I'm with Sonny

When I saw this picture I thought it summed it up perfectly for me.

So let me get this straight: Last week Obama signed the porkulus bill, now he says he wants to cut the deficit in half?
OK I know I'm not as enlightened as our fearless leader but if you want to cut the deficit in half why did you just sign that monstrosity of a bill? So he wants to cut the deficit to get us back at square one?

So my next thought was, well what exactly is going to be cut, because surely it will not be any of the pork or entitlements he just signed for. So what is he going to cut. Surely the defense budget is going to take a major hit.

I do love what he said about it yesterday:

"We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end," the president said in opening remarks to the summit. "We are paying the price for these deficits right now."

If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it we risk sinking into another crisis down the road," the president warned. "We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation."

"We will reinstate the pay as you go rule," he said. "You don't spend what you don't have."

Wow! We are paying the price now and throwing some more deficit on top for good measure. And we can't spend what we don't have? So, what, is he going to wave his magic wand and his porkulus is going to be paid for??
It gets more ridiculous by the minute.

I wasn't planning on watching the speech tonight but then Army Dude sent me a link to print out an Obingo card.
I think this might make it more interesting, the only thing that would make it any more tolerable is to turn it into a drinking game. To be honest, I'm tired of being preached to.
Here's hoping that he actually tells us what he's planing on doing, how he's planning to cut the deficit at the same time that he doubles it, and how he's going to spend money we don't have.

Happy watching!

It's Called Respect

After seeing clips like these:





I had little doubt about the amount of respect that Obama had for the military.

And then last week I heard about the charges being dropped against the man that planned the bombing of the USS Cole.

I was outraged when I heard about this. I guess it's because it hits so close to home. I remember see the news on AFN. At the time, the Army Dude was on his first deployment since we had gotten married. So I was a little sensitive to these things and I not only was I heartbroken for those families but I was nervous because I thought, surely, we would retaliate in some way, and what would that mean for my little family. Yeah not so much. So here we are on the verge of finally trying this terrorist and he stops it. Never mind that 17 sailors died that day and many more were injured, we need to worry about what others think about us because of the interrogations and trials. It really makes me wonder about his priorities, and how exactly he views the brave men and women that serve our country.

Here's a video of the mother of one of the sailors killed that day. She voted for Obama and now is having second thoughts:



And then last night I came across a story about Obama considering lifting the ban on media coverage of flag draped coffins arriving back in the US.

At least two Democratic senators have called on President Barack Obama to let news photographers attend ceremonies at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware and other military facilities when military remains are returned to the United States. Obama told reporters Monday he was reviewing the ban.

Shortly after Obama took office, Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey also asked the White House to roll back the ban that was put in place in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush.

In a Feb. 9 letter to Obama, Lautenberg said the Pentagon should develop a new policy to allow "respectful" media coverage while protecting the privacy of the victims and their families. Generally, the remains in the caskets are not publicly identified.

"I respectfully urge you to work to bring an end to the misguided policies of the past that seek to hide the sacrifice of our soldiers and the public recognition and pride that should accompany it," Lautenberg wrote.

He said the George W. Bush administration "effectively censored images of flag-draped caskets from appearing in media coverage."

So what exactly is the point in lifting the ban? What purpose would that serve, other than invading the privacy of the families that don't want their loved ones' coffins paraded around? Well a tid bit in an old AP article is very telling:

But Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., who served in the Navy during the Vietnam War, said photos of caskets coming home from Vietnam had a tremendous impact on the way Americans came to view that war.

“As people began to see the reality of it and see the 55,000 people who were killed coming back in body bags, they became more and more upset by the war,” he said. “This is not about privacy. This is about trying to keep the country from facing the reality of war.”

I'm sorry but the death of anyone in our military should not be politicized or used as a way to turn people on the war. That is a total disgrace and shows a major lack or respect. And that is just one of the reasons that the ban should not be lifted. Now if families want to honor their fallen loved ones then they can have media coverage and all the pictures and video they want after they are in possession of the remains, there is no ban on that. But please leave the media out of the ports of entry when they come back, for the privacy and dignity of the family members that do not want anything to do with that.
I thought about it a lot last night and thought maybe I feel a little strong about it because (God forbid) it could be my family one day. The last thing I would want is my husband's coffin being flashed on TV and in print. And I definitely would not want anything to do with the media at a time like that.
I asked the Army Dude if he felt the same way or if I was just being overly sensitive and he said he agreed with me 100%. He wouldn't want his coffin photographed or filmed and he wouldn't want me or Little Dude to have to deal with that at a time like that. He also said it shows a total lack of respect.

Here's another part of the first article that really pissed me off:

The fallen troops "died for all of us — they died for the nation, they died for the cause," Begleiter said in a January interview. "It's a right for all Americans to pay their respects for those who made the sacrifice. It is not a right held exclusively for the families themselves."

