pictures that they're well within their rights to take. They include security guards harassing a photographer shooting in a Los Angeles park and a man being threatened for videotaping a whale in the Florida Keys. TSA screening areas are a flashpoint for these encounters, with officers sometimes threatening passengers, blocking their view or citing nonexistent rules in an effort to force them to stop taking photos.
"I used to deal with one of these a month," says Mickey Osterreicher, the general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). "Then it was weekly. Now it's almost every day. Citizens are being told that they can't take pictures out in public — whether it's a building, a bridge or a train."
Travelers are confused. Bridget Garrity, an attorney from Torrington, Conn., recently spotted a sign at BWI Marshall Airport suggesting that taking photos of TSA screeners is illegal. "It was hung on the wall right above the entry to the security lanes for the machines," she says. "It did have some reference to a federal code, but I couldn't get it all down." Garrity was tempted to take a picture of the sign, but was afraid that she might be breaking the law.
Jonathan Dean, a spokesman for BWI, confirmed the signs near the screening area, saying that they're there because "TSA typically discourages photography at its checkpoints."
Why the crackdown on photography? Carlos Miller, a Miami-based multimedia journalist and author of the blog Photography Is Not a Crime, says that law enforcement agencies have felt threatened by photographers since the videotape of Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King made the rounds in 1991. It accelerated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and has spun out of control with the development of social media, location-based technology and cellphones with easy-to-use digital cameras. "Cops feel as if they have to protect themselves," he says.
There's a second reason why photography in public places is frowned upon, according to Miller and others. Officials assume that there's a link between photography and terrorism, so anyone taking pictures of airports, screening areas, parks, bridges or any other site that terrorists could put in their crosshairs becomes a suspect, they say.
The Miklus incident has prompted the TSA to review its policy on photography at screening areas, according to a post on the agency's website. Many agency-watchers worry that the government will try to ban photography, but when I asked the TSA about the review, it said that the statement on the website has been misinterpreted. "We recognize that using video and photography equipment is a constitutionally protected activity," TSA spokesman Greg Soule told me.
The agency is only reviewing its guidance to officers, he said, "to ensure consistent application" of its regulations. TSA posted a clarification on its site shortly after my inquiry.
What really are the rules?
So what are the rules? And what should you do if you're told to stop filming or photographing?
Osterreicher says that there are only two public areas in the United States where you can't shoot pictures: military bases and nuclear facilities. "The warnings are clearly posted," he says. "Otherwise, if the public is allowed, then so are their rights."
But officials don't necessarily agree with that broad interpretation. For example, the TSA's current policy is that photography at security screening areas is permitted, as long as it doesn't interfere with the screening process. But what, exactly, constitutes interference? The agency also prohibits photography of its screening equipment, specifically the screen that shows scanned items. But that rule would appear to contradict federal law, since the screening equipment is in a public area.
And while it's OK to take personal photographs in state and national parks, commercial photos usually require a permit. Park police who don't want you to take pictures can exploit that rule by drawing a fine line between an amateur and a professional photographer.
Indeed, what constitutes the difference? Is it the tripod, the price of the camera or the quality of the footage? When I tried to take photos in Florida Caverns State Park near Marianna, Fla., last year, a park official told me that I would have to pay $75 for a photography permit. But I could avoid the fee if I left some of my equipment in the car — specifically my tripod.
It's an odd predicament, since we travel in a surveillance society. Law enforcement agencies can place cameras in public areas and monitor our comings and goings, but when we try to take pictures, we're sometimes told that it's not allowed. Why the double standard? Should you stand up for your constitutional rights the next time you try to take a snapshot of your family at the airport and a stern-faced security agent tells you that it's illegal?
If you're on vacation, it's probably not worth it. That's the advice Osterreicher gives NPPA members, too: It's not worth a trip to jail. "Be courteous, be respectful and don't get into an argument," he says. "Should you have the time and want to push the issue, ask to speak to a supervisor or report the incident to that agency as soon as possible. Otherwise, they have a badge and you may lose the argument."
