Whoops!

And the award for "Worst Time to Make a Political Point" goes to... the town of Amherst, Massachusetts.

Just a little over a day after town officials voted to bring in Guantanamo detainees to resettle in the town, FBI agents have arrested a man and charged him with plotting terrorist attacks. Why is this significant? The man was arrested in Sudbury, Massachusetts, a town about 70 miles away. Federal authorities claim that this man plotted to attack and shoot people in malls in America. Allegations state that on several occasions he flew overseas and attempted to join terrorists training camps. Furthermore, the FBI has tied him to two other man who were involved in the plot. FBI Agents state that this investigation has been ongoing for several years and that back in 2006 they arrested this man for lying to FBI officials.

So, there you go! Good job Amherst. Sadly, this is the second time this town has been awarded this. Back on 10 September 2001, just a day before 9/11, the town of Amherst voted to take down 29 flags that had been flying on phone poles downtown. The board and others stated that the flags were oppressive and scared them. I applaud you Amherst.

You can read about the arrest here.

Only in the People's Republic of Mass

Ok… maybe also in Vermont.

From the files of “Did I Just Read That Correctly” comes this article about a town in Massachusetts called Amherst.

Town officials voted last night (2-1) to offer their town as a resettlement home for two Guantanamo detainees if they are released from the military prison. According to officials these two men have been cleared by the military, have done nothing wrong, and should be freed to the town. There is only one minor issue standing in the way of this vote. That being current policy of the administration and the United States of America which states that no detainees can be relocated onto sovereign U.S. soil. In reality, this case is just another attempt of this small college town trying to dictate national policy.

I don’t know where to begin with this issue is just so mind-boggling. First, how about we send them to their homes and back to their friends and family. I mean, are we to grant these “gentlemen” legal status or citizenship? What message does this send to the families of 9/11 especially since two of the planes left from Boston’s Logan Airport? Even if these men were cleared and given the recent record of finding releases of Gitmo detainees being found fighting for jihad, isn’t it a bit dangerous to locate them in near a college with 35,ooo students?

What do you think? I honestly just can’t comprehend the thinking behind this!

You Say You Want a Debate?

During his address to Congress on 9 September 2009 he said that his door would always be open.

Just yesterday he repeated the phrase that he welcomes an open and honest debate.

Yet, do President Obama and Democrats truly want a debate? It appears that as of late their actions and words state otherwise.

Over the last week the administration has opened up a can of worms with its attacks on Fox News. Going after Republicans is one thing, but, Democrats raised the stakes last week with this new strategy. It started with an interview on CNN with Anita Dunn (White House Communications Director) in which she claimed that the news station is a wing of the GOP. Late in the week, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated the same when asked by the press during a briefing. The rhetoric picked up a grand fervor just this weekend when more lackeys of the administration (to include Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel) went on the television circuit of morning shows spewing forth more rhetoric. The attacks claim that Fox News is not News just Republican rhetoric, and that they bring forth a certain “perspective.”

Perspective? Well, it can be implied that this administration is saying that Fox News does not agree with the policies of the White House. Therefore, they are not a real news organization. They present a different argument which the White House could debate but instead simply tries to marginalize and shut down. So much for debate.

It’s not just the recent attacks of Fox News which brings the idea of open debate into question. Over the past few months Democrats have been doing all they can to not debate the issues. From declaring fake emergencies to pass legislation to voting for huge bills in just hours which no one has read. The White House went as far as to create an email and website for people to report anyone spreading false or misinformation about healthcare (meaning information that does not agree with the rhetoric of the White House). President Obama, himself, has said that he wants those who created the problem to simply step out of the way.

There’s more: If you don’t agree is global warming you are labeled a holocaust denier. If you oppose illegal immigration you are a racist. If you oppose gay marriage you are a bigot. If you support a troop increase you are a war monger. The list goes on and on. The truth of the matter is that Democrats think know what is better for you and truly just want you to sit down and shut up. They don’t want an honest debate because they know that people will question their true motives. If they did then everything that they are currently doing would not be such a rush.

And remember the true proof that Democrats don’t want a debate is the three words always uttered when all else fails. “Bush Did IT.”

Not Evil Just Wrong!

I can not wait to see this movie which comes out on Sunday 18 October 2009. Made by filmmakers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer this documentary explores the controversy surrounding the hysteria of environmentalism and global warming. The film delves into the true motives of the movement and those involved in it. Not Evil Just Wrong analyzes the cost of some of the legislation cuurently being put forth worlwide in terms of taxes, jobs, and people. It also brings up evidence that refutes many of Al Gore's claims in his own documentry. Overall, this film appears to finally bring a voice to the forefront for those who have not quite been sold on the idea of global warming and have until now been silenced.

You can buy this film here.

Is America Bi-Polar?

It seems that as of late we as a nation are no longer questioning the actions or motives of our politicians. We don’t truly fact check speeches, look at voting records, or even look at the major stances of our elected officials. That is to say we don’t research and investigate the people who have the same letter next to their name as the party that we belong to. Across the aisle, however, we are quick to attack with half-truths and sometimes spotty evidence to condemn the other letter.

The two-party system is as American as apple pie and, quite frankly, is quite rotten. Most Americans are not active when it comes to politics and when it comes to voting all they look for is either the letter D or R. Politics in the United States has essentially become a zero-sum game with one philosophy winning out every few years over the other. The problem is that when people recognize what these politicians really represent they quickly vote for the other letter without knowing where that politician truly stands. However, a few years later, when these new policies fail people vote for the other letter in hopes of returning to normalcy. Just look at the swift swing for Democrats in Congress in 2006 and the Executive branch in 2008. People voted simply on the fact that whoever was the D was not the R which had become synonymous with then President Bush. Yet, in truth no one really looked at what the Ds genuinely represented. Now there is a major ground swell forming for the Rs once again in the upcoming 2010 elections. It has become obvious that in American politics there is no common ground.

