America, You Asked For It!

Political News and Commentary from the Right

SPJ campaign to eliminate term “illegal immigrant”

Leo E. Laurence, a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Diversity Committee, recently reported the Committee had “decided to engage in a yearlong educational campaign designed to inform and sensitize journalists as to the best language to use when writing and reporting on people of different cultures and backgrounds.” The “best language to use” refers to the use of the term “illegal immigrant,” which Laurence says the Committee opposes. Since news of the campaign broke, SPJ has prefaced Laurence’s article with the following:

CLARIFICATION: The following article is an opinion piece and does not reflect the views of SPJ, its membership or its Diversity Committee. The committee itself has taken no official initiative on the use of the phrase “illegal immigrant.”

Though the organization is now trying to clarify Laurence’s article as an “opinion piece,” the author quotes committee chairman George Daniels’ email announcing the planned educational re-education campaign. He further quotes Daniels seeming to anticipate and deflect criticism that would arise, claiming the campaign is “not about being politically correct.” Instead Daniels says the campaign intends to “minimize harm” by utilizing sensitivity to other cultures in their reporting. But it’s hard to get the genie back in the bottle.

Daniels is probably telling the truth when he says this isn’t about being politically correct. More likely, it’s a conscious effort to re-educate not only journalist, but consumers of news as well. SPJ’s real intent is more likely to change Americans’ attitudes toward illegal immigration by using softer, gentler language to describe the criminals. The Diversity Committee has decided that journalists’ have a duty to shape Americans’ psyche rather than report the news.

The SPJ campaign flies in the face of the accepted journalistic standard on the topic found in the Associated Press stylebook. The AP stands by its standard recommendation that journalists use the term “illegal immigrant.” The Daily Caller reports AP’s Deputy Standards Editor David Minthorn responded, “Together, the terms [illegal + immigrant] describe a person who resides in a country unlawfully by residency or citizenship requirements. Alternatives like undocumented worker, illegal alien or illegals lack precision or may have negative connotations. Illegal immigrant, on the other hand, is accurate and neutral for news stories.”

Laurence’s response to Minthorn’s defense of its standard, “The Associated Press is wrong. Their stylebook is wrong. It is not consistent with the Constitution.”

Laurence believes the US Constitution mandates journalists make the adjustment and stop using the term “illegal” in favor of the more benign “undocumented.” Noting that all are presumed innocent until proven guilty he declares, “Simply put, only a judge, not a journalist, can say that someone is an illegal.” The problem here is that a news article describing illegal activity as illegal activity is not the same as convicting someone of a criminal offense. The constitutional argument Laurence puts forth is only valid within the US legal system, and not applicable in any sense to journalists and their reporting. If it were, reporters should stop calling kidnappers, murderers, rapists, child abusers, thieves, and every other kind of criminal by the name of their crime.

Jehmu Greene, former director of the Women’s Media Center, agrees with Laurence’s assertion and the SPJ campaign to stamp out the use of the “illegal immigrant” label. She even goes so far as to state that use of the term is “increasing violence against immigrants.” When asked by Fox News host Megan Kelly to provide evidence of her claim, Greene was unable to provide any. Instead, she launched into an obfuscatory narrative about language changing the way people “look at different communities.”

The simple fact is the Society of Professional Journalists Diversity Committee is launching a campaign to change the way illegal immigration is reported in an effort to prevent American citizens and legal immigrants from recognizing the criminal nature of their entry into the United States. Brad Blakeman, former assistant to President Bush, goes so far as to declare the real intent behind this campaign to achieve amnesty for the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the country today. That sounds more likely.

The liberal left want amnesty as a means of securing 12 million more voters to support their agenda to destroy this country. The motivation for this campaign may not be political correctness, but it is most certainly political.

Earlier this month, US Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry was killed in a shootout along the Arizona-Mexico border. A study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform found last summer that illegal immigration costs the US approximately $113 billion per year. According to the study, the costs of illegal immigration to the state of Texas is equal to its budget deficit, and the costs to the states of New York and California exceed their respective budget deficits.

The SPJ campaign to eradicate the use of the term “illegal immigrant” seeks to cover up these problems and gloss over the negative impact of their crimes on our society. Politics, pure and simple.

We will continue to use the AP approved, accepted, and accurate term “illegal immigrant” to describe immigrants who break our laws to enter this country.


