I submitted this to the opinion desk so whether they publish it or not, here you go!
Over the past few days, everyone from Adolf Hitler to Sarah Palin (although, to some people, there is no difference between the two) has been blamed for the horrific shooting in Arizona. Reports say that the suspect, Jared Laughner’s, Myspace page cited Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifest as his favorite books (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31967). How can one be both a Nazi (state control) AND A Communist (control by the people)? But I digress
However, the Tea Party, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck have also been cited as influences on the suspect. That their “vitriolic” and “violent” messages drove the suspect to kill a democrat to “take his country back.” This paper even furthered this line of thinking in an opinion piece run Monday that featured quotes by only conservative people, some of which, I know for a fact (since I heard them said) were either sarcastic or in jest.
Let’s stop and look at this for a minute. The suspected shooter was a devoted Tea Party member, loved Hitler, and was a communist? Now, I’m no political science major, but a few of those ideals seem diametrically opposed to each other.
So I propose a third person to blame: the person who actually carried out the attack? How about we blame the man who bought the gun and pulled the trigger? I know this concept of personal responsibility is completely foreign to Americans (I mean, it’s not like our founders based our government on it or anything), but we should use this idea.
I listen to Beck and Palin on an almost daily basis, and somehow I’ve never felt motivated by these people to go on a killing spree. I’ve read The Communist Manifesto and watched MSNBC, and yet those views have not caused me to attempt violent overthrow of the government.
So instead of blaming everyone else for this tragedy, let’s blame the person who actually committed it. Yes, he may have been a troubled young man, and all of these ideals may have influenced him, but only the shooter is actually responsible for his actions.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Long Time, No See
Yes, it's been a while since I blogged here. To be honest, I've become a bit politically cynical lately. I've been so busy "being a journalist" in classes that I've distanced myself from politics. However, a few things have happened lately to start to bring me out of that attitude.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed- most people don't realize that this policy was not made to keep gays out of the military. It is supposed to apply to all people. Neither straight nor gay soldiers are supposed to talk about their sex lives. However, as a passionate advocate for gay rights, I am thrilled that all people who want to serve their country now can do so. There is no greater honor than fighting for one's country, and now every American has the opportunity to do so.
9-11 First Reponders Bill- This is both an example of why I love and hate politics. In Washington, people can't just vote on something on its own merits. Everything has to be bundled with other things so people have to vote for stuff they don't like in order to pass stuff they do like. Originally, the 9-11 responders bill was bundled in a larger defense bill which failed. However, it was later voted on on its own, and passed. It seems to be that a lot mroe would get done if things were voted on individually instead of in a lump. However, I am glad this bill passed. Those who responded on 9-11 are nothing short of heroes, and should have all medical ailemnts they got from responding taken care of.
The 112th Congress begins with the reading of the Constitution- how cool is this? The House of Representatives today read the entire Constitution of the United States, from start to finish, to start the new legislative session. Unfortunately, very few representatives were in the house chaimber for the reading. It only took a little over an hour people! And you couldn't sit through that? I know it's hard, actually having to listen to the rules of your job, but I have to do it, why shouldn't they? I applaud the house leadership for taking the step, though.
My application to Mercury Radio Arts- Yes, yesterday I sent my cover letter and resume to Mercury Radio Arts- Glenn Beck's company. It would be way more fun than spending the next three years in law school :)
Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed- most people don't realize that this policy was not made to keep gays out of the military. It is supposed to apply to all people. Neither straight nor gay soldiers are supposed to talk about their sex lives. However, as a passionate advocate for gay rights, I am thrilled that all people who want to serve their country now can do so. There is no greater honor than fighting for one's country, and now every American has the opportunity to do so.
9-11 First Reponders Bill- This is both an example of why I love and hate politics. In Washington, people can't just vote on something on its own merits. Everything has to be bundled with other things so people have to vote for stuff they don't like in order to pass stuff they do like. Originally, the 9-11 responders bill was bundled in a larger defense bill which failed. However, it was later voted on on its own, and passed. It seems to be that a lot mroe would get done if things were voted on individually instead of in a lump. However, I am glad this bill passed. Those who responded on 9-11 are nothing short of heroes, and should have all medical ailemnts they got from responding taken care of.
The 112th Congress begins with the reading of the Constitution- how cool is this? The House of Representatives today read the entire Constitution of the United States, from start to finish, to start the new legislative session. Unfortunately, very few representatives were in the house chaimber for the reading. It only took a little over an hour people! And you couldn't sit through that? I know it's hard, actually having to listen to the rules of your job, but I have to do it, why shouldn't they? I applaud the house leadership for taking the step, though.
My application to Mercury Radio Arts- Yes, yesterday I sent my cover letter and resume to Mercury Radio Arts- Glenn Beck's company. It would be way more fun than spending the next three years in law school :)
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The NAACP and the Tea Party
Last night, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a resolution against the "racist elements" of the Tea Party movement. NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous said in a written statement that they have no problem with the organization itself, just its tolerance for racism and bigotry.
This comes on the heels of a billboard in Iowa created by a local tea party group which pictured Adolf Hitler, Barack Obama, and Vladamir Lenin, with the words "Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive" underneath. The group admitted that in hindsight, the billboard did not accurately portray the message they were going for, and other tea party groups have voiced their disagreement with the billboard.
Where both the NAACP and the Iowa incident get it wrong, is that the tea party is not a national organization. It is a conglomeration of local groups who believe in a common cause. There is no national organizing structure or leader, nor is there a set code of conduct or platform. Yes, there have been groups who have claimed to be in charge and who have organized tea party conventions and conferences, but they are mistaken. It is a grassroots movement.
And that is the point of the tea party- people who get together on their own because they share a concern and love of their country. I have attended three tea party events in two cities and interviewed dozens of tea party members. I have seen everyone form grandparents to toddlers at the events. I have even interviewed tea party opponents and protestors. And in no instance on either side have I seen any act of violence, bigotry or racism. Yes, there may be individuals with those beliefs in the tea party, but that is not the point of the group. The group is about opposing out of control government spending and the overreach of government authority, not about bashing blacks or gays. If it was, I would not call myself a member of the organization.
Yes, I consider myself a member of the tea party. I also consider myself a libertarian, and supporter of gay rights. But i consider myself first and foremost a journalist. I have never attended a tea party event as a participant, only as a reporter. I do not support the actions of the group in Iowa, nor do I believe it can or should represent the group as a whole. Maybe those who claim to know what the group is about and how dangerous and racist it is should attend a meeting, rally, or simply do some research.
This comes on the heels of a billboard in Iowa created by a local tea party group which pictured Adolf Hitler, Barack Obama, and Vladamir Lenin, with the words "Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive" underneath. The group admitted that in hindsight, the billboard did not accurately portray the message they were going for, and other tea party groups have voiced their disagreement with the billboard.
Where both the NAACP and the Iowa incident get it wrong, is that the tea party is not a national organization. It is a conglomeration of local groups who believe in a common cause. There is no national organizing structure or leader, nor is there a set code of conduct or platform. Yes, there have been groups who have claimed to be in charge and who have organized tea party conventions and conferences, but they are mistaken. It is a grassroots movement.
And that is the point of the tea party- people who get together on their own because they share a concern and love of their country. I have attended three tea party events in two cities and interviewed dozens of tea party members. I have seen everyone form grandparents to toddlers at the events. I have even interviewed tea party opponents and protestors. And in no instance on either side have I seen any act of violence, bigotry or racism. Yes, there may be individuals with those beliefs in the tea party, but that is not the point of the group. The group is about opposing out of control government spending and the overreach of government authority, not about bashing blacks or gays. If it was, I would not call myself a member of the organization.
Yes, I consider myself a member of the tea party. I also consider myself a libertarian, and supporter of gay rights. But i consider myself first and foremost a journalist. I have never attended a tea party event as a participant, only as a reporter. I do not support the actions of the group in Iowa, nor do I believe it can or should represent the group as a whole. Maybe those who claim to know what the group is about and how dangerous and racist it is should attend a meeting, rally, or simply do some research.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
15 States Sue Over Health Care Law
15 States Sue Over Health Care Law
By: Ashley Freije
Within minutes of President Obama singing the health care bill into law, 13 states filed a joint lawsuit against the government, claiming the law was unconstitutional.
