RSS

Joshua S. Lawrence

11 Oct

United States Army Captain Joshua S. Lawrence became the 1,803rd U.S. casualty in Afghanistan on 8 Oct 2011 when he died of wounds sustained in a rocket-propelled grenade attack in Kandahar.

He was based with the 1st Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division out of Fort Carson, Colorado.

CPT Lawrence was from Davidson County, Tennessee; he was 29.

As news of his death spread on the Internet, classmate Stacey Shirley Old posted on Facebook, “Please be in prayer for the Lawrence family. Joshua was recently killed in Afghanistan. His mother, Judy found out this morning. He was recently married. He went to Rosebank Elementary and graduated from Hume-Fogg, class of 2000.”

Lawrence majored in Political Science at Austin Peay University.

Lawrence leaves behind a wife, his mother, a brother and a sister. No one was home at the family home in East Nashville Monday night.

Some of Joshua’s fraternity brothers have created a memory page on Facebook. You can find a link to that page here:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/In-Memory-of-Joshua-S-Lawrence/257412630969922

Lawrence had received the following awards during his time in the Army: Bronze Star Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and Korea Defense Service Medal.

 

 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 11, 2011 in War on Terror

 

Tags:

Latest 2012 Presidential Polls (11 Oct 11 Edition)

11 Oct

A WP/Bloomberg/PSRAI poll conducted from 06 – 09 Oct 11 shows that Mittens Romney is now firmly in the lead of the Republican Tea Party (GOTP) nominating circus.

The current WP/Bloomberg/PSRAI poll shows:

Mittens Romney 24; Herman “Pizza Man” Cain 16; Reverend Rick Perry 13; Ronny Paul 6; Michele “Krazy” Bachmann 4; Newter Gingrich 3; Ricky “The Ric” Santorum 1 and Jon “I can’t believe it’s not butter” Huntsman 0 …

So, Mittens is – it appears – firmly ensconced in the lead; “Herb” Cain still appears to be the “flavor of the week” while Perry is now plummeting of the scope; Paul, Krazy and Newter are floating in no-man’s land; Santorum is stuck in neutral and Huntsman’s campaign has stalled once again.

In Iowa, a new PPP (D) poll conducted from 07 – 10 Oct 11: Cain 30; Romney 22; Paul 10; Perry 9; Bachmann and Gingrich both 8; Santorum 5 and Huntsman 1…

There’s some movement in the middle of the pack, as a fresh New Hampshire poll from Harvard/Saint Anselm conducted from 2 – 6 Oct 11 indicates: Mittens 38; Cain 20; Paul 13; Gingrich 5; Perry and Huntsman 4; Bachman 3 while Santorum and Gary Johnson both have 1.

This week I’m adding polling concerning the South Carolina Primary – a poll conducted by Winthrop from 11 – 18 Sep 11 shows a very tight race up front: Perry 31; Romney 27; Cain 8; Gingrich 5; Bachmann and Paul 4; Huntsman and Santorum both 2.

According to a PPP (D) poll – conducted from 07 – 10 Oct 11, if the general election were held today:

President Obama 45/Romney 45

President Obama 49/Perry 40

President Obama 48/Cain 42

President Obama 50/Gingrich 39

President Obama 47/Paul 39

President Obama 50/Bachmann 38

For some strange reason Rasmussen Reports conducted a poll 2 – 3 Oct 11 to see how Santorum was doing:

President Obama 45/Santorum 34

Unfortunately for Huntsman, pollsters have decided it’s time to stick him with the proverbial  fork – because he’s done; of course, truth be told, so are Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Paul and Gingrich.

President Obama/Huntsman

If the GOTP nomination circus – and the general election – had both ended today, Mittens would now be the GOTP candidate, and he would have tied with President Obama.

However, there’s still (even more now than before) the reality that evangelicals are generally not going to vote for a Mormon; so, if Mittens wins the nomination it is probable that a large section of the GOTP base will likely vote for someone else (a third party candidate – like a Bachmann) or just stay home. Romney has a huge credibility issue due to some major flip-flops on issues, and his inability to know fact from fiction on national defense questions, or the so-called job creation while he was governor of Massachusetts – amongst other things …

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 11, 2011 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Romney lied to Cadets at The Citadel?