Tags: Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigrants, Undocumented Immigrants, Associated Press, SPJ, Society of Professional Journalists, Political Correctness, Liberal, Journalism, Constitution, Press

To share or post to your site, please include the following line
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

Advertisements

December 31, 2010 Posted by | Immigration | 2 Comments

The President, Medicare, and Planning for Dying

An unemotional evaluation of Medicare’s new “end-of-life” planning

Curtis Coleman, The New South Conservative: During the 2009-2010 national debate on Obamacare, one of the most controversial and emotionally debated components of the bill’s massive leap toward socialized medicine was the now infamous Section 1233, which included plans and compensation to physicians for “end-of-life” counseling. The proposal touched off a political firestorm over “death panels,” so Democrats dropped it from healthcare deformation legislation. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

According to Robert Pear of The New York Times, “Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.”

What About “End of Life” Planning?

When conducted for the benefit of the patient first (and secondarily for the patient’s family), “end-of-life” counseling and planning is a valuable tool for patients, their families and their physicians.

According to the Family Caregiver Alliance, “The one area that most of us avoid planning is the end of our life. Yet, if we don’t plan, if we don’t at least think about it and share our ideas with those we love, others take over at the very time when we are most vulnerable, most in need of understanding and comfort, and most longing for dignity.

“Big issues confront us when we think about our own death or that of someone we love. Our attitudes and beliefs about religion, pain, suffering, loss of consciousness, and leaving behind those we love come into play. We can let things unfold as they may, and for some of us that’s exactly right. For others of us, it is good to plan.”

End of life planning can include such valuable documents as a living will, a legal document that a person can use to make known his or her wishes regarding life-prolonging medical treatments. It can also be referred to as an advance directive, health care directive, or a physician’s directive.

Although laws vary from state to state, generally a living will describes certain life-prolonging treatments. The document can be used to indicate which treatments you do or do not want applied to you in the event you either suffer from a terminal illness or are in a permanent vegetative state. A living will does not become effective unless you are incapacitated; until then you’ll be able to say what treatments you do or don’t want. They usually require a certification by your doctor and another doctor that you are either suffering from a terminal illness or permanently unconscious before they become effective as well. This means that if you suffer a heart attack, for example, but otherwise do not have any terminal illness and are not permanently unconscious, a living will does not have any effect. You would still be resuscitated, even if you had a living will indicating that you don’t want life prolonging procedures. A living will is only used when your ultimate recovery is hopeless.

End-of-life planning can also include a health care power of attorney or health care proxy. This document becomes valuable to your family and your health care providers when your health is not so dire that your living will becomes effective. A health care power of attorney is a legal document that gives someone else the authority to make health care decisions for you in the event you are incapacitated. The person you designate to make health care decisions on your behalf is supposed to consider what you would want, so be sure to talk with them about it. It may be a difficult conversation, but you’re asking someone to take on a great burden for you – letting him or her know what you want lessens that burden.

It is entirely appropriate and important for one’s physician to be involved in this planning process, and it is equally appropriate for Medicare to reimburse your physician for his or her participation in the planning process – if that is the limit of Medicare’s involvement.

So why the emotionally charged debate?

Are Conservatives Just Fear-mongering?

Are conservatives just fear-mongering (like the liberals and progressives in the recent mid-term elections when conservatives advocated eliminating the IRS and its tangled, mangled tax codes in favor of the Fair Tax, or when conservatives had the courage to talk about the obvious and unavoidable adjustments required for Social Security to continue to be viable)? Are conservatives doing “a despicable thing” by playing on the fragile emotions of seniors who are facing difficult discussions and decisions – and possibly fears – about the end of life?

Or is there a legitimate concern of which Americans must be aware? The answer is an unequivocal “yes!”

[Read full article]

———–

Curtis Coleman is the President of The Curtis Coleman Institute for Constitutional Policy and former conservative Republican candidate for US Senate.


Tags: Curtis Coleman, Health Care, Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, Death Panels, End of Life Care

To share or post to your site, please include the following line
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

December 30, 2010 Posted by | Health Care | Leave a comment

Foreclosures Up Again, Another Obama Failure

Home foreclosures jump…in spite of all of Barack Obama’s efforts to help homeowners stay in their homes.