The attorney generals of Florida, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, and South Dakota filed suit against the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services. In their suit, they claim that the health care legislation violates numerous articles of the Constitution. Indiana and Virginia have also filed their own lawsuits.
The suits claim that the new law infringes on states rights, by indirectly dictating how states must allocate funds. The new law cuts federal funding for Medicaid. However, coverage must remain the same, so states are responsible for funding the difference. This, the lawsuit argues, is the government taking control of state budgets, which violates state sovereignty.
The tax on individuals who do not have health insurance, the states argue, violates Section 9 of Article 1, which says that the Congress can levy no direct tax. The states also claim that the law violates individual liberties, and that the Constitution does not allow the government to mandate that people have health coverage, or buy any product.
It will take some time, however, to see how these lawsuits play out. According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, in an interview with Newsmax magazine, that lawsuits such as this take about four years to work their way to the supreme court. Napolitano believes the new law is equivalent to “commandeering” state legislatures. He says that the Supreme Court has already ruled that areas of human behavior that are not delegated specifically to the federal government fall under state jurisdiction.
The best case that states have in a lawsuit seems to be that the Constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally. With the “Louisiana purchase” and “cornhusker kickback” for Nebraska, the law does not treat these states and their citizens the same as all of the other people in America. While the Nebraska deal was removed in the reconciliation bill, Tennessee and North Dakota received deals in the same bill.
The White House has not remained silent on the lawsuits. They cited two Supreme Court decisions in their support for the constitutionality of the bill. In US. V Southeastern Underwriters Association (1944), the Court rules the Sherman Anti-trust act applies to insurance companies. And in Gonzales v Raich (2005) the Court said that Congress could ban the use of cannabis, even where states had approved its use for medical use. These cases, the White House argues, show a precedent for government involvement both in the area of insurance, and in state issues.
However, the White House fails to note that Congress itself went against the Southeastern decision. In the decision, the Court said that it was not up to them to decide if Congress should mandate insurance, and that the Court would go along with whatever Congress decided. In 1945 Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This act exempted insurance companies from most federal regulations, as long as states regulate the industry. It also says that federal acts that do not explicitly seek to regulate insurance cannot supersede state acts. The health care bill seeks to change health care, not regulate insurance. Under this act, whatever regulations are to be put on insurance in the bill are a violation of Congress’s own laws.
While the states suing the government do have a solid case, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn the law. With two elections likely before the court even hears the case, there is a stronger chance for the law to be repealed than overturned by the Court.
By: Ashley Freije
Within minutes of President Obama singing the health care bill into law, 13 states filed a joint lawsuit against the government, claiming the law was unconstitutional.
The attorney generals of Florida, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, and South Dakota filed suit against the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services. In their suit, they claim that the health care legislation violates numerous articles of the Constitution. Indiana and Virginia have also filed their own lawsuits.
The suits claim that the new law infringes on states rights, by indirectly dictating how states must allocate funds. The new law cuts federal funding for Medicaid. However, coverage must remain the same, so states are responsible for funding the difference. This, the lawsuit argues, is the government taking control of state budgets, which violates state sovereignty.
The tax on individuals who do not have health insurance, the states argue, violates Section 9 of Article 1, which says that the Congress can levy no direct tax. The states also claim that the law violates individual liberties, and that the Constitution does not allow the government to mandate that people have health coverage, or buy any product.
It will take some time, however, to see how these lawsuits play out. According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, in an interview with Newsmax magazine, that lawsuits such as this take about four years to work their way to the supreme court. Napolitano believes the new law is equivalent to “commandeering” state legislatures. He says that the Supreme Court has already ruled that areas of human behavior that are not delegated specifically to the federal government fall under state jurisdiction.
The best case that states have in a lawsuit seems to be that the Constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally. With the “Louisiana purchase” and “cornhusker kickback” for Nebraska, the law does not treat these states and their citizens the same as all of the other people in America. While the Nebraska deal was removed in the reconciliation bill, Tennessee and North Dakota received deals in the same bill.
The White House has not remained silent on the lawsuits. They cited two Supreme Court decisions in their support for the constitutionality of the bill. In US. V Southeastern Underwriters Association (1944), the Court rules the Sherman Anti-trust act applies to insurance companies. And in Gonzales v Raich (2005) the Court said that Congress could ban the use of cannabis, even where states had approved its use for medical use. These cases, the White House argues, show a precedent for government involvement both in the area of insurance, and in state issues.
However, the White House fails to note that Congress itself went against the Southeastern decision. In the decision, the Court said that it was not up to them to decide if Congress should mandate insurance, and that the Court would go along with whatever Congress decided. In 1945 Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act. This act exempted insurance companies from most federal regulations, as long as states regulate the industry. It also says that federal acts that do not explicitly seek to regulate insurance cannot supersede state acts. The health care bill seeks to change health care, not regulate insurance. Under this act, whatever regulations are to be put on insurance in the bill are a violation of Congress’s own laws.
While the states suing the government do have a solid case, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn the law. With two elections likely before the court even hears the case, there is a stronger chance for the law to be repealed than overturned by the Court.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Time to Be Counted
Time to Be Counted
By Ashley Freije
It is hard to go to the bathroom on campus without seeing a flyer for the 2010 census on the inside of the front door.
After a controversial pre-census survey last fall, asking questions such as how much time a person spends driving to work or how many times they flush their toilet, the official 2010 census will arrive in mailboxes in mid-March.
The Constitution requires a count of all people in the nation every ten years, in order to get a count of how many people live in the country, and to reevaluate how many representatives every state receives in the House of Representatives. The results of the census also lead to redrawing congressional districts, and determine how money is distributed among districts.
With such high stakes on the line, districts make huge efforts to make sure every resident in their area completes the census, and Bloomington is no exception. Count Us IN is a campus effort to get out the word about the 2010 census, and what students need to do. According to the group’s video, students living on campus or in Bloomington should fill out their census in Bloomington, as it is their “usual residence.” Even international students, according to the video, should fill out a census in Bloomington.
Some, however, do not think this is correct. According to IU senior Courtney Flannery, “I think that counting students with college as their main residence is a disservice to the students home communities.”
Flannery says that she does not want tax dollars going to Bloomington due to her being counted on the census, as she will only be living in the city for a few more months. She says other students she knows feel the same. She also disagrees with Count Us IN’s claim that international students should fill out a census, saying she does not feel non-citizens should be counted on the census.
She also says she does not want to be counted twice by filling out the census in Bloomington. Question 10 on the census form asks if any member of the house sometimes lives elsewhere, including the option of “college housing.” If a student’s parent fills them out on their census, and they fill out their own, Flannery worries she and others will be counted twice on the census, giving inaccurate population figures.
The government is not taking the census lightly. It bought a $3.5 million ad during the Super Bowl to advertize the census with several Hollywood actors, and nationwide campaigns to raise awareness for the census before questionnaires arrive in mailboxes in mid-March.
The census will become even more important next year when redistricting occurs, and candidates prepare for reelection. Districts may have completely different make-ups, or may be lost and given to more populous states.
Those who chose not to fill out their forms and turn them in face the possibility of a census worker coming to their door, and a $5000 fine. While there are other questions on the survey, all have been deemed “necessary and proper” to governance. The official census day is April 1. For more information visit census.gov or 2010census.gov
By Ashley Freije
It is hard to go to the bathroom on campus without seeing a flyer for the 2010 census on the inside of the front door.
After a controversial pre-census survey last fall, asking questions such as how much time a person spends driving to work or how many times they flush their toilet, the official 2010 census will arrive in mailboxes in mid-March.
The Constitution requires a count of all people in the nation every ten years, in order to get a count of how many people live in the country, and to reevaluate how many representatives every state receives in the House of Representatives. The results of the census also lead to redrawing congressional districts, and determine how money is distributed among districts.
With such high stakes on the line, districts make huge efforts to make sure every resident in their area completes the census, and Bloomington is no exception. Count Us IN is a campus effort to get out the word about the 2010 census, and what students need to do. According to the group’s video, students living on campus or in Bloomington should fill out their census in Bloomington, as it is their “usual residence.” Even international students, according to the video, should fill out a census in Bloomington.