08 Oct

According to the Associated Press (AP) Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential candidate Willard Mitt Romney promised in his first major foreign policy speech to reverse “massive defense cuts” that haven’t happened, and he pledged to deploy missiles and ships that already are in place.

The AP reported Romney pledged, “As president, on day one, I will focus on rebuilding America’s economy and I will reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts. Time and again, we have seen that attempts to balance the budget by weakening our military only lead to a far higher price, not only in treasure, but in blood.” Mittens also has vowed to increase the size of the military by 100,000 troops, a move he says is needed to reduce the hardship of long and frequent deployments.

Unfortunately for Romney there have been no “massive defense cuts” under President Obama, although he has slowed the “projected” rate of increase and in April asked the Pentagon to identify an additional $400 billion in reductions over the next 12 years, he hasn’t “cut” a single penny from defense spending.

When President Obama was sworn in, the defense budget was $513 billion, not counting $153 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the budget year that ended 30 Sep 11, the figure was $530 billion, with an additional $159 billion to pay for the wars. So, as anyone can plainly see, there has been an increase in defense spending under President Obama, not some imaginary “cuts”; and for the current fiscal year (FY 12), the President has requested $553 billion for the defense budget, exclusive of war costs. But in a deal worked out by Congress and the White House as part of a deficit-reduction plan in August, he was forced to come down to $513 billion – I hope everyone was paying attention to who wanted to spend $553 billion and who forced it to go down to $513 billion; in case you missed it, it would be the Republican Tea Party controlled Congress – meaning the House of Representatives – who as any fifth grader knows, controls the federal purse strings.

So, Mittens could – I suppose – if he’s elected, force the GOTP controlled House to stop cutting defense; but to claim its President Obama is either to do so deliberately, as in a lie, or out of ignorance for the facts. Since Romney is not ignorant, it must be a deliberate lie.

As for troop numbers, the AP reported President Obama’s previous defense secretary, Robert Gates, put the Army and Marine Corps on a path to reducing troop numbers to adjust to the winding down of combat in Iraq and plans to reduce troops in Afghanistan. The Army is to drop from its current 569,000 to 547,000 by September 2013, and then to 520,000 by 2015. The Marines are to drop from 202,000 to a figure yet to be specified but in the neighborhood of 186,000 by 2015, the Marine Corps – not he President – has been advocating cuts to its size; traditionally it numbers around 175,000, and was only bumped up to its current size of 202,000 to address its long “Army-like” missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, by-the-by, when you end wars, you scale back on the number of troops, planes, ships, tanks, etc … just thought I’d mention that.

To add 100,000 soldiers to current troop strengths would be not just expensive, but very expensive and it’s not even remotely clear from Romney’s remarks what they would do, or how he would pay for them especially since he’s part of the “let’s not raise taxes” choir. Oh wait, I know, we’ll just cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and with 100,000 new troops we can, wait for it, invade Iran!

Mittens also pledged that within his first 100 days in office, he’d “reverse the hollowing of our Navy and announce an initiative to increase the shipbuilding rate from nine per year to 15. I will begin reversing Obama-era cuts to national missile defense and prioritize the full deployment of a multilayered national ballistic missile defense system. … I will enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region.”

Once again, Romney’s view of reality doesn’t measure up; the total number of ships in the Navy has been declining steadily since the 1980s. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the need for large numbers of warships has not been a priority when the military has been fighting small-scale wars with minimal combat at sea. Dating back well into the Bush/Cheney era the Navy has said it needs a minimum of 313 ships to perform its missions. It now has 284 ships, up from a low of 278 in 2007. Hold on now, that’s an increase from the previous President?

Despite Romney’s inference, there’s a full-time carrier presence in the Persian Gulf and has been pretty much since Desert Storm, but while there’s no full-time presence in the Mediterranean, carriers are frequently there for deployments in the Middle East.

So, let’s see; there’s been an increase in ships since President Obama took office; and we’ve had a commanding carrier presence in the Persian Gulf – that would be the area Iran uses incidentally – another couple of lie perhaps, or is Mittens ignorant of foreign affairs, in spite of trying to portray himself otherwise?

On the topic of national missile defense; Earth to Mittens, it’s already deployed and is being expanded, not cut. There are 30 ground-based interceptors based in Alaska and California, along with a network of radars and command and control stations to operate it. Additionally, there are 24 Navy Aegis ships with a missile defense capability already in service.