Is there truly no common ground? As of right now, no. However, if one looks at recent polls there is a glimmer of hope. A Rasmussen poll on partisan trends in early September showed that 37.5% of people considered themselves to be Democrats while on 32.1% considered themselves to be Republicans. Why is this significant? Well, that means currently 30.4% of people considered themselves to be Independents. This group constitutes almost a third of Americans and is nearly as large as the other two parties. Yet, because there is no true third choice or party (or there is no appearance of) this group more often than not will lean towards either the D or R. There is a void big enough at his point for the possible emergence of a new party.

If you don’t believe me that people will stick to their letters then try this experiment. Talk with a friend, co-worker, or college student about politics. Ask them which party they identify with and then play this trick. Ask them what they think about their candidate’s stance on a subject, but, state the opposite of their actual position. I guarantee that 95% of the time the person will say that they agree with their candidate’s supposed position. John Ziegler has an amazing example of this in his movie Media Malpractice. So what you ask? Well, this is quite dangerous. If we start laying down boundaries over letters instead of really looking into what candidate x or y stand for then we open ourselves up for something we did not want. We will be ruled by people who don’t represent our beliefs, ethics, or morals. We will lose control over our country, rights, and freedoms.

So, honestly, is American truly bi-polar? No! WE are just led to believe that we are.

Moral Equivalence!

I have come to find that this administration and its following suffer from the egregious idea of moral equivalence and the philosophy of moral relativism. To offer a fairly glib interpretation of these two ideas I state that moral equivalence is the idea of justifying one’s behaviors, ideas, and actions by comparing them to another’s. The other’s behaviors, ideas, and actions are usually portrayed as either equivalent in their wrong-doings or are considered to be the greater of the two evils. Therefore, as the lesser of two evils it essentially gives the person(s) carte blanche to do as they will. Moral relativism is the idea that ethics and morals are not universal, but, instead are always to be put in the context of one’s culture, history, and society. While I do slightly agree with this philosophy, I believe that when person(s) take it to the extreme and put ethics and morals into such a narrow purview that it can become dangerous. Both of these practices can be used to consolidate power over a populace and take away essential freedoms without notice.

So, where am I going with this, you might ask? This has been a long summer with many controversial ideas being put forth, both good and bad. Debate has been roaring over healthcare, cap and trade, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, taxes, the sky falling, kids singing, birds chirping, food, tires, unions, dogs, and just about a million other things. Well, debate has been roaring on most of these issues from most sides of the political spectrum. Over the last few months I’ve noticed this ever growing phenomenon which has quickly become one of my biggest pet peeves. It’s a phrase uttered by both politicians and the common man when they can’t win a debate or simply don’t want to actually have an honest discussion over an intense issue. What is it you might ask? Well it’s three simple words. “BUSH DID IT!”

Yes, most debates over these last few months have ended with those simple three words as if it were some magical get out of jail free card. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard these words come out of the mouths of my friends, family, and the common man when trying to have an honest debate. More so, I am amazed when I hear local, state, national, and federal politicians at town halls or on television actually utter this phrase. It is amazing, however, because this works. You heard me right, it works somehow. The person merely says this and the debate ends then and there; if one keeps on going one will just hear those words over and over. I always conjure up the image in my head of the child in kindergarten who knows that they are wrong, but, instead of acknowledging it just puts fingers in his ears and screams, “lalalalala, no, no, no, I’m right, you’re wrong,” while running away.

I just want to quickly look at this phrase and tell those who utter it how dangerous this argument truly is. First, does a person’ former action always justify another’s? One can aptly retort with the phrase that we were once taught as children; do two wrongs make a right? The answer is simple. No, they don’t! I am not going to stand before you asking to suspend habeas corpus because well President Lincoln did it. The idea that because someone did something wrong allows you to do something wrong is extremely ludicrous and quite scary. Which brings me to my second point; I recall that when President Bush did these same exact actions you were screaming bloody murder. I recall people in the streets protesting and becoming upset over these actions of our former president. Yet, when our current president does the same exact thing it is all of a sudden fine. If it is was wrong in the past then why is it right now? You have already made the argument that action A is illegal and immoral, yet you justify it by saying, “well it’s ok when our guy does it because the precedent has already been set by a former.” Seriously? Either it is wrong or it is not, you cannot have it both ways.

I honestly hope that eventually we can get beyond this and actually debate these topics. There are many sides of every story that need to be explored and heard. However, what this does is kill the debate and we are all none the better. Our politicians and government need to answer the hard questions and should have the feet put to the fire. If we blindly accept what they offer us then we will soon see the end to individual liberties and freedoms. At times we should explore the precedents that have been set, but, they should not always justify our actions. What is right for one administration is not always right for another. Keep debating and keep questioning and move forward!

I can imagine that I will get asked the following question, “Why didn’t you question Bush then, where were you then?” First, I would like to say that I was not too fond of him I opposed many of his policies, like the bailouts and his stance on immigration. Second, though, I would like to ask you, “are you not doing the same thing that you are accusing me of doing?”

It's good to be back!

Well, it has been a long summer! Who knew that moving would take several months? But, I'm finally all settled in and have a connection to the internet. So, I will be back up and posting. It appears as if the political climate has changed rapidly over the last few months. Debates are coming and going that affect everyone and everything in the United States. Needless to say, it should be an interesting next few months, between healthcare, cap and trade, unions, and the myriad issues currently being raised. If you notice, there has been several changes to the blog. I figured new times should lead to a new layout. Hopefully, you continue to read.

Thanks,
Matt