Since he took office, Obama has been on something akin to a crusade to keep floundering homeowners in their houses and off the streets. Blaming banks and mortgage brokers for borrowers’ irresponsibility, the President and his big-government, anti-personal-responsibility pals in Congress implemented several programs to allow borrowers who couldn’t make their payments to keep the homes they couldn’t afford. But today we learn that foreclosures spiked yet again in the 3rd quarter of this year.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development‘s (HUD) website promises “Help for the Unemployed”, help for “Homeowners Like You”, and “Help for the Hardest Hit.” The site also offers visitors the opportunity to “Learn About Making Home Affordable.”

Learn About Making Home Affordable

The Obama Administration’s Making Home Affordable Program includes opportunities to modify or refinance your mortgage to make your monthly payments more affordable. It also includes the Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program for homeowners who are interested in a short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure.

On his 2008 presidential campaign website, Change.gov, Obama promised help for “millions of homeowners who played by the rules can’t meet their mortgage payments and face foreclosure…” The idea that everyone facing foreclosure is some sort of victim in a corrupt system relieves the irresponsible of any personal responsibility.

Though many did play by the rules, the rules involved risks that too many failed to account for. Obama played the victim card for homeowners in trouble and refuses to acknowledge that any investment involves risk that must be accounted for by any responsible investor. Borrowers who bought homes with payments they couldn’t afford were betting the soaring prices would continue and rapid appreciation would cover their deficits. If someone borrowed several hundred thousand dollars and bought shares of a skyrocketing stock, then the stock suddenly crashed, would that investor be labeled a “victim”? The parallels are obvious.

Obama and his henchmen perpetrated this fraud on the American people, promising to right these “wrongs” and claimed their plan “provides direct relief to help America’s homeowners pay their mortgages, stay in their homes, and avoid painful tax increases while protecting taxpayers and not rewarding the bad behavior and bad actors [mortgage brokers and banks] who got us into this mess.” But today’s news proves his naivete.

The simple fact is, while some may have been swindled and actually defrauded when they bought their homes, the vast majority of those who find themselves in trouble are in that position because they made irresponsible decisions. All the President’s programs to help these “victims” of the economic downturn only enabled them to continue to live in houses they couldn’t afford. Failing to address the borrowers’ irresponsibility did nothing to change the behavior that put them in danger of losing their home in the first place.

Last quarter’s foreclosure provide the proof that another of Obama’s victim-making programs has failed ro accomplish its stated goals.


Tags: Obama, Making Home Affordable, HUD, Foreclosure, Mortgage

To share or post to your site, please include the following line
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

December 30, 2010 Posted by | Economy | Leave a comment

Did disgruntled workers cause chaos (and cost lives) in NYC?

Being from the South, where lots of things shut down whenever a little of the white stuff hits the ground, I’ve often listened to folks from the North complain about our inability to cope with a little winter weather. But this time the shoe’s on the other foot. The question is, why?

Stranded travelers and even New Yorkers on the street have been complaining non-stop since their “City-That-Never-Sleeps” was tucked snugly under an historic blanket of snow this week. Over 5,000 flights were canceled as all three New York City airports were socked in, turning thousands of people into temporary residents of the airports themselves. Trains in and out of the city, and even the always dependable subway system ground to a halt. Buses, taxis, and the city’s few POVs couldn’t move through the snow swamped streets. New Yorkers for the first time in their lives found themselves snowed in, and they didn’t like it.

Most of their anger has been directed at the city’s billionaire Mayor Bloomberg. One Brooklynite was quoted saying the mayor, “doesn’t care about the little people,” insinuating the wealthy Bloomberg channeled resources to take care of Manhattan while ignoring the outer boroughs. Bloomberg admitted Wednesday, “We did not do as good a job that we wanted to do or the city has a right to expect.”

Earlier though, the mayor was less contrite. Estimating 5,000 trucks with plows would have been necessary to keep pace with the falling snow, the mayor held press conferences and pretty much told the people his response was adequate because citizens would not want to pay for more than the 2,000 trucks his administration deployed. Though this initial response to critics sparked even more outrage, residents’ anger at the mayor might be somewhat misplaced.

In a New York Post exclusive, city Councilman Dan Halloran (R-Queens) claims three apologetic sanitation workers and two Department of Transportation supervisors visited him to confess the city’s inadequate response was more the result of a protest against the mayor by disgruntled city workers and supervisors. Apparently, workers were ordered by their supervisors to intentionally slow the cleanup in order to force the city to pay overtime wages.