Some, however, do not think this is correct. According to IU senior Courtney Flannery, “I think that counting students with college as their main residence is a disservice to the students home communities.”
Flannery says that she does not want tax dollars going to Bloomington due to her being counted on the census, as she will only be living in the city for a few more months. She says other students she knows feel the same. She also disagrees with Count Us IN’s claim that international students should fill out a census, saying she does not feel non-citizens should be counted on the census.
She also says she does not want to be counted twice by filling out the census in Bloomington. Question 10 on the census form asks if any member of the house sometimes lives elsewhere, including the option of “college housing.” If a student’s parent fills them out on their census, and they fill out their own, Flannery worries she and others will be counted twice on the census, giving inaccurate population figures.
The government is not taking the census lightly. It bought a $3.5 million ad during the Super Bowl to advertize the census with several Hollywood actors, and nationwide campaigns to raise awareness for the census before questionnaires arrive in mailboxes in mid-March.
The census will become even more important next year when redistricting occurs, and candidates prepare for reelection. Districts may have completely different make-ups, or may be lost and given to more populous states.
Those who chose not to fill out their forms and turn them in face the possibility of a census worker coming to their door, and a $5000 fine. While there are other questions on the survey, all have been deemed “necessary and proper” to governance. The official census day is April 1. For more information visit census.gov or 2010census.gov
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Obama Provides Health-Insurance Plan
Obama Provides Health-Insurance Plan
By: Ashley Freije
President Obama released his own health insurance reform proposal on February 22. Unlike previous attempts, his proposal is not an actual bill. Rather, it is a list of points divided into ten sections. The proposal preceded his meeting with republican and democratic lawmakers on February 24.
As with previous bills, people may keep their current insurance. “Nothing in the proposal forces anyone to change the insurance they have. Period,” reads the White House website. The proposal aims to create a “health insurance exchange” which will consist of private insurance companies that will compete for business and will have to “follow common-sense rules of the road that rein in the worst insurance industry abuses.“
In a new move, though, the proposal requires members of congress to purchase their health insurance from this same exchange.
The proposal will punish those who do not have health insurance, saying those who can afford insurance have “the responsibility to purchase it.” There are waivers: if premiums exceed 8 percent of one’s income, if one has a religious objection, makes less than the amount required to file taxes, or is a member of an Indian tribe, they are not required to purchase health insurance. If they are under the age of 30, however, they can purchase a “low-cost catastrophic plan” to cover serious injury or illness.
When it comes to funding, the proposal lacks details. It says the government will save money by increasing rebates on Medicare prescription drugs. All the website says is that “when enacted” health insurance reform will be completely paid for, and that it will reduce the deficit by more than $100-billion. It will enact excise taxes on insurance premiums costing $27,500 for families and $10,200 for singles in 2018.
The website devotes an entire section to republican ideas that the president incorporated into the bill as well, including expanding the dependency age to 26, and advancing medical liability reform.
The president also proposed “hundreds of billions of dollars” in tax credits to help middle-class families pay for insurance. The plan proposes tax credits for families making less than $250,000 There will also be financial assistance for low-income families. It also claims “tens of billions” of dollars in tax credits for small businesses to purchase insurance for their employees.
The proposal does, however, set many restrictions on insurance companies. New plans must offer preventative care, such as immunizations, for free. Current plans will be prevented from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, having different premiums based on gender or salary, and from dropping coverage when someone becomes sick. The act also limits the amount insurance companies can charge based on age.
The bill devotes an entire section to Medicare. The proposal will give incentives to doctors to improve care, and it will provide seniors with $250 to offset prescription costs when they reach the gap in Medicare coverage. The website says, “Medicare is a sacred trust with America’s seniors, and this Act preserves it.”
Like other proposed legislation, the president’s plan calls for an increased health care workforce, and provides ways to increase it, such as student loan repayment programs and greater scholarship programs.
The entire proposal can be read at whitehouse.gov
By: Ashley Freije
President Obama released his own health insurance reform proposal on February 22. Unlike previous attempts, his proposal is not an actual bill. Rather, it is a list of points divided into ten sections. The proposal preceded his meeting with republican and democratic lawmakers on February 24.
As with previous bills, people may keep their current insurance. “Nothing in the proposal forces anyone to change the insurance they have. Period,” reads the White House website. The proposal aims to create a “health insurance exchange” which will consist of private insurance companies that will compete for business and will have to “follow common-sense rules of the road that rein in the worst insurance industry abuses.“
In a new move, though, the proposal requires members of congress to purchase their health insurance from this same exchange.
The proposal will punish those who do not have health insurance, saying those who can afford insurance have “the responsibility to purchase it.” There are waivers: if premiums exceed 8 percent of one’s income, if one has a religious objection, makes less than the amount required to file taxes, or is a member of an Indian tribe, they are not required to purchase health insurance. If they are under the age of 30, however, they can purchase a “low-cost catastrophic plan” to cover serious injury or illness.
When it comes to funding, the proposal lacks details. It says the government will save money by increasing rebates on Medicare prescription drugs. All the website says is that “when enacted” health insurance reform will be completely paid for, and that it will reduce the deficit by more than $100-billion. It will enact excise taxes on insurance premiums costing $27,500 for families and $10,200 for singles in 2018.
The website devotes an entire section to republican ideas that the president incorporated into the bill as well, including expanding the dependency age to 26, and advancing medical liability reform.
The president also proposed “hundreds of billions of dollars” in tax credits to help middle-class families pay for insurance. The plan proposes tax credits for families making less than $250,000 There will also be financial assistance for low-income families. It also claims “tens of billions” of dollars in tax credits for small businesses to purchase insurance for their employees.
The proposal does, however, set many restrictions on insurance companies. New plans must offer preventative care, such as immunizations, for free. Current plans will be prevented from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, having different premiums based on gender or salary, and from dropping coverage when someone becomes sick. The act also limits the amount insurance companies can charge based on age.
The bill devotes an entire section to Medicare. The proposal will give incentives to doctors to improve care, and it will provide seniors with $250 to offset prescription costs when they reach the gap in Medicare coverage. The website says, “Medicare is a sacred trust with America’s seniors, and this Act preserves it.”
Like other proposed legislation, the president’s plan calls for an increased health care workforce, and provides ways to increase it, such as student loan repayment programs and greater scholarship programs.
The entire proposal can be read at whitehouse.gov
Let's Set the Record Straight Once Again
I stumbled upon a blog today. It picks apart my friend and I's appearance last week on Fox and Friends to discuss Baron Hill. Many blogs have written about the incident and its fallout, but with this blog, I feel it is time to set the record completely straight.
My "class project" was for J-210 Visual Communications. I was to create a photo slideshow using still photographs and natural sound. I knew that the school newspaper would have an audio recording of the town hall that I could use, and I gathered sounds from outside of the event.
Once inside the event, I saw that no audio or video recording was allowed. Not wanting to break the rules, I went to the woman handing out press passes and explained my project. I gladly gave her my contact information, assured her that I would not use flash or be a problem, and she gave me the press sticker.
After we were pulled aside and told to start filming, I was ready to let it go. I wanted an answer though, and asked my friend to ask the congressman why we couldn't film. I did not want to become a part of the story, just report on it. Ask any of my professors, they will tell you every piece of mine has been fair and objective.
I never had any ill-intentions or want to make a hit-piece on the congressman. I only wanted a few photographs of him speaking at the event for my project.
Was I a republican? Yes. Am I now? No, I am a libertarian. Yes, I have donated to republican candidates. Yes, I admire Bill O'Reilly. However, when reporting, I keep my views out of it. It is not my place to frame a story to meet my needs.
Since when did having a dream and a political ideology become a crime? Would this blog have mentioned either if I said being on CNN was a dream come true or if I was liberal? I doubt it. I feel they are non issues, and I will apologize for neither.
Yes, the story is 6 months old, but it is completely relevant if Congressman Hill is running for office, no matter what it is. All constituents, not just Congressman HIll's, have a right to question their leaders. They are the ones employing them. They are the boss.
At least my name is out there. I may need to retool this blog to be more news oriented and create a new opinion one, as this blog has been linked too in the article. But I will keep doing what I love to do: reporting the news and providing analysis and opinion. I hope you will stick around for the ride.