Mittens is clearly mistaken in all his assertions; the question now is, was he lying, or his he that woefully ignorant on national defense issues; unfortunately, I think it’s the former; it appears he’s deliberately trying to mislead voters; it’s bad enough to lie, worse yet is to lie about the Commander-in-Chief at a Military School in front of Cadets who will one day serve.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 8, 2011 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , ,

According to a Perry backer Romney’s in a ‘cult’ and isn’t a Christian

07 Oct

The Associated Press (AP) is reporting that a pastor who introduced Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential favorite Reverend Ricky Perry at a conservative gathering has said rival presidential candidate Mittens Romney is not a Christian and is in a cult because he’s a Mormon.

This is another reason why I’m not a Republican – I don’t like be associated with ignorance and intolerance.

Robert Jeffress, the so-called senior pastor at First Baptist Church in Dallas, is no stranger to showing his religious bigotry; as he made an identically imperceptive remark during the 2008 then GOP campaign.

Reportedly, the event organizers at the Values Voters Summit selected Jeffress to introduce Perry, but the Perry campaign was consulted about the choice and approved Jeffress to introduce the Texas governor.

So, Perry’s people obviously share the same lack of unprofessionalism and inability to vet people as Senator John McCain’s staff demonstrated – or do they? Perry’s steady slip in the polls coupled with Michele “Krazy” Bachmann’s push to make nice with evangelicals may have rattled the Texan’s cage enough that he’s ready to start playing the “Mormon” card.

Jeffress – whose comments about Romney clearly show him to be utterly unreliable in judging who is and who is not a Christian – endorsed Perry at the event and introduced him as “a proven leader, a true conservative, and a committed follower of Christ.”

After his remarks, Jeffress told reporters Perry’s religion is different from Romney’s.

“Rick Perry’s a Christian. He’s an evangelical Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ,” Jeffress said. “Mitt Romney’s a good moral person, but he’s not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. It has always been considered a cult by the mainstream of Christianity.”

“It has always been considered a cult by the mainstream of Christianity.”? Did you really just say that chuckles? Because if you did, clearly mainstream doesn’t mean the same thing to you that it does to, well, to mainstream.

I’m fairly confident Reverend Dullard was meaning the adjective definition of mainstream when he spoke, which is defined as, “belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style, etc…”

I’m equally confident that mainstream Christianity – meaning those Christians whose beliefs are not steeped in the ignorance of 19th century southern religious sophistries – know that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not only Christian, but devotedly so.

To his credit, Perry – and his campaign – attempted to say he disagrees with Jeffress.

Asked by reporters in Tiffin, Iowa, whether Mormonism is a cult, Perry replied, “No.”

Perry spokesman Mark Miner also said that “the governor does not believe Mormonism is a cult.”

While those comments are reassuring, the campaign refused to say whether it was accepting Pastor Dolt’s endorsement. “The governor is running a campaign of inclusion and looks forward to receiving the endorsement of many people,” Miner said. “People can endorse whoever they like.”

So, by that kind of logic, the Perry campaign will probably not be saying if they’d refuse the endorsements of other individuals or organizations? I’ll leave that up to the imagination of the reader what kind of individuals or groups might want to endorse someone of Perry’s character and background.

Jeffress – who has also said “… the deep, dark, dirty secret of Islam: It is a religion that promotes pedophilia – sex with children. This so-called prophet Muhammad raped a 9-year-old girl – had sex with her”; and who put businesses on a “Naughty or Nice List” based upon the depth to which they celebrated Christmas – said in a 2007 sermon that “Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. Even though he talks about Jesus as his lord and savior, he is not a Christian.

“Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult. And just because somebody talks about Jesus does not make them a believer.”

Reportedly, in that sermon, Jeffress said he was frustrated that some religious leaders had backed Romney anyway. “What really distresses me is some of my ministerial friends, and even leaders in our convention, say, `Well, he talks about Jesus, we talk about Jesus, what’s the big deal?’ It is a big deal.”

The AP said Perry’s campaign initially said the decision to have Jeffress introduce Perry had been made strictly by organizers, but a Perry spokesman later backtracked and said the campaign had agreed to it.