New York’s Strongest used a variety of tactics to drag out the plowing process — and pad overtime checks — which included keeping plows slightly higher than the roadways and skipping over streets along their routes, the sources said.

The snow-removal snitches said they were told to keep their plows off most streets and to wait for orders before attacking the accumulating piles of snow.

Though the Sanitation Department and union representatives deny the allegations, Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loesser said, “We would hope this is not the case.” But if it is, heads should roll.

Everyone knows of New York City’s budget woes, but these workers suffer from the Great American Entitlement Syndrome. They apparently forget that employers can only pay for workers they can afford. Instead, America’s move away from Capitalism and toward Socialism has infected them. Our entitlement dependent society is training people to believe their standard of living is a birthright instead of something earned. Crews paid to clear the streets should give an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay. If they believe their compensation is unfair, they should quit and live off Obama’s permanent unemployment benefits until someone agrees with them. Instead, they believe their job and their salary is more important than anything else in the world–even human lives.

At least two deaths have been attributed to the uncleared streets in the city. A baby born in an apartment building lobby died after 911 calls went unanswered for hours. Another woman called 911 when her mother began struggling to breathe. It took three hours for emergency crews to respond, and even then their ambulance was stranded a block and a half from the woman’s residence. Her mother was dead when they arrived. If these deaths could have been prevented, and if the plow operator confessors’ stories are true, these lives were sacrificed to pad workers’ paychecks and/or to protest city budget cuts.

If it turns out these allegations are true, workers and supervisors who participated in this job action should be fired and prosecuted. And if true, I hope they are haunted by nightmares of these deaths for the rest of their lives.


Tags: Blizzard, New York City, New York Post, Protest, Bloomberg, Entitlement

To share or post to your site, please include the following line
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

December 30, 2010 Posted by | Labor | Leave a comment

Obama foreign policy failures

Our presumptuous President convinced his court of Democrat and RINO clowns to ratify the START II treaty this month, just one of several left-wing agenda items pushed through in the days before Christmas that will long degrade United States national security and international influence. He and his left-wing cronies, both Democrat and RINO, marked ratification as a victory for the US. But the reality is, this move is just one of many foreign policy blunders that have made us a laughing stock around the world.

The treaty was ratified by the lame-duck US Senate last week and received initial approval from Russia’s lower house of parliament a few days later. Under the terms of the agreement, the US will drastically reduce the number of nuclear weapons in its arsenal. But debate in the Russian parliament reveals that country will give up almost to comply with the treaty. In defending the treaty to his country’s legislature, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said, “We will not have to make any cuts to our strategic offensive weapons. But the Americans — they will indeed have to make some cuts.”

In Obama’s haste to secure a “foreign relations victory” to feather his cap, he apparently forgot the United States was not supposed to be the only party giving something up. The President’s eagerness to see his autograph on a piece of paper resulted in the diplomatic checkmate. Our Ivy-League-educated President apparently didn’t take the time to learn that Russia’s ICBM’s were already out of date and ready to be retired. He also didn’t expend the effort to learn our old Cold War nemesis doesn’t have the money to upgrade their outdated weapon systems. So the treaty calls for them to scrap weapons that were already scheduled to be scrapped and that the Russians could not afford to replace. So we give up viable weapons systems in exchange for the Russians throwing out scrap iron.

But there’s more…

Earlier this month, President Obama’s primary propaganda website America.gov claimed we are making Significant Progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The piece quotes the President saying, “It’s harder for them [Al Quaeda] to recruit; it’s harder for them to travel; it’s harder for them to train; it’s harder for them to plot and launch attacks.” From his assessment, one might expect things are improving in the terrorist stronghold. But it’s all a lie.

The Wall Street Journal has gotten hold of some internal United Nations maps that don’t exactly jive with Obama’s upbeat assessment of progress in the region. In fact, they paint a picture that shows the situation in the war-torn country worsening instead of improving. The maps show violence escalating in several parts of the country that were considered relatively safe, and show almost no areas where violence is subsiding. “The country as a whole is dramatically worse off than a year ago, both in terms of the insurgency’s geographical spread and its rate of attacks,” said Nic Lee, director of the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office. Apparently, administration propaganda isn’t telling the whole story.

