I may be perhaps a bit more sensitive right now because with the heroics of Andy Murray and Bradley Wiggins and the UK in center stage with the Olympics I am probably the most homesick I have been for a long time and certainly most patriotic and sensitive I have been for my homeland for long time. Therefore, perhaps these comments can be taken more into context.
In comes Mitt. His first foreign visit as a potential President. He goes to the Country that has over the last few decades been the US's biggest ally and has a Conservative Prime Minister who would undoubtedly would be an ally. What does he do? Criticize before he even does research. In two days makes two huge blunders. You know what the UK ain't perfect by any stretch, but, what does it say when a Potential President does this? This scares me to death. I wonder what he might say to the Russian, Chinese, Iranians etc and what foreign policy a may do... A very rude and insensitive man!!!!
As an aside comparing the Summer Olympics to the Winter Olympics is like comparing Major League to AAA's in terms of scale and to compare a City as busy and as large as London to Salt Lake City and therefore an exponentially larger scale of problems is asinine. I quote from David Cameron (who I don't really care for - he may get my vote after this!!) "He pointed out that the 2012 Olympics were taking place in a busy city rather than “the middle of nowhere” – a remark was widely seen as a reference to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, which Mr Romney was in charge of organising."
Even if the Olympics end up being a disaster he should keep his nose out and leave the issues to the IOC. So much for smaller Government Conservative he can't keep out of another Country's Government.
-Richard
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
I have take some time before posting about the horror of the events in Aurora, Colorado this week. My heart is breaking for those who have suffered so much pain and loss. My prayers are with them all.
I didn't want to politicize this, because, I think it is insensitive at this time, but, I just want to make one comment. I am not an expert on the constitution by any stretch, but, I think there has to be a rethink on the second amendment. The right to bear arms is one thing, but, multiple weapons including high-powered assault rifles is in my opinion taking it way to far. I am not one to take stock in what celebrities say in such situations as, well, just because they are famous, does not make them an expert. However, Jason Alexander wrote a blog post that I am copying from below. The whole blog can be found here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht
He says:
..."This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.
Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.
Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:
As passed by the Congress:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:
"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no."
I didn't want to politicize this, because, I think it is insensitive at this time, but, I just want to make one comment. I am not an expert on the constitution by any stretch, but, I think there has to be a rethink on the second amendment. The right to bear arms is one thing, but, multiple weapons including high-powered assault rifles is in my opinion taking it way to far. I am not one to take stock in what celebrities say in such situations as, well, just because they are famous, does not make them an expert. However, Jason Alexander wrote a blog post that I am copying from below. The whole blog can be found here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht
He says:
..."This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.
Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.
Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:
As passed by the Congress:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:
"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no."
As Jesus said in His teaching: "Blessed are the Peacemakers" and "Love your enemy:... Let's proclaim the word of Christ and claim it back in this Country and the World.
-Richard
Saturday, July 7, 2012
So, in the run up to the General Election in the US Mitt Romney's campaign announced that they had raised over one hundred million dollars in a single month. How crazy is that? I haven't seen the numbers for President Obama, but, I would expect it to also be a large sum of money. Add this to all the money already raised and spent, plus that off the super PAC's leads to an obscene amount of money.
We are in the process of a record deficit, high unemployment and people complaining over the yet to be determined slight increase in health cost. Think what a difference this money raised could do. By the end of the Presidential election my guess is will exceed $1million per man, woman and child in this Country. Everyone has the right to do as they see fit with their money, but, this is excessive. The question also has to be asked what favours does this lead to, or, at least been promised too. I propose that a limited budget is set so all candidates can play on a level playing field. It certainly is not democracy when someone who has a larger financial clout or reach gets a huge advantage. That is how the Republican primary ended up working out. The average Joe who wants to take an active role in politics just has no chance.
The other point is that the Presidency is only one third of the branch's of Government and yet takes such a way higher profile. Ultimately, the President, no matter what he promises and claims cannot do anything if Congress does not approve. Yes, there is a veto, but, that is a limited power. I think it's about time we as a country and media focus on the other two branches and give them the higher profile they deserve and at least when it comes to elections pay an equal, if, not greater attention to the Congress elections.
-Richard
We are in the process of a record deficit, high unemployment and people complaining over the yet to be determined slight increase in health cost. Think what a difference this money raised could do. By the end of the Presidential election my guess is will exceed $1million per man, woman and child in this Country. Everyone has the right to do as they see fit with their money, but, this is excessive. The question also has to be asked what favours does this lead to, or, at least been promised too. I propose that a limited budget is set so all candidates can play on a level playing field. It certainly is not democracy when someone who has a larger financial clout or reach gets a huge advantage. That is how the Republican primary ended up working out. The average Joe who wants to take an active role in politics just has no chance.
The other point is that the Presidency is only one third of the branch's of Government and yet takes such a way higher profile. Ultimately, the President, no matter what he promises and claims cannot do anything if Congress does not approve. Yes, there is a veto, but, that is a limited power. I think it's about time we as a country and media focus on the other two branches and give them the higher profile they deserve and at least when it comes to elections pay an equal, if, not greater attention to the Congress elections.
-Richard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)