Monthly Archives: September 2014

Post November 2014: The Era of Unconstitutinality

Politics, politics politics…

Here we are again, nudging up to the upcoming election cycle for the Congress, and yet again, we are noticing that the President is putting politics before policy. He has threatened promised that he will act on his own using executive action to handle the immigration crisis in his own way and the way he thinks “is best for the American people” and best for the immigrants, and yet he has put politics before policy and has decided to postpone his action until after the November elections.

How can anyone possibly not see right through this?

Mr. President, if you think you are doing what is right, why wait until after the elections to do it? A crisis needs action right away, so postponing it seems like a very poor decision. What reason do you have to postpone it, except that you know that it would be a very unpopular action and that the Democratic party which you represent would suffer in the elections for the unfavorable new policy.

Whether you support the President or not, whether you are Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc., you should not be too blind to see that politics are more important than policy to this administration. Even if you support the President’s proposed executive action, you should be outraged that he has decided to wait instead of act on it. For those who would oppose it, you should be even more concerned now that this executive order will be unfavorable to the American people.

What you really need to be concerned about is this:

After the November 2014 elections, the President will have nearly two full years of no-consequence executive orders that he will be signing out as quickly as he swings his driver. The November elections matter because Congress matters, believe it or not, and whether the President believes it or not. Sometimes the only way to balance power is to counterbalance it.

Your vote matters. You need to make sure you are getting to the polls in November and voting along the lines of what matters to you. Do not be a sheep and vote the same way your parents do, or your neighbor, or your girlfriend, etc. Stop voting with a certain party. They are not all the same. Listen to them, but realize that anyone can manipulate words. Look at their track records. Make sure the candidate you support supports you back!

We are not yet finished as a nation. Even these November elections won’t have the effect of ending our great nation if things go wrong at the polls. However, laws, policies and life in general in this great nation of ours will be dictated by the results of these November elections.

Listen, I was not a fan of President Obama going into his reelection campaign, but I also wasn’t a big fan of Romney. I found him to be very generic as a candidate, and somewhat boring, but then, is a president supposed to not be boring? Maybe boring is a good thing when it comes to the man at the wheel of an entire nation.

The bottom line is this:

You may have thought President Obama did better in the debates (save for the first one of course) than Romney did, using catchy phrases (by the way Mr. President, the 90’s called and asked if they could have their “the 80’s called” reference joke back) and somewhat snarky grins and one liners to zing the “old man” Romney, but you know what, go back and listen to what Romney was really saying at that time; How right has he been proven so far?

Who knows what kind of position we would all be in today if Romney had won, well, no one knows. The only thing we do know is it does seem like he may have been a bit more prepared for some of the current events lately, since he was all but predicting them during the debates and throughout his campaign. Are we prepared to be saying “what if” a year after the November elections this year? I can’t say Romney would be any better or any worse, but can you? He did seem to be more correct about a lot of things even though he was made fun of them at the time. Maybe a boring wise old man who likes to read and keep up on current events would have been a better choice in the white house than a youthful young man who finds out most happenings around the world from watching the “same news you do”.

Let’s make our votes count in November. Have a voice. Stop making excuses. Vote.

Tagged , ,

Airstrikes: The New “Neutral”?

The Administration has authorized airstrikes against the ISIS militants in an attempt to help the region, but remain neutral, but is that really neutral?

It has become all but obvious in the past few years that the Obama Administration feels that America has been the target of extreme terrorist organizations as a direct result of our “occupation” of areas throughout the world and the middle east especially. President Obama himself has made reference to this in numerous speeches and has essentially established his mindset that when we, as a nation, send “boots on the ground” to an area to help out militarily in situations such as the current ISIS movement, we are inviting repercussions by the terrorist organizations. He feels, it appears, that the United States should not provide troops because it incites hatred by these groups and will lead to retaliation, even possibly on our own ground.

However, at the same time the Obama Administration has been authorizing large numbers of drone strikes and has now even authorized airstrikes against ISIS. The latest news reports are saying that a head member of ISIS may have been killed in the recent drone strike on that area, but it is not yet confirmed. In the meantime, another video has surfaced of the beheading of another U.S. journalist, this time Steven Sotloff. The man doing the beheading reportedly says in the video, “I’m back, Obama, and I’m back because of your arrogant foreign policy towards the Islamic State, because of your insistence on continuing your bombings … and on Mosul Dam, despite our serious warnings,” the executioner said, according to the transcript. “You, Obama, have but to gain from your actions but another American citizen. So just as your missiles continue to strike out people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people.”

My question to you the reader is: Are we really remaining neutral by authorizing airstrikes and drone strikes?

I am not suggesting that we should be doing nothing. I am not even saying that boots on the ground is a better or worse idea than airstrikes and drone strikes. However, is it? Think about the logic here: we do not want the terrorist to think America is intruding on their lands and their “jihad”. We want them to believe that America is willing to let other nations live their way (or in these cases, kill their way) without America acting as the “World Police” and forcing the “western ways” into other regions. But do we really think that they are going to sit back and “forgive” these airstrikes and drone strikes against their militants?

Is it really better if we strike them without combat in their eyes? Or is this whole policy flawed? Is it politics governing policy? If you ask me, you are either in or you are out. You can’t expect an extreme, hate-filled militant organization like ISIS to say, “Well, now that we have taken over the middle east and we run things now, good ol’ America didn’t put any of their soldiers’ ‘boots on the ground’ here to stop us, and although they killed a bunch of our soldiers with drone strikes and airstrikes, since they didn’t actually have troops fighting against us we can leave them alone”?

It is obvious when you look at things through the common sense spectrum that these types of angry militant groups are out to kill anyone who does not conform, including Americans. Airstrikes will not dampen their hatred.


See the story at:

Tagged , , ,