After North Korea launched an artillery attack against our ally on their southern border, President Obama called on China to step in and stop the rogue nation that has grown exponentially bolder since the current President took office. But that’s a lot of faith to place in a country that’s been building a military to challenge ours. Just yesterday, Admiral Robert F. Willard told a Japanese newspaper that China is deploying a missile system capable of sinking our aircraft carriers. Defense analysts have stated the new missile system could force US carrier groups to stay farther away from China in the Pacific Ocean, making it more difficult to provide protection for our allies in the region.

Iran continues to develop its nuclear program in spite of the international sanctions President Obama continues to tout, even as the country murders dissidents and flexes its muscle stamping out pro-freedom activism in the terror-sponsoring nation. The most vocal enemy of the United States in the Western hemisphere, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, recently seized temporary (yeah right!) dictatorial powers just before opponents of the devout Socialist leader were set to play a greater role in the country’s government.

If, in the face of all this, Obama still lays claim to a “successful” foreign policy, one must wonder what he truly desires for the United States of America.


Tags: Obama, United States, Russia, START II, Treaty, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Democrat, RINO, UN, United Nations

To share or post to your site, please include the following line
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

December 28, 2010 Posted by | Foreign Policy | Leave a comment

Proof that prolonged benefits prolong unemployment

That’s the headline that caught my eye on Drudge this morning. I clicked through to the USA Today article almost expecting some new Democrat way of counting that would spin the high rate of Americans without jobs to favor Obama. Instead, the change is no big deal and doesn’t impact the way the unemployed are counted or how the rate is calculated. The change is nothing more than giving interviewers a new box to check off to track the elevated rate of protracted unemployment since Obamanomics burst onto the scene.

Apparently, so many people are staying unemployed for so long, the old forms just aren’t cutting it anymore. Before Obama, Democrat degenerates in Congress, and the RINOs who have joined forces to turn unemployment benefits into a permanent entitlement, folks could only collect a check for a limited time after losing their job. At that point, like it or not, they had to find another job and rejoin the ranks of productive citizens. When that was the case, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) only saw the need to ask respondents if they’d been unemployed for “99 weeks or over.”

But times have changed. Obama, Democrats, and RINOs, on a quest to ever expand the dependent class among the American citizenry, have virtually established the unemployment insurance program as a permanent entitlement. The result, as real conservative commentators, bloggers, and politicians predicted, has been an ever-increasing rate of the terminally unemployed. BLS cites an “unprecedented rise” in long-term unemployment as the reason it will add an option on its form for respondents to admit to being unemployed for “260 weeks or over.”

The chart above shows a doubling of the percentage of long-term unemployed since Obama took office. When Obama forced his big-government agenda on the American people against their will, he pompously proclaimed it would rejuvenate the ailing economy and result in a lower unemployment rate. Though he continues to claim the economy is recovering, this latest change from BLS gives evidence of the real results of his Socialist policies.

The BLS form change offers proof positive that prolonging unemployment benefits prolongs unemployment.


Tags: Economy, Unemployment, Jobs, Compromise, Tax Cuts, RINO, Democrat, Obama, Socialism, Obamanomics

To share or post to your site, please include the following line
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

December 28, 2010 Posted by | Economy | 1 Comment

Happy birthday Jesus!

Now is the time to put politics aside and celebrate the greatest gift mankind ever received.

Tomorrow we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Christmas is, was, and always will be a holiday established to celebrate His birth. The following is the story of Jesus’ birth from the Gospel of Luke, chapter 2:

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”

16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.

Thank you God for sending your Son to live and die so that we may have eternal life.

May peace and love of our Savior, Jesus Christ, bless everyone in this joyous season.

Happy birthday Jesus!


Tags: Christmas, Holidays, Jesus Christ, Eternal Life, Happy Holidays, Religion, Christianity

To share or post to your site, please include the following line
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

December 24, 2010 Posted by | Holidays | Leave a comment

A conservative’s Christmas wish

When President Obama began shredding the US Constitution and tearing down United States of America, conservative citizens rose up and battled hard for two years. An awakening on our side like I had never seen in my lifetime. In November, it appeared our fight to stop Herr Obama and his Czar-loaded administration’s march toward a United Socialist States of America had been stopped. Democrats staggered and stammered in recoil as the election results rolled in and casted many of their members out. Republicans, who had run campaigns on conservative platforms toppled their Democrat rivals from coast-to-coast, from the Rio Grande to the Canadian border. Conservatives, weary of a nonviolent political war that had not seen a cessation of hostilities for two full years, stepped down and drew a breath.