“It was their suggestion; it was their choice of who introduced us. They asked our campaign what we thought, and we said OK,” Miner said.

The AP also reported that Jeffress is a prominent religious leader in Texas, and that Perry specifically recognized Jeffress by name during his speech at a dinner for the Light of Life dinner and gala in Dallas.

Perry and Reverend Pudden-head are clearly known associates; the campaign knew what he thought about Romney – their disavowals aside – and they used the opportunity to score much needed points with the uber-conservative evangelical wing of the Tea Party. Romney may eventually win the nomination, by the slightest of margins, but it is very doubtful that the evangelical block will ever vote for him. And while they won’t vote for the President either; they’ll probably just stay home.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on October 7, 2011 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Benjamin Whetstone Schmidt

07 Oct

A Marine Corps sniper from San Antonio, the son of a former newspaper columnist and the team doctor for the Spurs, died Thursday in Afghanistan.

Lance Cpl. Benjamin Whetstone Schmidt, 24, who died on the eve of today’s 10th anniversary of the start of the Afghan war, was the son of Becky Whetstone and Dr. David Schmidt, team physician for the Spurs.

Whetstone described her son, who attended Alamo Heights High School, and played football there, as a charismatic, charming young man who hoped to complete his military service in May.

“The sky was the limit for this man. He was special,” said Whetstone, a former advice columnist for the San Antonio Express-News and former wife of U.S. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez.

No official details of his death were available, but Schmidt died from a gunshot wound to the head, his mother said.

He’d done a four-month tour of Afghanistan about two years ago, and started his second deployment in early September.

He was in his fourth year with the Marines, and hoped to start a new life, possibly going into politics, she said. He loved history and also considered becoming a professor of military history.

“At first, he had a passion for the military. But over time, he decided he didn’t like it, and didn’t like the policies of the war,” his mother said. “He had never been interested in politics before, but that changed in Afghanistan.”

Schmidt had fallen in love for the first time with a “beautiful young lady” in California, she said, speaking by phone from her hometown of Little Rock, Ark., where she was surrounded by family members late Thursday.

“We’re all crushed tonight,” Whetstone said. “I’m trying to wrap my head around all of this.”

Besides his parents, Schmidt’s immediate family included a sister, Casey, 21.

His mother said Schmidt, the 21st San Antonian to die serving in Afghanistan since 2001, wanted to be buried at Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery.

“We talked long about those kinds of things before he left,” she said.

Schmidt was the 1,802nd United States casualty in Afghanistan since we invaded in 2001
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 7, 2011 in War on Terror

 

Tags:

O’Reilly Decries Use of “Nazis in Analogies” — But He Uses Them All the Time?

07 Oct

Media Matters is pointing out typical FOX PAC hypocrisy after Bill O’Reilly discussed the recent uproar over Hank Williams Jr. invoking Adolf Hitler while criticizing President Obama; O’Reilly said that it’s “always bad to use Nazis in analogies.” But O’Reilly himself has a long history of using Nazi analogies.

“He was trying to make an analogy, and [it’s] always bad to use Nazis in analogies — you don’t do this. And he basically said, look, if you get guys together like President Obama and Speaker [John] Boehner it’d be like Hitler playing golf with [Benjamin] Netanyahu,” he said.

“I’m of two minds. It’s dumb to bring Hitler up, you’re absolutely right. Can’t do that in this PC society. But what he said, it isn’t — he isn’t comparing Obama to Hitler. He’s comparing the situation, the strange bedfellows. He’s not saying Obama’s Hitler. Williams isn’t saying that. I mean, I’m just trying to be fair here, OK. But it doesn’t matter, I guess.”

OK, whatever Bill; the only man Williams could find to use in his analogy was Adolph Hitler? No, he meant to compare the President to Hitler, this isn’t some “honest mistake” it was a white red neck comparing the first Black President to the Nazi Dictator.

But even though O’Reilly claims using Nazi analogies is not smart he’s done it a number of times.

On his 2 Mar 2010 program O’Reilly claimed that liberals who support gun control are “today’s totalitarians.” He added that in the past, people like “Hitler and Mussolini” held such positions in favor of “state control.”