My "class project" was for J-210 Visual Communications. I was to create a photo slideshow using still photographs and natural sound. I knew that the school newspaper would have an audio recording of the town hall that I could use, and I gathered sounds from outside of the event.
Once inside the event, I saw that no audio or video recording was allowed. Not wanting to break the rules, I went to the woman handing out press passes and explained my project. I gladly gave her my contact information, assured her that I would not use flash or be a problem, and she gave me the press sticker.
After we were pulled aside and told to start filming, I was ready to let it go. I wanted an answer though, and asked my friend to ask the congressman why we couldn't film. I did not want to become a part of the story, just report on it. Ask any of my professors, they will tell you every piece of mine has been fair and objective.
I never had any ill-intentions or want to make a hit-piece on the congressman. I only wanted a few photographs of him speaking at the event for my project.
Was I a republican? Yes. Am I now? No, I am a libertarian. Yes, I have donated to republican candidates. Yes, I admire Bill O'Reilly. However, when reporting, I keep my views out of it. It is not my place to frame a story to meet my needs.
Since when did having a dream and a political ideology become a crime? Would this blog have mentioned either if I said being on CNN was a dream come true or if I was liberal? I doubt it. I feel they are non issues, and I will apologize for neither.
Yes, the story is 6 months old, but it is completely relevant if Congressman Hill is running for office, no matter what it is. All constituents, not just Congressman HIll's, have a right to question their leaders. They are the ones employing them. They are the boss.
At least my name is out there. I may need to retool this blog to be more news oriented and create a new opinion one, as this blog has been linked too in the article. But I will keep doing what I love to do: reporting the news and providing analysis and opinion. I hope you will stick around for the ride.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Bayh Leaves Indiana Up For Grabs in 2010
Bayh Leaves Indiana Up For Grabs in 2010
By: Ashley Freije
Evan Bayh took the political world by surprise on February 15 by announcing he would no longer seek reelection for the Indiana senate seat he has held for two-terms.
It was a move no one saw coming. Reports say that even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was unaware of Bayh’s intention to step out of the race. Most polls had Bayh beating any challenger by large margins (in polls against Representative Mike Pence, Bayh looses, but Pence has said he will not run for the senate).
The Bayhs in Indiana can be equated to the Kennedys in Masachusettes. Bayh was Secretary of State before serving two-terms as governor, then moving to his two-terms in senate. His father, Birch Bayh, was an Indiana Senator from 1963-1981. Both enjoy huge popularity in the state.
Bayh’s announcement came the day before the filing deadline to get on the ballot for the May primary. This short notice meant that no candidate was able to get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Bloomington restaurant owner Tamyra d'Ippolito was thought to be a possible replacement, but she failed to garner enough signatures.
Since there are no official candidates, the state democratic committee will be given the task of choosing a nominee for the seat. According to The Indianapolis Star, the committee can pick a nominee as early as next week, or as late as August. Bayh told the Star he would rather not get involved with choosing his successor, but hopes the party will choose someone that is a “consensus candidate.” He believes that at least two or three serious candidates will emerge.
The lack of Bayh, a strong force in Indiana politics for over two-decades, leaves the field wide open for a large field of republican candidates. Five republicans received enough signatures by filing time to get on the primary ballot, including Dan Coats, the man from whom Bayh won his senate seat in 1998.
The US Senate seat is not the only heated primary in Indiana. 4th district US Representative Steve Buyer, republican, announced that he would not be seeking reelection due to his wife’s illness. This lead current Secretary of State Todd Rokita to announce that he would seek the seat. He faces off against eight other republicans in the primary.
Then there is Indiana’s 9th district, a congressional race that has been very heated in recent elections. Incumbent Baron Hill, democrat, will face off against three other democrats in the primary. The republicans have four candidates in the primary, including Mike Sodrel, who took the seat from Hill in 2004, but lost to hill in 2006. Many factors could influence this race, including the possibility of Hill becoming the democrat nominee for senate, or possibly running for governor in 2012.
All of this puts Indiana very much in play for 2010.
After many years of reliable republican presidential votes, the state gave its electoral votes to Barack Obama in 2008. Bayh’s absence makes Indiana another state that is up for grabs in 2010.
By: Ashley Freije
Evan Bayh took the political world by surprise on February 15 by announcing he would no longer seek reelection for the Indiana senate seat he has held for two-terms.
It was a move no one saw coming. Reports say that even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was unaware of Bayh’s intention to step out of the race. Most polls had Bayh beating any challenger by large margins (in polls against Representative Mike Pence, Bayh looses, but Pence has said he will not run for the senate).
The Bayhs in Indiana can be equated to the Kennedys in Masachusettes. Bayh was Secretary of State before serving two-terms as governor, then moving to his two-terms in senate. His father, Birch Bayh, was an Indiana Senator from 1963-1981. Both enjoy huge popularity in the state.
Bayh’s announcement came the day before the filing deadline to get on the ballot for the May primary. This short notice meant that no candidate was able to get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Bloomington restaurant owner Tamyra d'Ippolito was thought to be a possible replacement, but she failed to garner enough signatures.
Since there are no official candidates, the state democratic committee will be given the task of choosing a nominee for the seat. According to The Indianapolis Star, the committee can pick a nominee as early as next week, or as late as August. Bayh told the Star he would rather not get involved with choosing his successor, but hopes the party will choose someone that is a “consensus candidate.” He believes that at least two or three serious candidates will emerge.
The lack of Bayh, a strong force in Indiana politics for over two-decades, leaves the field wide open for a large field of republican candidates. Five republicans received enough signatures by filing time to get on the primary ballot, including Dan Coats, the man from whom Bayh won his senate seat in 1998.
The US Senate seat is not the only heated primary in Indiana. 4th district US Representative Steve Buyer, republican, announced that he would not be seeking reelection due to his wife’s illness. This lead current Secretary of State Todd Rokita to announce that he would seek the seat. He faces off against eight other republicans in the primary.
Then there is Indiana’s 9th district, a congressional race that has been very heated in recent elections. Incumbent Baron Hill, democrat, will face off against three other democrats in the primary. The republicans have four candidates in the primary, including Mike Sodrel, who took the seat from Hill in 2004, but lost to hill in 2006. Many factors could influence this race, including the possibility of Hill becoming the democrat nominee for senate, or possibly running for governor in 2012.
All of this puts Indiana very much in play for 2010.
After many years of reliable republican presidential votes, the state gave its electoral votes to Barack Obama in 2008. Bayh’s absence makes Indiana another state that is up for grabs in 2010.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Despite Economic Hardships, State of the Union Remains Strong
In just over 70 minutes, with 86 breaks for applause, President Barack Obama used his first State of the Union to reassure Americans that things are not as bad as they seem, and that he is hopeful for the country’s future.
The main theme of the speech was the lack of trust in government. Numerous times, Obama mentioned the “deficit of trust” citizens have in the government. The president cited the media and partisan bickering in Washington as the reason there is “so much cynicism…so much disappointment” amongst the people.
The president started his speech by addressing the economic hardships facing the nation. He said that most of the money given as bailouts to banks had been recovered, and that to recover the rest, he would call for increased payments from the largest banks. If they can afford to give out bonuses, Obama said, they can afford to give more money back.
Later, he proposed a three-year spending freeze on government spending starting in 2011. Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and national defense spending would not be affected.
He also announced his main initiative for 2010: jobs. He called for a jobs initiative package to be on his desk “soon.” “I do not accept second place for the United States” when it comes to job creation, he said.
The most obvious partisan divides came during the section on energy. Republicans stood when Obama mentioned searching for new sources of oil, and offshore drilling. Democrats jumped up when Obama mentioned a clean energy bill. The president also mentioned increasing US exports, and engaging in new global trade agreements.
Education was another key issue for the president. He said that no person could be forever in debt because they chose to go to college. Therefore, he proposed a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college, and an increase in Pell grants. He also proposed capping student loan payments at 10% of a person’s income, and forgiving debt after 20 years. That time would be cut in half if a student chose to go into government work.
Obama did not forget the pressing issue of health care reform. He said he did not choose to tackle the issue because it was politically popular, but because it was necessary. He says he welcomes other ideas for reform, but “will not walk away” from Americans who do not have health care.