But, in the 50 or so days since that supposed conservative victory, many of the Republicans have chosen to join hands with their Democrat colleagues and help them close the year with big liberal legislative victories. With a conservative tsunami sweeping America, Democrats have practically turned unemployment benefits into a permanent entitlement program, sacrificed our military readiness and effectiveness by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed services, and ratified a treaty that limits us from deploying missile defense systems vital to our national security. All of these liberal victories came so RINOs could demonstrate their willingness to compromise with their liberal loser colleagues.

President Obama, ambient with arrogance, proclaimed this lame duck session the, “most productive post-election period in decades. And it comes on the heels of the most productive two years that we’ve had in generations.” Only weeks after suffering historic losses in a mid-term election, Obama and Democrats have rebounded in the face of the conservative tidal wave to pass the most controversial of their liberal agenda with practically no Republican resistance. Instead of fighting to represent the conservative constituents who delivered their victories, too many Republicans have helped Democrats push forward in the name of compromise. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer described the situation perfectly when he said Republicans are “clearing his [Obama’s] path and sprinkling it with rose petals.”

Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006, not because they were acting conservative, but because they were not! They had control from 1994 to 2006, and during that time government grew at an astounding pace, our Constitution was ripped in a bipartisan “compromise” called campaign finance reform, and illegal immigration exploded while a Republican compromise did nothing to stem the tide. Republicans lost control in 2006 because they were NOT pushing a conservative agenda! And it appears too many have already started down that path again.

Democrats lost control of the US House and suffered big losses in the US Senate because they pushed a far left agenda too far in the past two years. In less than two years, Democrats forced on the American people (against their will in most cases):

  • A government takeover of numerous banks,
  • A government takeover of the domestic auto industry,
  • A government takeover of the health care industry
  • A government takeover of the student loan industry.
  • Government spending increases that increased our national debt by 40%,
  • A monetary policy that has resulted in massive price increases on almost everything while the government reports little or no inflation,

just to name a few of the liberal agenda pills we have been forced to swallow though the masses made clear they were opposed to the march toward Socialism. The historic election made it impossible to claim the American electorate supports Obama’s agenda. But now some Republicans are bending over backwards to show they can be good sports and let the liberal jackass party share the political spoils. WHY?!?!?

As a committed Conservative, my Christmas wish is for newly elected Republican Congressmen and Senators to link up with true conservatives like Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) and Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC), respectively, when they take their place on Capitol Hill next month. My wish is for these newly elected employees of the people stand firm on the conservative principles that won them their seats. My wish is for these new members of our legislative body to buck their RINO colleagues and refuse to appease liberals in compromises that fly-in-the-face of the conservative voters who elected them. My wish is for them to realize doing nothing is better than doing something wrong.

In sum, my wish is for our newly elected members in the US House and Senate remember who put them in office and VOTE CONSERVATIVE!


Tags: Christmas, Election 2010, Lame Duck, Congress, Republican, RINO, Democrat, Socialism, Conservatives, Conservatism, Liberal Agenda, Obama, Krauthammer, Bachmann, Demint, Compromise, Appeasement

To share or post to your site, please include the following line
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

December 23, 2010 Posted by | Conservatism | Leave a comment

Service members DO foresee negative impacts of DADT repeal

Last month the results of a Pentagon study on attitudes of service members’ attitudes toward repeal of the controversial Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy were released. The liberal media plastered headlines like “Pentagon study backs end to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’“. There’s little doubt such inferences went a long way to convincing a majority in Congress to vote this month to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the US military. But even a cursory look inside the study shows these claims to be badly biased liberal spin.

Though the Democrat led lame-duck Senate forced the final vote on the Saturday before Christmas, Harry Reid and others in the jackass party could not have hurdled a filibuster without a few Republican votes. “The Republicans who voted for repeal said the Pentagon study on gays and assurances from senior military leaders played a crucial role,” writes the Kansas City Star in its coverage of the historic vote. These Republicans apparently let the left-wing media read the study for them, because anyone with a secondary school reading level can see the previously mentioned headlines were nothing more than left-wing propaganda posing as news. Worse yet, three of the four Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed repeal. It’s quite apparent these mindless Republicans were perfectly willing to let liberal activists and Democrats in Congress do their thinking for them.