In his 16 Jul 2009, syndicated column, O’Reilly wrote, “The far left is trying to create a huge federal apparatus that will promote income redistribution and ‘social justice.’ Also, the left sees a major opportunity to knock out Judeo-Christian traditions, replacing them with a secular philosophy.

“In order to accomplish this, the left-wing media is marginalizing people like Sarah Palin who oppose the strategy. Under the guise of hard news reporting, the media is pushing rank propaganda on the citizenry. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, successfully developed this tactic in the 1930’s.”

On his 10 Mar 2008 program O’Reilly said, “And I said that these tactics that are being used on this website, The Huffington Post, are the same exact tactics that the Nazis used in the late ’20s and early ’30s to demonize certain groups of people, so it would become easier for them, the Nazis, when they took power, to hurt those people.”

On his 27 Feb 2008 program O’Reilly said, “I don’t see any difference between [Arianna] Huffington and the Nazis. … I don’t see any difference.”

On his 16 Jul 2007 program he said that the Daily Kos is “like the Ku Klux Klan. It’s like the Nazi party. There’s no difference here.”

So, oh yes, it’s “always bad to use Nazis in analogies” unless of course you’re Bill O’Reilly.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 7, 2011 in FOX PAC

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

On taxes, Reagan and Obama would be tight …

06 Oct

Isn’t it interesting that the same Arthur (aka Art) Laffer, the former Reagan economic underling, who is now making a splash on FOX PAC interviews crying “TAX CUTS FOR ALL, TAX CUTS FOR ALL!” wrote in June 2004 – for the Heritage Foundation no less – that as a result of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) and other tax acts (meaning increases) in the 1980s, the top 10% were paying 57.2% of total income taxes by 1988 – up from 48% in 1981 … Why, that looks like a tax increase on the top tax bracket under Ronald Reagan, creating more tax revenue and stimulating the economy … and wow, President Obama has proposed increasing taxes on the top echelon of earners just like Reagan did to create more tax revenue and to help stimulate the economy, and yes Virginia, that would mean not only that there is a Santa Clause, but that the rich would be paying a higher percentage of total income taxes.

Additionally, a report from the Joint Economic Committee in 1996 found that the bottom 50% of earners share dropped from 7.5% to 5.7% from 1981 to 1988, and that the total share of taxes on middle income earners in the 50th to 95th percentile decreased from 57.5% to 48.7% between 1981 and 1988 … now that’s just amazing, the President’s jobs bill would reduce payroll taxes on both workers and employers, extend long-term unemployment benefits and invest in public works and teachers, police officers and other public servants – in effect reducing the tax burden of the lower and middle class, gee, just like Reagan did.

So, just to recap, from 1981 to 1988 we see an increase on taxes during Reagan’s presidency on the upper percent of earners (the top 5% to be exact) aka the fabulously wealthy so-called job creators, while at the same time tax rates were cut for the middle class and lower income classes and the economy grew right along with tax revenues helping the country out of a devastating economy … curse those darned facts!

 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 6, 2011 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Trading Places

06 Oct

 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 6, 2011 in Humor

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Reagan would have supported President’s jobs bill?

06 Oct


CBS News is reporting that President Obama has said that former President Ronald Reagan would have supported his plan to raise taxes on Americans who make more than $1 million per year, known as the “Buffett rule,” and to back up his statement he quoted the Gipper from a 1985 statement saying, “Some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. It’s time we stopped it.”

And, oh surprise, just as the President Obama noted, Republicans never accused Reagan of being a “socialist” for wanting a bus driver to pay lower tax rates than a millionaire.

The President also mocked Republican Tea Party (GOTP) claims that his effort to pass the Buffett Rule — which would establish a minimum tax rate for those making more than $1 million per year in order to ensure they pay as much in taxes as lower-income individuals — amounted to “class warfare.”

“I know a lot of folks have short memories, but I don’t remember Republicans accusing Ronald Reagan of being a socialist or engaging in class warfare because he thought everybody should do their fair share. Things have just gotten out of whack,” he said.

Isn’t it amazing how it’s not class warfare when we lower the tax brackets for the wealthiest 2% while advocating cuts to the poor and needy?

The President quoted Reagan once again during remarks at Eastfield College later in the day in which he called on Republicans to pass his $447 billion jobs bill, which he sent to Congress last month. He noted in that speech that Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor has vowed not to let the jobs bill come up for a vote.