He also did not abandon his promise of transparence, calling for a new requirement that would force lobbyists to post online any contacts they make with members of congress, or his administration.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of his speech was during his section on equality. Obama mentioned his fight for equal employment and pay, and then called on congress to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy that prevents gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military.
He also addressed security in the wake of the Christmas Day attempted plane bombing, saying his administration had filled holes found by the even. He also said Iran would face increasing “consequences” for pursuing nuclear weapons.
“America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity,” Obama said. He called on Americans to continue forward, despite a difficult year, and carry on the ideas of America ending, as presidents always do, “God bless America.”
The main theme of the speech was the lack of trust in government. Numerous times, Obama mentioned the “deficit of trust” citizens have in the government. The president cited the media and partisan bickering in Washington as the reason there is “so much cynicism…so much disappointment” amongst the people.
The president started his speech by addressing the economic hardships facing the nation. He said that most of the money given as bailouts to banks had been recovered, and that to recover the rest, he would call for increased payments from the largest banks. If they can afford to give out bonuses, Obama said, they can afford to give more money back.
Later, he proposed a three-year spending freeze on government spending starting in 2011. Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and national defense spending would not be affected.
He also announced his main initiative for 2010: jobs. He called for a jobs initiative package to be on his desk “soon.” “I do not accept second place for the United States” when it comes to job creation, he said.
The most obvious partisan divides came during the section on energy. Republicans stood when Obama mentioned searching for new sources of oil, and offshore drilling. Democrats jumped up when Obama mentioned a clean energy bill. The president also mentioned increasing US exports, and engaging in new global trade agreements.
Education was another key issue for the president. He said that no person could be forever in debt because they chose to go to college. Therefore, he proposed a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college, and an increase in Pell grants. He also proposed capping student loan payments at 10% of a person’s income, and forgiving debt after 20 years. That time would be cut in half if a student chose to go into government work.
Obama did not forget the pressing issue of health care reform. He said he did not choose to tackle the issue because it was politically popular, but because it was necessary. He says he welcomes other ideas for reform, but “will not walk away” from Americans who do not have health care.
He also did not abandon his promise of transparence, calling for a new requirement that would force lobbyists to post online any contacts they make with members of congress, or his administration.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of his speech was during his section on equality. Obama mentioned his fight for equal employment and pay, and then called on congress to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy that prevents gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military.
He also addressed security in the wake of the Christmas Day attempted plane bombing, saying his administration had filled holes found by the even. He also said Iran would face increasing “consequences” for pursuing nuclear weapons.
“America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity,” Obama said. He called on Americans to continue forward, despite a difficult year, and carry on the ideas of America ending, as presidents always do, “God bless America.”
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Tired of the System
I am tired of the system.
In 2010 and 2012, I am voting for anyone without an i next to their name.
Im tired of rich folk and career politicians deciding what is best for me.
Remember that whole "By the People For the People" thing? Well, you're not living up to your end of the bargain Washington.
I am tired of Republicans not fighting anything. Just letting everything go so in 2010 and 2012 they can just say "pfshh it wasnt us" and get re-elected.
This isnt a game Washington. This is our lives. You treat this country and the people in it like pawns in your own selfish game. You seek only to further your own self and agenda, not do the job to which you were elected: to represent the interests and feelings of those who elected you.
But the tide is changing. People are standing up and demanding actions. They are demanding to see the change that was promised to them.
Because that "politics as usual" you promised to get rid of is still alive and strong.
Thank goodness there is Glenn Beck. Someone who feels the same anger as the people and has the ability to be heard. He's not afraid to be locked up for what he says, because it is the truth as he sees it. His montra: Question with boldness. Hold to the truth. Speak without fear. It is one I have tried to adopt as my own, the best that I can.
I want to fight the system, to point out its wrongs, to help enact change that will better the country I love. But I'm getting tired and discouraged. I don't have the ability to do it all, and I want so badly to be able to. I don't know how people like Beck do it everyday AND deal with all of the hate and threats that come their way.
Maybe I'm not cut out for this. I know I'm not cut out for politics, but I thought I could fight the system- report on it and expose its corruption. Maybe not. Maybe I need a break from it for a while.
So if you don't hear from me for a while, I am not gone forever. I am just recharging. I may not be fighting the battles, but I am preparing for the war.
In 2010 and 2012, I am voting for anyone without an i next to their name.
Im tired of rich folk and career politicians deciding what is best for me.
Remember that whole "By the People For the People" thing? Well, you're not living up to your end of the bargain Washington.
I am tired of Republicans not fighting anything. Just letting everything go so in 2010 and 2012 they can just say "pfshh it wasnt us" and get re-elected.
This isnt a game Washington. This is our lives. You treat this country and the people in it like pawns in your own selfish game. You seek only to further your own self and agenda, not do the job to which you were elected: to represent the interests and feelings of those who elected you.
But the tide is changing. People are standing up and demanding actions. They are demanding to see the change that was promised to them.
Because that "politics as usual" you promised to get rid of is still alive and strong.
Thank goodness there is Glenn Beck. Someone who feels the same anger as the people and has the ability to be heard. He's not afraid to be locked up for what he says, because it is the truth as he sees it. His montra: Question with boldness. Hold to the truth. Speak without fear. It is one I have tried to adopt as my own, the best that I can.
I want to fight the system, to point out its wrongs, to help enact change that will better the country I love. But I'm getting tired and discouraged. I don't have the ability to do it all, and I want so badly to be able to. I don't know how people like Beck do it everyday AND deal with all of the hate and threats that come their way.
Maybe I'm not cut out for this. I know I'm not cut out for politics, but I thought I could fight the system- report on it and expose its corruption. Maybe not. Maybe I need a break from it for a while.
So if you don't hear from me for a while, I am not gone forever. I am just recharging. I may not be fighting the battles, but I am preparing for the war.
Monday, November 2, 2009
A Woman Without A Party
Like many Americans, I have recently been reevaluating my political stance.
No, my views are not changing.
But my party is.
I am now a woman without a party.
Ronald Reagan famously said, "I didn't leave the democratic party. The democratic party left me." And I'm feeling the same way, but about the republican party.
I was under the impression that the republican party was for limited government. I guess I was wrong. They are for limited government...except when it comes to personal issues. The party is staunchly against gay marriage and abortion. Personally, I have absolutely no problem with gay rights. How does it affect me if two people of the same gender love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together? it doesn't. So why not allow it?
When it comes to abortion, I think it should be left up to the states, like the constitution says (the same with gay marriage). I don't like the idea of killing babies, but I don't like the idea of the government controlling people's bodies either.
However, fiscally and foreign policy, I am right with the republicans. Maybe I'm not "religious" enough for them. I dunno. For now, I'm in search of a party. I don't know if I want to continue going to College Republican meetings. They're so gung-ho for republican ideals and principles, when I no longer am.
So I am posting this note as a classified ad: Desperately Seeking Political Party. Must accept my views, even if you don't agree with them.
No, my views are not changing.
But my party is.
I am now a woman without a party.
Ronald Reagan famously said, "I didn't leave the democratic party. The democratic party left me." And I'm feeling the same way, but about the republican party.
I was under the impression that the republican party was for limited government. I guess I was wrong. They are for limited government...except when it comes to personal issues. The party is staunchly against gay marriage and abortion. Personally, I have absolutely no problem with gay rights. How does it affect me if two people of the same gender love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together? it doesn't. So why not allow it?
When it comes to abortion, I think it should be left up to the states, like the constitution says (the same with gay marriage). I don't like the idea of killing babies, but I don't like the idea of the government controlling people's bodies either.
However, fiscally and foreign policy, I am right with the republicans. Maybe I'm not "religious" enough for them. I dunno. For now, I'm in search of a party. I don't know if I want to continue going to College Republican meetings. They're so gung-ho for republican ideals and principles, when I no longer am.
So I am posting this note as a classified ad: Desperately Seeking Political Party. Must accept my views, even if you don't agree with them.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Spreading the Wealth One Thread At A Time
The first thread I will write about involves President Obama and his spreading the wealth. Let me refresh you on the first instance of this concept with then-Senator Obama and a guy by the name of Joe the Plumber:
Obama: Because my attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
Many have argued that this is a fluke or a misstatement, or a non-issue. But I'm taking the president at his word when he says to look to those he surrounds himself with to figure out his ideals and policies. Thus, I bring to you President Obama and Social Justice!