Is this guy serious? No it is not his or anyone else's right to invade the privacy of a grieving family! If they want to pay their respects then send flowers, donate to fund or show up at a local funeral, but it is not in any way his or anyone else's right to invade their privacy.

Hypocrisy

Have you seen this commercial with Ashley Judd where she tells us we need to stop Sarah Palin from supporting the areal killing of wolves in Alaska?



The first thing that came to mind when I saw this was her hypocrisy. Someone should put up a video: Stop Ashley Judd. Start with someone saying how Ashley Judd supports the killing of innocent babies. At the same time show images of an abortion, maybe some pictures of discarded babies as the narrator explains the gruesome process. Then at the end: We have to stop Ashley Judd from killing innocent babies.

The second thing that ran through my mind was this:



Love the chicken voting for Col. Sanders comment. Because everyone knows that McCain/Palin eat women.

Criminal

I came across this article about health care for California prisoners

Attorney General Jerry Brown noted at a news conference last week, a "gold-plated wish list" for California's prison health care system.

His Receivership wants to spend $8 billion to build seven new hospitals, each the size of 10 Wal-Marts, which would create "a holistic environment," with "music therapy, art therapy and other recreation therapy functions," a music room, stress-reduction room, game room and "therapy kitchen," with lots of natural light and high ceilings. A gymnasium would feature a "full-size high school playing court with basketball hoops and built-in edge seating up to four rows deep. Various floor striping allows for other games, such as volleyball, etc. Other sport activities include handball courts, exercise, and (a) workout room."

"The overarching value" of Plan Kelso is to create "a health care facility that cares for prisoners as patients and not a prison that cares for health care needs as inmates." No surprise: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation estimates the annual cost of operating these facilities to be between $170,000 and $230,000 per inmate.

Remember this is one of the first states crying for a bailout. But never mind that, why would we want to spend that kind of money on criminals? Why the heck would you build hospitals like that for inmates? Why would we treat criminals better than say military and military dependents?

According to the article:

health care spending per inmate rose from $7,601 per inmate in 2005-06 to $13,778 per inmate in 2007-08 -- an 81 percent increase and far above the average of $4,600 spent on health care per Californian.

When I read that I wondered how that compared to what Tricare spends for health care for military and military dependents. I came across the FY 2006 report to congress which gives totals for FY 2005. I crunched some numbers and came up with $2500 per beneficiary for FY 2005. No surprise here, the government spends less on our health care than California spends on the health care of its inmates. But then again California spends more in its inmates than the average cost of the rest of its population. It's really a sad that more is spent on criminals than on law abiding citizens and that more money is spent on their health care than that of the military. It's beginning to seem like the ultimate in welfare entitlements to me: free room and board, free health care...

What will the future hold?

For the military at least and for our country's safety.

On Friday Jennifer Griffen reported that Obama's administration asked for the defense budget to be cut by more than 10%. I'm actually not surprised and look for that number to go up. I'm interested to see what exactly is going to get cut, something should come out Monday. In the article it says that they are looking at weapons programs.

Then, today, I saw this article about "war on terror" being dropped.

a few quotes from the article:

The "War on Terror" is losing the war of words. The catchphrase burned into the American lexicon hours after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is fading away, slowly if not deliberately being replaced by a new administration bent on repairing the U.S. image among Muslim nations.

Since taking office less than two weeks ago, President Barack Obama has talked broadly of the "enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism." Another time it was an "ongoing struggle."

He has pledged to "go after" extremists and "win this fight." There even was an oblique reference to a "twilight struggle" as the U.S. relentlessly pursues those who threaten the country.

OK so let's not call it what it is so we can repair our image among the people that cheered on the streets when thousands of our civilians were brutaly killed.
And I love the "struggle against terrorism and extremism." It sounds so lame and weak.
What exactly does he mean by "twilight struggle" - here's the definition of twilight:

twi⋅light   /ˈtwaɪˌlaɪt/ [twahy-lahyt]

–noun 1. the soft, diffused light from the sky when the sun is below the horizon, either from daybreak to sunrise or, more commonly, from sunset to nightfall.
2. the period in the morning or, more commonly, in the evening during which this light prevails.
3. a terminal period, esp. after full development, success, etc.: the twilight of his life.
4. a state of uncertainty, vagueness, or gloom.
–adjective 5. of, pertaining to, or resembling twilight; dim; obscure: in the twilight hours.
6. appearing or flying at twilight; crepuscular.

So what exactly does he mean by it? I think considering the meaning, that is an odd choice of words, gives the impression that it's something we can't win, or will be the death of us.

The thinking has evolved, he said, to focus on avoiding the kind of rhetoric "which could imply that this was a struggle against a religion or a culture."

Obama has made it clear in his first days in office that he is courting the Muslim community and making what is at least a symbolic shift away from the previous administration's often more combative tone.

So what culture and religion is terror? If a specific culture and religion is implied by the word terror then whose fault is it? The people who enact the terror or the ones that that prevent and defend against it?

But like he said in his first interview as President:

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.