“Well I’d like Mr. Cantor to come down here to Dallas and explain what exactly in this jobs bill does he not believe in,” he said. “…Does he not believe in rebuilding America’s roads and bridges? Does he not believe in tax breaks for small businesses, or efforts to help our veterans?”

He went on to urge Cantor to “put this jobs bill up for a vote so that the entire country knows exactly where every Member of Congress stands.”

“Do your job, Congress!” he added.

Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring responded to the comments by saying that “President Obama needs to understand that his ‘my way or the highway’ approach simply isn’t going to work in the House or the Democratic Senate, especially in light of his abysmal record on jobs.”

Ah yes, of course, the “my way or highway” tactic is the expressed copyrighted property of the GOTP House and the President isn’t allowed to use it. Well Brad, he just did, and the GOTP is going to have to put up or shut up. Vote it down and stand by it if you think it’s that bad of a bill; oh, and if I were a spokesman for a GOTP member of Congress right now, mentioning abysmal job performance is probably not the way to go, especially when you schmucks ran on the promise of creating jobs in 2010.

GOTP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has reportedly called for an immediate vote on the bill in an effort to show it doesn’t have the unified support of Democrats, but Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid objected to bringing up the proposal, offering Republicans the chance to formally move to a debate on the bill; they declined the offer.

Well sure they declined the offer; they don’t want to go on record for actually opposing the creation of jobs.

The President’s bill would reduce payroll taxes on both workers and employers, extend long-term unemployment benefits and invest in public works and teachers, police officers and other public servants. It would be paid for through the tax increase on high earners and the closing of some corporate tax loopholes.

And what’s to argue here? Ah yes, I forgot, Darth McConnell has sworn an oath to the Dark Lord to make sure President Obama only has one term, and Cantor is a frightened little rabbit who likes to make a loud noise from his hutch but lacks the courage of his convictions to go on the record voting against it. Guess what boys? You’re already on the record opposing jobs, and it will come back to bite you in the butt come November 2012.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 6, 2011 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Why I’m a Democrat

06 Oct

Yesterday I posted why I wasn’t a Republican, and one of my sons commented I should likewise explain why I’m a Democrat; so, here are my reasons – and I firmly believe this list will grow, and is not static, just as I believe my reasons for not being a Republican will no doubt continue to evolve.

I’m a Democrat because, as a soldier, I believe that – in the words of General MacArthur – “the soldier above all others prays for peace”; that’s not to say I don’t believe my country should never go to war, it means that war should always be – for the United States of America – the absolute last resort, and never so-called “preemptive”; however, that if attacked we should declare war against our enemies and strike hard and resolutely, united with clear goals and with a firm determination to fight and to win quickly and decisively, and then – and only then – we should spend our resources – our treasure – to rebuild the would be enemy that they would become our friend. We – as a nation must not use war to settle personal vendettas, and our young men and women must never be sent into decades long struggles because our leadership wants to do things on the cheap.

I’m a Democrat because I believe once we’ve sent the soldier, marine sailor and airmen into harm’s way it’s our moral responsibility to bind their wounds – both seen and unseen – and to ensure they receive a good education and the training needed to transition into the peace they’ve fought so hard to achieve.

I’m a Democrat because I believe words have meanings and that “ALL men ARE endowed with certain inalienable RIGHTS” not just Americans, but ALL men, including the enemy who is now my prisoner.

I’m a Democrat because I believe torture – no matter how you dress it up – is not just morally wrong, and beneath any American sworn to protect and defend our Constitution, but that it’s a violation of my country’s laws and international law;

I’m a Democrat because I believe once you’ve signed international agreements – such as the Geneva Conventions – you’re honor bound to uphold them, not just when it’s easy, but when your life and liberties may depend on it.

I’m a Democrat because I believe life’s a gift given by my creator, and that while execution may be justified for murder it’s not something we cheer. The death row inmate may have given up his freedom when he committed his crime, but his death is as tragic as the death of his victim because it signifies the end of his ability to repent and change his life. I believe the inmate should be executed only after we’re sure “beyond a shadow of a doubt” she’s guilty of the crime; if there’s doubt then she should be held for life. Saying “oops” after the fact doesn’t help the innocent man charged with the crime he didn’t commit.