The concept of social justice is one used mainly by the left. it is used in reference to a society that has a large gap between economic classes. The idea of social justice is to bring the lowest class closer to the highest by taking from the highest and giving to the lowest.
Sound like spreading the wealth around?
This term shows up in the mission statements of several groups the president has associated himself with, or have associated themselves with him. The Service Employees International Union, commonly known as SEIU,states in its code of ethics that it is "committed to pursuing justice for all, and in particular to bringing economic and social justice to the most exploited."
Obama has spoken at the last SEIU convention, and they openly are working with the administration and were vocal supporters of the president during the campaign.
The ever popular Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, has similar goals. It says on its website that it is made up primarily of low to middle income people and says it is a non-profit, non-partisan "social justice organization."
And both ACORN and SEIU receive funding from the complex organization called the TIDES Foundation. TIDES is basically a middle-man. People give money to TIDES so it is anonymously given to other organizations. That way, people can fund whatever cause they want, but it is not known. On its site, the organizations says it aims to promote "economic justice" TIDES also believes in funding from "bottom to top and from side-to-side." That policy sounds a lot like what the president proposed, doesn't it?
So, if we do as the president says, we have learned that the president has been associated with groups that have set out to take from the rich and give to the poor. To create a more equal economic society by punishing success.This information isn't hidden. Quite the opposite, it is readily available on all these organizations websites. Their ties to the president are no secret either. Which makes it even more puzzling why no one has picked up on it yet.
The other threads are just as obvious. More on those in due time.
Obama: Because my attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
Many have argued that this is a fluke or a misstatement, or a non-issue. But I'm taking the president at his word when he says to look to those he surrounds himself with to figure out his ideals and policies. Thus, I bring to you President Obama and Social Justice!
The concept of social justice is one used mainly by the left. it is used in reference to a society that has a large gap between economic classes. The idea of social justice is to bring the lowest class closer to the highest by taking from the highest and giving to the lowest.
Sound like spreading the wealth around?
This term shows up in the mission statements of several groups the president has associated himself with, or have associated themselves with him. The Service Employees International Union, commonly known as SEIU,states in its code of ethics that it is "committed to pursuing justice for all, and in particular to bringing economic and social justice to the most exploited."
Obama has spoken at the last SEIU convention, and they openly are working with the administration and were vocal supporters of the president during the campaign.
The ever popular Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, has similar goals. It says on its website that it is made up primarily of low to middle income people and says it is a non-profit, non-partisan "social justice organization."
And both ACORN and SEIU receive funding from the complex organization called the TIDES Foundation. TIDES is basically a middle-man. People give money to TIDES so it is anonymously given to other organizations. That way, people can fund whatever cause they want, but it is not known. On its site, the organizations says it aims to promote "economic justice" TIDES also believes in funding from "bottom to top and from side-to-side." That policy sounds a lot like what the president proposed, doesn't it?
So, if we do as the president says, we have learned that the president has been associated with groups that have set out to take from the rich and give to the poor. To create a more equal economic society by punishing success.This information isn't hidden. Quite the opposite, it is readily available on all these organizations websites. Their ties to the president are no secret either. Which makes it even more puzzling why no one has picked up on it yet.
The other threads are just as obvious. More on those in due time.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
These Are the Times That Try Men's Souls
Things have taken an interesting turn in America.
The public that was so enamored by President Obama from around October to March has started to wake up.
They notice that the change they voted for is not the change they are getting.
They see out-of-control spending and a health care bill that is 1000 pages, that no one has read, and could potentially lead to rationing of medicine.
And they don't seem to want to take it anymore.
I've taken a cue from a fellow broadcaster and am pulling the threads. Some are threads I have gotten from him, others I have found on my own, and some are the same, I'm just pulling a little harder.
Very soon, hopefully, the entire sweater will unravel.
I have for several years now identified myself as a republican. I believed that my party was the one that would keep America safe, would shrink government, and would uphold the Constitution and defend liberty at all costs.
These days, I feel an awful lot like Ronal Reagan when he said he didn't leave the Democrat party, the party left him.
Democrats and liberals are putting our nation on a jet plain to socialism. Republicans are just sitting back, so that in two years they can say "I told you so!" in hopes that they will get reelected or claim spots from the other party.
The president is holding himself up on vacation or in the White House, surrounded by yes men, self-proclaimed communists, and schemers who seek to enact their own vision of what America should be, and seek to create and use crises to make that change happen.
I sound very much like that broadcaster I mentioned earlier, and that is intended. It is not plagiarism, copying, or imitating. It is purely the same motivation and need to bring these things to people's attentions in order to preserve the country we both hold dear.
A very wise man one said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is a natural manure." It is not a violent war to which he spoke. No muskets or bayonets need be used to shed this blood. No, the weapons to be used are pens and paper, cell phones and video cameras, words and ideas.
The blood that shall be spilt will not be the blood of anyone, merely the flock of politicians ripped from the jobs to which they so desperately cling. It will be the men and women who disposed of their morals, values, principles, and ideals in order to obtain what little power they perceive to have.
Unfortunately, they fail to realize that they are merely puppets attached to the strings of special interests, major companies, and the men behind the curtain. What few realize it, and did not sell their souls are few and far between, and their cries cannot be heard above the roar of the majority.
If I am right in what I believe, i cannot win. America will sink into a socialistic state where capitalism, free market, free speech, and dissent are gone. All of the ideal and work the founding fathers put into making this country the great nation it has become will have been for naught, in vain. If I am wrong? I loose credibility at age 21 and will be outcast from the journalistic world I am studying to become a part of. Oh well. I doubt anyone gave any credibility to me to begin with. And I was planning to go to law school anyway, so a change in career is not that difficult.
But you know what? It's ok. I have no problem loosing what little I have by speaking up for what I believe. For seeking the truth where no one else wants to look. For questioning the government and those in it, and for trying to preserve this nation and its founding ideals.
So, it is up to us. People like me and my fellow broadcaster. People like you and your friends. We have nothing to loose, and everything to gain. Please seek the truth on your own. Look for answers. Ask questions. Do not sit back while decisions that affect your life are made for you.
And if we all go down, it won't have been without a fight.
The public that was so enamored by President Obama from around October to March has started to wake up.
They notice that the change they voted for is not the change they are getting.
They see out-of-control spending and a health care bill that is 1000 pages, that no one has read, and could potentially lead to rationing of medicine.
And they don't seem to want to take it anymore.
I've taken a cue from a fellow broadcaster and am pulling the threads. Some are threads I have gotten from him, others I have found on my own, and some are the same, I'm just pulling a little harder.
Very soon, hopefully, the entire sweater will unravel.
I have for several years now identified myself as a republican. I believed that my party was the one that would keep America safe, would shrink government, and would uphold the Constitution and defend liberty at all costs.
These days, I feel an awful lot like Ronal Reagan when he said he didn't leave the Democrat party, the party left him.
Democrats and liberals are putting our nation on a jet plain to socialism. Republicans are just sitting back, so that in two years they can say "I told you so!" in hopes that they will get reelected or claim spots from the other party.
The president is holding himself up on vacation or in the White House, surrounded by yes men, self-proclaimed communists, and schemers who seek to enact their own vision of what America should be, and seek to create and use crises to make that change happen.
I sound very much like that broadcaster I mentioned earlier, and that is intended. It is not plagiarism, copying, or imitating. It is purely the same motivation and need to bring these things to people's attentions in order to preserve the country we both hold dear.
A very wise man one said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is a natural manure." It is not a violent war to which he spoke. No muskets or bayonets need be used to shed this blood. No, the weapons to be used are pens and paper, cell phones and video cameras, words and ideas.
The blood that shall be spilt will not be the blood of anyone, merely the flock of politicians ripped from the jobs to which they so desperately cling. It will be the men and women who disposed of their morals, values, principles, and ideals in order to obtain what little power they perceive to have.