The working group conducting the study was also obviously stacked to finagle the findings so they could be twisted to end with the Democrats’ desired conclusion. The final report posted on the DOD website actually admits the following on page 49 of the online pdf:

“If the Working Group were to attempt to numerically divide the sentiments we heard expressed in IEFs, online inbox entries, focus groups, and confidential online communications between those who were for or against repeal of the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against repeal of the current policy. However, any such effort to divide the sentiments into one camp or another would not have any quantitative value, and would be highly misleading and flawed.”

*emphasis added

In other words, the data don’t support the conclusions we’re going to draw from this study! A look at some of the questions asked of respondents in the study makes obvious the need for the disclaimer above.

Question 68a: If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would it affect how Service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done?
  • Positively/Very Positively–18.4%
  • Negatively/Very Negatively–29.6%
Question 68b: If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would it affect how Service members in your immediate unit pull together to work as a team?
  • Positively/Very Positively–19.4%
  • Negatively/Very Negatively–29.5%
Question 68c: If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would it affect how Service members in your immediate unit trust each other?
  • Positively/Very Positively–18.1%
  • Negatively/Very Negatively–33.1%
Question 68d: If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would it affect how Service members in your immediate unit really care about each other?
  • Positively/Very Positively–18.1%
  • Negatively/Very Negatively–30.0%

On average, the number of Service members who believe repeal would negatively or very negatively impact how members in their unit get along and how well they can accomplish the mission is more than 50% higher than those who think repeal would have a positive or very positive impact.

The most glaring omissions in the left-wing media’s pie-in-the-sky claims that all will be hunky-dory if DADT is repealed are the responses of those members serving in the combat arms. If you’re unaware, only a small percentage of Service members in any branch have a job that actually places them on the front lines of the battlefield. Those jobs who do are considered members of the “combat arms.” Let’s look at a few of their responses:

Question 71: If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission in a field environment or out at sea?
  • Positively/Very Positively–11.4%
  • Negatively/Very Negatively–44.3%
Question 71: If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission when a crisis or negative event happens that affects your immediate unit?
  • Positively/Very Positively–12.5%
  • Negatively/Very Negatively–29.4%
Question 71: If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission in an intense combat situation?
  • Positively/Very Positively–12.4%
  • Negatively/Very Negatively–30.6%
NOTE: Question 71 was only asked of members who have been deployed into a combat environment since September 11, 2001.
Question 75b: If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit’s immediate readiness?
Army Combat Arms
  • Positively/Very Positively–5.2%
  • Negatively/Very Negatively–35.1%
Marine Combat Arms
  • Positively/Very Positively–3.5%
  • Negatively/Very Negatively–43.5%
Question 68a: If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect how Service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done?
Army Combat Arms
  • Positively/Very Positively–13.2%
  • Negatively/Very Negatively–47.5%
Marine Combat Arms
  • Positively/Very Positively–8.7%
  • Negatively/Very Negatively–57.5%

Those left-wing nut-jobs who inferred from this study there would be no negative impact on our armed forces are either lying or they’re complete idiots! The men and women serving on the front lines, standing between us and those who want to destroy us made it clear in their responses REPEAL WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACT.

I wonder if our worthless legislators even made any effort to read this study. I doubt it.


Tags: Combat Arms, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, DADT, Military, Gays, Combat, Marine Corps, Army, USMC, Democrat, Republican, War on Terror, DADT Working Group, DOD Study, DADT Study

To share or post to your site, please include the following line
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

December 20, 2010 Posted by | Military | 1 Comment

A veteran’s view on gays in military

This weekend may sound the death knell for the ban on gays serving openly in the US military. And if that death song is sung, it will be a detriment to the finest fighting force in the world.

Polling now shows a majority of Americans think it’s time to repeal the ban, but less than 10% of American citizens have ever served in the US armed forces. I served four years in the United States Marine Corps, in a unit that heralded itself as the “tip of the spear,” meaning we were the first to go in when Marines from our division were called. In two overseas deployments, our vehicles were always staged and ready to hit the beach when called. In my conversations with those who served before me, those who served with me, and those who served after me, I’ve come to know my views are not anomalous in the combat arms of the US military.