I’m a Democrat because I believe the woman has the right to choose and not the state.

I’m a Democrat because I believe the woman has the right to choose because it’s her life and not the state’s; she’s the one who must live with the decision and not the government. I believe a woman has a right to choose, and that the real issue is that in 21st century America we have unwanted pregnancy at all; with all the many ways of preventing pregnancy no woman in America should become pregnant unless she chooses to. Rape, incest and the woman’s health are all absolute times when the woman should choose, not the man, and certainly not the government.

I’m a Democrat because while I believe abortion for the sake of convenience is morally wrong, if you’re going to give my wife, sisters, daughters and friends the choice of all or none, then I must morally support all. It’s the woman’s choice, not the government’s choice.

I’m a Democrat because I believe it’s morally wrong that in 21st century America anyone within our borders should be unable to receive preventative health care.

I’m a Democrat because I believe it costs the tax payer more to treat visits to the ER than it does to thwart the illness in the first place.

I’m a Democrat because I believe it’s morally wrong to talk about the evils of bank bailouts while simultaneously propping up the health insurance industry even as my fellow Americans suffer in needless agony and die at the same time health insurance corporations make obscene profits and its CEOs receive bonuses.

I’m a Democrat because I believe medicine should be practiced “to first do no harm” and not to first get rich.

I’m a Democrat because I believe the words spoken concerning the man who fell among thieves along the road to Jericho, and that while we should each be responsible for our lives and our decisions there are times when we all need help and that if no one else can – or will – help it is the moral obligation of a government to ensure its citizens are not without medical care. Who serves his country best is the man who is still alive, not the man in the grave.

I’m a Democrat because I believe that while it’s the parent’s responsibility to teach their children right from wrong it’s the government’s responsibility to educate them; and that our nation will only remain free if we have an educated and literate populace, and that it’s in “We” the people’s best interest to ensure that not only our children but that our neighbor’s children receives the very best free and public education, because I believe my taxes go to educate the future soldier, fireman, police officer, doctor, diplomat or president who will one day influence – and possibly save – my life or the lives of my friends and loved ones.

I’m a Democrat because I believe the ADA, IDEA and Title IX are not only necessary but are vitally essential in ensuring equality in education.

I’m a Democrat because I believe you balance a budget through limiting spending and through increased revenue and that those who have achieved the most wealth because of a free and independent America should pay the most back for what they’ve received; I believe “because I have been given much I too must give” speaks of more than giving alms and tithes, and that even the Son of God rendered unto Caesar what was Caesar’s.

I’m a Democrat because I believe it’s the government’s responsibility to pave roads, build bridges, direct air traffic, build dams and levees, patrol our streets, rescue the injured, extinguish the fires, ensure our water and air are the purest possible, ensure our food is safe, ensure our children’s toys are safe and free from poisons, ensure our drugs are safe; including regulating and punishing those who would place the general public’s health and well-being at risk.

I’m a Democrat because I believe it’s the government’s job to assist those who no one else is willing to assist; that we have many millions who are in need of warm clothing, a roof over their head and good and nutritious food in their belly, and that it’s morally wrong to see want and to turn a blind eye because we think the person has reaped their reward.

I’m a Democrat because I believe people are people and corporations are corporations; that free speech is guaranteed to “We the people” and not to “Those the corporations”; that words are what constitutes “free speech” and that money is what constitutes a bank account.

I’m a Democrat because I believe there’s an absolute separation between Church and State, and that no one religion should, or ought to, decide what my country does, or does not, believe in; that there’s good in many faiths and that “out of many we are one”.

I’m a Democrat because I believe the right to choose – to be a free agent – is sacred, and that it’s the right of “We the people” to choose who our spouse, partner or companion may be and not the right of the Government to do so; but that it’s also the right of a Church to decide who it’s officials may or may not “join in holy matrimony”.

I’m a Democrat because I believe in that same strong Federal government Lincoln spoke eloquently of so long ago, that was “of the people, by the people and for the people” which is responsible for establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, as guided by “We the people”; and that words like “state’s rights”, which are so glibly thrown about today, are still – in reality – nothing more than cleverly couched expressions for treason and anarchy.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 6, 2011 in Politics

 

Tags: , , , , ,

← Older posts
Newer posts →