Unfortunately, they fail to realize that they are merely puppets attached to the strings of special interests, major companies, and the men behind the curtain. What few realize it, and did not sell their souls are few and far between, and their cries cannot be heard above the roar of the majority.
If I am right in what I believe, i cannot win. America will sink into a socialistic state where capitalism, free market, free speech, and dissent are gone. All of the ideal and work the founding fathers put into making this country the great nation it has become will have been for naught, in vain. If I am wrong? I loose credibility at age 21 and will be outcast from the journalistic world I am studying to become a part of. Oh well. I doubt anyone gave any credibility to me to begin with. And I was planning to go to law school anyway, so a change in career is not that difficult.
But you know what? It's ok. I have no problem loosing what little I have by speaking up for what I believe. For seeking the truth where no one else wants to look. For questioning the government and those in it, and for trying to preserve this nation and its founding ideals.
So, it is up to us. People like me and my fellow broadcaster. People like you and your friends. We have nothing to loose, and everything to gain. Please seek the truth on your own. Look for answers. Ask questions. Do not sit back while decisions that affect your life are made for you.
And if we all go down, it won't have been without a fight.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Town Hall Sparks Debate, Discussion
The Democratic National Party's statement that the "angry mobs" at town hall events were all taking orders from the Republican Party was proved wrong Monday night.
A standing-room-only crowd filled the Mcallister meeting rooms of the Tippecanoe County Library's downtown branch Monday night for a town hall meeting on the proposed health care bill.
Most in attendance were against the bill, sparking up conversations with those around them before the meeting began. Those who came ranged from toddlers to the elderly.
The man speaker of the even was Donn Brown, a member of the group Citizens in Action. Brown discussed how he sees the bill as not a health care bill, but a taking away of freedoms.
He started the meeting with the Pledge of Alligance, then launched into hand-raising questions such as if those in attendance believed in the constitution and if they supported the bill.
Isabel Hogue, an insurance agent, also spoke. She gave the croud a history of the insurance industry and explained how it functions. She told the crowd that a large reason for the rise in health care costs is because no one knows how much it actually costs, as all they pay are copays, saying a government-run system would just cause more hassle and higher costs.
Before the question and answer session could begin, an audience member shouted out "Do you have insurance?" to Brown, who replied that he did. The person then began yelling back, which caused Brown to tell the crowd that the meeting would end if there was disruptive behavior "like you see on tv."
The warning did not stop anyone. During the question and answer session, many who support President Obama took to yelling at those who oppose him, and at Brown. One man walked out after Brown said someone else's health care was not his responsibility and did not allow the man to continue interrupting the questions.
Near the meeting's end, Brown had Ashley Freije speak to the crowd. Freije, 21, said she had read the entire health care bill, and told the crowd some items she found of interest, such as tax hikes and information gathering techniques, that were not in the group's meeting notes.
Brown ended the meeting by asking everyone to contact their congressmen and tell them to oppose the bill. He also encouraged people to call state officials and congressmen from other states and districts.
Citizens in Action will hold another town hall meeting Tuesday night at the Klondike branch of the Tippecanoe County Public Library.
A standing-room-only crowd filled the Mcallister meeting rooms of the Tippecanoe County Library's downtown branch Monday night for a town hall meeting on the proposed health care bill.
Most in attendance were against the bill, sparking up conversations with those around them before the meeting began. Those who came ranged from toddlers to the elderly.
The man speaker of the even was Donn Brown, a member of the group Citizens in Action. Brown discussed how he sees the bill as not a health care bill, but a taking away of freedoms.
He started the meeting with the Pledge of Alligance, then launched into hand-raising questions such as if those in attendance believed in the constitution and if they supported the bill.
Isabel Hogue, an insurance agent, also spoke. She gave the croud a history of the insurance industry and explained how it functions. She told the crowd that a large reason for the rise in health care costs is because no one knows how much it actually costs, as all they pay are copays, saying a government-run system would just cause more hassle and higher costs.
Before the question and answer session could begin, an audience member shouted out "Do you have insurance?" to Brown, who replied that he did. The person then began yelling back, which caused Brown to tell the crowd that the meeting would end if there was disruptive behavior "like you see on tv."
The warning did not stop anyone. During the question and answer session, many who support President Obama took to yelling at those who oppose him, and at Brown. One man walked out after Brown said someone else's health care was not his responsibility and did not allow the man to continue interrupting the questions.
Near the meeting's end, Brown had Ashley Freije speak to the crowd. Freije, 21, said she had read the entire health care bill, and told the crowd some items she found of interest, such as tax hikes and information gathering techniques, that were not in the group's meeting notes.
Brown ended the meeting by asking everyone to contact their congressmen and tell them to oppose the bill. He also encouraged people to call state officials and congressmen from other states and districts.
Citizens in Action will hold another town hall meeting Tuesday night at the Klondike branch of the Tippecanoe County Public Library.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Where Have You Been, America?
Recently, I saw a commercial about government spending. The ad outlines all of the spending of the Obama administration thus far, and the estimated cost of the proposed health care bill. The commercial showed money being printed and asked the government to stop spending, because all of the money is gone.
Um... the money has been gone for a very, very long time.
I love that Americans are standing up and questioning the choices of the government, but this is not a new phenomenon. Government spending has been exceeded revenue for decades. money has been printed to supply this spending for just as long. Not since President Andrew Jackson in 1835 has the United States not been in debt to itself. The accomplishment was short lived, however, as a depression two years later caused the government to start going into debt with itself again.
Yes, we had a budget surplus under President Clinton, but one could argue it was due to Newt Gingrich and the Republican-controlled congress's policies. And I am by no means ignoring the spending of the Bush administration. I do believe some of the spending was required as a result of the attack of September 11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the federal bail outs and other spending during the presidency were unnecessary and too high.
Yes, I have not read any of the 1000+ pages of the health care bill, therefore I cannot argue over the bill's contents, but I can argue to the cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill could cost up to $3 trillion dollars in the next ten years. After the the $3.6 trillion dollar budget proposed by President Obama for the 2010 fiscal year, this is not a cost we can bare. New unemployment filings were up by 8,000 for the month of July, and retail sales were down 0.1% for the month. With an economy still in a recession, this bill is not a cost that America can afford right now.
Um... the money has been gone for a very, very long time.
I love that Americans are standing up and questioning the choices of the government, but this is not a new phenomenon. Government spending has been exceeded revenue for decades. money has been printed to supply this spending for just as long. Not since President Andrew Jackson in 1835 has the United States not been in debt to itself. The accomplishment was short lived, however, as a depression two years later caused the government to start going into debt with itself again.
Yes, we had a budget surplus under President Clinton, but one could argue it was due to Newt Gingrich and the Republican-controlled congress's policies. And I am by no means ignoring the spending of the Bush administration. I do believe some of the spending was required as a result of the attack of September 11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the federal bail outs and other spending during the presidency were unnecessary and too high.
Yes, I have not read any of the 1000+ pages of the health care bill, therefore I cannot argue over the bill's contents, but I can argue to the cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill could cost up to $3 trillion dollars in the next ten years. After the the $3.6 trillion dollar budget proposed by President Obama for the 2010 fiscal year, this is not a cost we can bare. New unemployment filings were up by 8,000 for the month of July, and retail sales were down 0.1% for the month. With an economy still in a recession, this bill is not a cost that America can afford right now.
Monday, June 15, 2009
You Say You Want A Revolution?
Iran held "elections" this past weekend. Initially, Mir Hossein Mousavi claimed a huge victory. However, less than 24-hours later, the Ayatollah claimed that President Ahmadinejad had kept the presidency by a 2-1 margin. This sparked outrage in the country's capital of Tehran, with massive protests. While the US has kept quiet on the issue of the election's legitimacy, the people of Iran and the other three candidates are not. In order to stop this, the country slowed and, in some cases, cut=off internet access to the country, cut off power, and limited television channels. Foreign journalists have been told to leave the country as soon as possible, and both Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah stand behind the results.
It is encouraging to see the people of Iran taking part in their country. Western stereotypes claim that Iranians are brainwashed, or simply do not care what happens to them. This weekend has shown quite the opposite. The people are tired of Ahmadinejad's "morality police" and his bankrupting the country.