I’m not denying anyone, veteran or not, their right to an opinion on this matter, but I think the opinions of those of us who have served and are serving where the bullets fly and the blood splatters should carry a lot more weight than some protester on a corner at a college campus.

Those who want to repeal the ban often scream that an irrational fear or hatred of gays is the only reason anyone is against homosexuals serving openly. While I’m sure some of that exists, there are many other arguments to uphold the ban that any truly objective person can understand.

Let’s start with living quarters. Most people have never been in a position where they were forced to sleep or shower with someone they didn’t even know…unless they served in the military. In Marine Corps boot camp, everyone in a platoon showers together without stalls or privacy of any kind. The bathroom is one large room with toilets and urinals lining the walls, no stalls or privacy there. When I went through, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) wasn’t even policy. Homosexuals were banned from serving period. When we showered, it never crossed our minds that someone might be sexually stimulated because homosexuals were banned from serving.

In the field, we were assigned to sleep in the same tent with another Marine. We didn’t get to choose who we slept with, but we didn’t have to worry about the guy next to us being gay and coming on to us. On Navy ships, we slept inches apart in a room with 40 men. We dressed and changed without privacy, but we never had to worry about attracting the sexual attention of another man because gays were banned from serving. Our quarters on the airfield in Mogadishu, Somalia consisted of a plywood, one-room building. Forty men slept shoulder-to-shoulder on the floor.

For all of you who think because you have a gay person who works in your office and things work fine, you don’t live, sleep, and shower with them. So, if you would feel the least bit uncomfortable working with that person under the above described conditions, you’re a complete hypocrite if you still think gays in the military are a good idea.

The second big argument I’ll make deals with families. The military has become much more of a family friendly organization over the past couple of decades, but it’s still a job that comes with frequent long deployments. Time away is already hard enough on wives and children left at home, but at least they don’t have to worry about the guy daddy’s with being gay. Imagine the added stress this would put on a wife at home, wondering if her husband is relieving his sexual frustration with his gay foxhole-mate. Stress at home destroys morale for deployed servicemen, and morale is essential when serving in combat zones.

The last case I’ll discuss involves the mission. It’s understood that serving in a combat zone is an extremely dangerous situation ALL the time. Those who’ve never been there don’t understand what that really means. It means you have to be on your toes all the time, you have to be focused and attuned to what’s going on around you always. Danger lurks everywhere and letting down your guard for an instant can get you and your buddies killed. Any distractions are dangerous. But we’ve never had to worry about sexual attraction creating that distraction on the battlefield because gays can’t serve openly in the military. If two guys are getting it on instead of getting the job done, things are going to get really bad really quickly.

I can hear it already, supporters of repeal screaming that just because someone’s gay doesn’t mean they’re going to be coming on to everything around them. It doesn’t mean that people who aren’t gay will suddenly fall to the lure of sex with their gay buddy. Maybe not, but are you willing to bet our national security on it? Are you willing to bet the lives of servicemen who will die because of that distraction that you don’t think will materialize?

Though President Obama has managed to get political a Secretary of Defense and a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to support repeal of DADT, top generals in both the Army and Marines both oppose repeal. These branches bear the brunt of combat operations and their leaders understand the risks better than Washington bureaucrats, and generals who worry more over their own political futures than the welfare of their troops.

“My suspicions are that the law will be repealed” eventually, Marine Corps Commandant James Amos told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “All I’m asking is the opportunity to do that at a time and choosing when my Marines are not singularly tightly focused on what they’re doing in a very deadly environment.”

Today “Taps” will likely sound for the ban on gays serving openly in the military. And if it does, the finest fighting force in the world–the combat arms units of the US military–will irreparably suffer. But our politicians, including some Republicans, are more concerned with their own reelection prospects than the lives of those brave young men who serve in the combat arms.

May the blood of every young warrior who dies because of this policy shift forever torment the politically correct legislators and low-life, politically motivated military officers who blind themselves to the realities of the battlefield and support this bill.


Tags: Combat Arms, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, DADT, Military, Gays, Combat, Marine Corps, Army, USMC, Democrat, Republican, War on Terror

To share or post to your site, please include the following line
Hat Tip: America, You Asked For It!

Free: Subscribe by email

December 18, 2010 Posted by | Military | 2 Comments