"Just say, 'Yes, officer, thank you, officer.' And walk away."
The reader comments accompanying this article were uniform in their alarm at this clear indication of a leap forward in governmental intrusion, and against civil rights. I've stated before that the TSA is a dangerous entity that must be curbed, or even eliminated. They consistently trample the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and expect everyone to just accept it without question.
As citizens of the United States, it is our duty and obligation to question the government, and push for change when change is needed. The TSA is overstepping its authority once again. Write to all of your elected officials and insist that change happens. Let them know the TSA is not only a black hole for taxpayer money, but it is, as evidenced by repeated Constitutional abuses, time for it to go! If your elected officials don't speak out, then get involved in your local politics and support candidates who advocate change. Do something constructive; don't just sit around and complain.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Gee! Dubya--What a Hypocrite
*OK, this one is all about railing on former Prez, Gee! Dubya Bushie.*
As I was watching today's coverage of the US Open, the announcers mentioned a charity event being hosted by our inept former President, Gee! Dubya Bushie. This event is a golf tournament for which its sole fundraising purpose is to benefit service men and women who were injured in either of the current engagement areas in the Middle East; namely, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hearing this drew an immediate, sharp verbal response from me because of the glaring hypocrisy of the event. Don't get me wrong--these men and women of our military, injured in their service, need all the financial support they can get, and this golf tourney is a fantastic way to raise both money and awareness for their plight.
My issue lies in its being hosted by Bushie.
This is a man who during his presidency was the first sitting President (I believe) to avoid going to Andrews Air Force base to greet the planes carrying the bodies of our servicemen and women home from the two wars that Bushie himself started. He also avoided greeting any injured soldiers who likewise returned home. When asked about this, the reason given was the Gee! Dubya didn't want to be photographed over the caskets of dead soldiers because he, El Prezzo Inepto, didn't want to be perceived by the American public as a President who sent our men and women to die in a war.
What the hell?! Bushie DID send our military to war! What a damned idiot...
Do you see the hypocrisy? Gee! Dubya will send our military off to war knowing there will be casualties, and not acknowledge their ultimate sacrifices; yet here he is hosting a charity event that benefits the very same military personnel he couldn't even bring himself to face once they returned home scarred and maimed...or dead.
What a hypocrite.
But hey! That pretty much sums up Gee! Dubya Bushie in a nutshell.
As I was watching today's coverage of the US Open, the announcers mentioned a charity event being hosted by our inept former President, Gee! Dubya Bushie. This event is a golf tournament for which its sole fundraising purpose is to benefit service men and women who were injured in either of the current engagement areas in the Middle East; namely, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hearing this drew an immediate, sharp verbal response from me because of the glaring hypocrisy of the event. Don't get me wrong--these men and women of our military, injured in their service, need all the financial support they can get, and this golf tourney is a fantastic way to raise both money and awareness for their plight.
My issue lies in its being hosted by Bushie.
This is a man who during his presidency was the first sitting President (I believe) to avoid going to Andrews Air Force base to greet the planes carrying the bodies of our servicemen and women home from the two wars that Bushie himself started. He also avoided greeting any injured soldiers who likewise returned home. When asked about this, the reason given was the Gee! Dubya didn't want to be photographed over the caskets of dead soldiers because he, El Prezzo Inepto, didn't want to be perceived by the American public as a President who sent our men and women to die in a war.
What the hell?! Bushie DID send our military to war! What a damned idiot...
Do you see the hypocrisy? Gee! Dubya will send our military off to war knowing there will be casualties, and not acknowledge their ultimate sacrifices; yet here he is hosting a charity event that benefits the very same military personnel he couldn't even bring himself to face once they returned home scarred and maimed...or dead.
What a hypocrite.
But hey! That pretty much sums up Gee! Dubya Bushie in a nutshell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