This protesting comes at a price. Reports came out yesterday that police had beat a protester to death. The government rolled tanks into Tehran, and today brings even more deaths at the hands of the police. For an election that was open and fair, the government is very paranoid about the voice of the people, and are doing everything that they can to silence them. It is feared that unless the US steps in, this uprising may be silenced, or fade out. However, with Mosavi and others refusing to accept the election's results, it seems that may not happen after all. The people of Iran are helping themselves, and showing the world that they are not standing by while their country distances itself from the world.
Several websites are keeping tabs on the situation through first-person accounts, tweets, and news sources. the NIAC blog is a great source of news and up-to-the-minute information, as is the Tehran Bureau. The New York Times also has a great blog here with lots of insider information.
It is encouraging to see the people of Iran taking part in their country. Western stereotypes claim that Iranians are brainwashed, or simply do not care what happens to them. This weekend has shown quite the opposite. The people are tired of Ahmadinejad's "morality police" and his bankrupting the country.
This protesting comes at a price. Reports came out yesterday that police had beat a protester to death. The government rolled tanks into Tehran, and today brings even more deaths at the hands of the police. For an election that was open and fair, the government is very paranoid about the voice of the people, and are doing everything that they can to silence them. It is feared that unless the US steps in, this uprising may be silenced, or fade out. However, with Mosavi and others refusing to accept the election's results, it seems that may not happen after all. The people of Iran are helping themselves, and showing the world that they are not standing by while their country distances itself from the world.
Several websites are keeping tabs on the situation through first-person accounts, tweets, and news sources. the NIAC blog is a great source of news and up-to-the-minute information, as is the Tehran Bureau. The New York Times also has a great blog here with lots of insider information.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
100 Days In,
Since President Obama feels the need to hold a press conference to congratulate himself on lasting 100 days in office (thus moving Scrubs from tonight AND most likely causing Lost to start late) I figure I should pitch in and compile my own list of the presidents fine achievements in these first 100 days.
1. He spent more money in his first 100 days than some presidents spent in their entire terms.
2. He has signed an order to close the military prison at Guantanimo Bay, releasing hundreds of terrorists onto US streets and streets of any country who is stupid enough to accept them.
3. He has given al Queda our interrogation playbook and manipulated Americans to think that a caterpillar constitutes torture.
4. He has become more attached to a TelePrompTer than I am to my own appendages.
5. He broke all codes of behavior upon meeting the Queen of England
5a. He gave the Queen of England an iPod...full of his own speeches.
6. He gave the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom dvds...that were region 1 and would not play on Gordon Brown's region 2 DVD player.
7.He bowed to the leader of Saudi Arabia.
8. He is now BFFs with Hugo Chavez
9. He has repeatedly ruined my television watching schedule with his horribly-timed press conferences and addresses to the nation. Yes, I am bitter.
Those are the most important achievements, I think. 100 days down, 1360 to go. But, you know, I'm not counting or eagerly anticipating it or anything.
1. He spent more money in his first 100 days than some presidents spent in their entire terms.
2. He has signed an order to close the military prison at Guantanimo Bay, releasing hundreds of terrorists onto US streets and streets of any country who is stupid enough to accept them.
3. He has given al Queda our interrogation playbook and manipulated Americans to think that a caterpillar constitutes torture.
4. He has become more attached to a TelePrompTer than I am to my own appendages.
5. He broke all codes of behavior upon meeting the Queen of England
5a. He gave the Queen of England an iPod...full of his own speeches.
6. He gave the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom dvds...that were region 1 and would not play on Gordon Brown's region 2 DVD player.
7.He bowed to the leader of Saudi Arabia.
8. He is now BFFs with Hugo Chavez
9. He has repeatedly ruined my television watching schedule with his horribly-timed press conferences and addresses to the nation. Yes, I am bitter.
Those are the most important achievements, I think. 100 days down, 1360 to go. But, you know, I'm not counting or eagerly anticipating it or anything.
Quick Question
If there is a war against swine flu, will the Obama Administration call it the "Global Struggle Against Infectious and Violent Diseases" instead of the "War on Swine Flu"?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
How Far Can We Go?
The Obama administration has made the massive mistake of releasing documents outlining US interrogation techniques since September 11, 2001. Oddly enough, they have forgotten to release the accompanying documents that show the success of these interrogations. Former Vice-President Dick Cheny has been giving interviews, discrediting the administration's claims that these techniques did not work, and calling for them to own up to the memos showing the success of these techniques.
While it is an immense National Security threat to allow al Queda and others the ability to see step-by-step guides to US interrogation techniques, it is an even graver thing for the President of the United States to say that he is "open" to the idea of going after former President Bush and others in his administration for the "torture" of enemy combatants. He will not go after the people who actually did the torturing, however, because they "were just following orders."
Hmmm...we didn't fall for that trick with Nazis, but I guess it's ok when the president just wants to seek some sort of revenge on the previous administration.
I'm going to come right out and say it: sometimes, torture is necessary. It is not good, but it is necessary. Do you think that al Queda or other terror groups would think twice about using techniques far worse than the US has ever used on an American soldier they capture? No, they wouldn't even think about not using it.
And no, using torture does not make the US less of a leader or just like other countries and organizations. It merely evens the playing field. I do not believe that risking the lives of thousands, if not millions of people is worth not using every option to gain intelligence from a terror suspect. These people are not protected under the Geneva Convention. They are not fighting in an organized military, or for a country. They are rogue, evil, terrorists.
President Obama, however, does not seem to feel the same. And if something tragic does happen, I will have to begrudgingly say I told you so.
But really, the point of this is not to go after the Bush Administration (hrm...I seem to remember Candidate Obama talking about how he was looking to the future, not dealing with the past...). This is an attempt to change the focus. President Obama failed to get anything done at the G20, he is failing to fully address the economic crisis, and, most importantly, Rahm Immanuel, his Chief of Staff, is playing damage control by distracting America from the Presidents MASSIVE snafu at the Conference of the Americas and his becoming BFF's with socialist leader and human rights violator Hugo Chavez. Immanuel is killing two birds with one stone, he is getting the Bush Administration, and making President Obama look like the good guy.
America seems to be wising up though. The president's approval rating has dropped from 70% on inauguration day to 54%. 50% of Americans view the tea parties favorably, and a whopping 54% of moderate democrats view the tea parties favorably. Maybe there is hope, after all.
While it is an immense National Security threat to allow al Queda and others the ability to see step-by-step guides to US interrogation techniques, it is an even graver thing for the President of the United States to say that he is "open" to the idea of going after former President Bush and others in his administration for the "torture" of enemy combatants. He will not go after the people who actually did the torturing, however, because they "were just following orders."
Hmmm...we didn't fall for that trick with Nazis, but I guess it's ok when the president just wants to seek some sort of revenge on the previous administration.
I'm going to come right out and say it: sometimes, torture is necessary. It is not good, but it is necessary. Do you think that al Queda or other terror groups would think twice about using techniques far worse than the US has ever used on an American soldier they capture? No, they wouldn't even think about not using it.
And no, using torture does not make the US less of a leader or just like other countries and organizations. It merely evens the playing field. I do not believe that risking the lives of thousands, if not millions of people is worth not using every option to gain intelligence from a terror suspect. These people are not protected under the Geneva Convention. They are not fighting in an organized military, or for a country. They are rogue, evil, terrorists.
President Obama, however, does not seem to feel the same. And if something tragic does happen, I will have to begrudgingly say I told you so.
But really, the point of this is not to go after the Bush Administration (hrm...I seem to remember Candidate Obama talking about how he was looking to the future, not dealing with the past...). This is an attempt to change the focus. President Obama failed to get anything done at the G20, he is failing to fully address the economic crisis, and, most importantly, Rahm Immanuel, his Chief of Staff, is playing damage control by distracting America from the Presidents MASSIVE snafu at the Conference of the Americas and his becoming BFF's with socialist leader and human rights violator Hugo Chavez. Immanuel is killing two birds with one stone, he is getting the Bush Administration, and making President Obama look like the good guy.
America seems to be wising up though. The president's approval rating has dropped from 70% on inauguration day to 54%. 50% of Americans view the tea parties favorably, and a whopping 54% of moderate democrats view the tea parties favorably. Maybe there is hope, after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)