Closing GITMO? Where to move those inmates?

Today, President Obama issued an order to close GITMO; I think this is a bad idea.

The whole idea of GITMO is that there are dangerous people i.e. war criminals who, if escaped, would run amok all over the island of Cuba instead of the US. Now, Obama thinks that if he closes a prison that the US will be forgiven for protecting Israel and not worshiping Allah. Remember, the people who hate America think we are the "Great Satan". They will not feel any better that their fellow Jihadists are in New Jersey or California. This is a flawed plan and will cost the American people money.

So, where to move these terrorists? No State in it's right mind will want the detention center. I have an idea: If Obama doesn't trust our troops with the prisoners in Cuba, lets move them to the White House. That way he can keep an eye on them himself. Only at the White House will Obama have the ability to insure that no torture is going on. Also, there is all that security at the WH ...it's perfect. Then, if a terrorist does escape, or there is an attempt to get them out by someone here in the US, Obama is only endangering his own family...not the families of the Americans whose City will be unlucky enough to get the New GITMO.

Obama's speech made me miss Clinton

I actually own the book, The inaugural addresses of the Presidents. And, I must say that Obama's speech today was the worst inaugural address of them all.

Let us compare the closing line in Obama's speech to the closing line of Thomas Jefferson's second address:

TJ: I shall need, therefore, all the indulgence which I have heretofore experienced from my constituents; the want of it will certainly not lessen with increasing years. I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.

vs.

BA: America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Again, I must say that we shouldn't do anything for our children's children (children should not be having sex!) Also, there is no mention of a "journey" in any of the speech until the end. So what is he talking about when he says "this journey"? He is trying to sound so transcendent that he forgets what imagery he is working with. Go ahead, read the speech! He doesn't follow a theme nor does he really seem to convey a vision of our place in history. He acknowledges our troubles, but offers little by way of encouragement. What a downer! Unlike Jefferson, he offers no hope of happiness and prosperity. The most that we can hope for (ironic isn't it?) is that maybe we can "safely deliver freedom" to a future generation. Why? He doesn't even extol the virtues of freedom in his speech. He certainly doesn't think the Iraqi's need it! He left me feeling like I had the wind knocked out of me. Where is his faith in liberal policy? The world should be sunshine and lollipops by the time he's through with it!

At least when Bill Clinton was lying to me, I felt inspired. That is, until I rubbed my eyes and saw through it all. When Clinton would speak, he would stand there grinning like only a southerner could, and make us all feel warm inside. And I admit that it was entertaining to see someone so skillfully package BS.

So, therein lies my disappointment. I expected BS, but I wanted it packaged skillfully. At least it was fun to watch.

So, I am feeling a very confusing emotion: for the first time in my life, I miss Bill Clinton!

Drive a Hummer...for your Children's Children!

First of all, I don't think we should be doing anything for our children's children...because I don't think children should be having sex.

But if you don't take that statement too literally...and you are talking about the next two generations of people then I have some advice for us all.

Drive a Hummer. Well, it doesn't have to be a Hummer. It can be any inefficeint vehicle. Why? Haven't you heard the destruction the CO2 emissions are causing? Global Climate change! Greenhouse gasses!

So, here's my solution. There is only a fixed amount of oil left in the world. So, we need to burn it all up as fast as possible. Only then will alternative fuels be competative in the marketplace. Once we burn up all the fossil fuels, we will be forced to go green...and we'll have the paradise on earth that Al Gore is promising.

One of the ways we can burn all the oil up quicker is to have LOTS OF BABIES and give them all hummers to help in the cause. (when they are old enough to drive...we'll lower the driving age to 14) .Our generation may not be able to burn up all the fuel ourselves...so it is up to our children to burn up the remaining fuel so that our children's children can have a clean world to live in.

We may not be able to burn all of it up...but if we burn enough of it, it will cause whatever remains to be really expensive. It's all supply and demand economics.

But if you think about it, there's no way we're going to stop the Chinese from burning gas...or the rest of the world...so we might as well bite the bullet and try to burn it up as fast as we can.

-

Paradise might be closer than we think.

Compassionate Conservatism

by David Alvord

In a few days we will say Goodbye to President Bush. His presidency will probably be remembered for the Iraq war. Obama's decision to extend the service of Robert Gates is encouraging to me and is a signal that America won't be rushing out of Iraq anytime soon. This must be very frustrating to the anti-war left.

When all things are considered, President Bush delivered on what he campaigned for. He promised to be a "compassionate conservative". When we conservatives first heard the word "compassionate", we worried that Bush was referring to a compassionate government. We worried because, as conservatives, the only compassion we want from the government is to be left alone. Had Bush not heard Reagan say "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"? Probably not. President Bush's low approval ratings are due to the fact that conservatives didn't like his "government compassion" and liberals didn't like the war.

Conservatism is Compassion.

I hope I speak for most conservatives when I say that we are for human compassion. We simply believe that families, churches, and communities are better at taking care of the poor than the government is. We believe that if the money is left in our hands, we will be more responsible with that money than the government will be. When a family gives financial support to one of it's own, there is accountability involved. The family knows if any individual is abusing the money and will make adjustments accordingly. The family will also encourage eventual self-reliance. Does anyone really think that a social worker knows as much (or cares as much) as the family does?

Lower taxes will put more money in the hands of the people, the churches, and the charities.

There may be some reading this who worry that there are individuals who may not belong to a family who can offer any assistance. This is where churches, charities, and communities can step in. Ironically, one of the reasons families may not be able to take care of their own is due to the high tax rate we currently have. I believe that if you let Americans keep more of their own money, families will be empowered to take care of their own. And, the American people will be much more judicious with that allocation than any government agency could ever be.

When families have the money, it encourages a society to higher moral standards.

For example, imagine a young college student who is considering experimenting with drugs and who is also considering getting body piercing, and tattoos. If Mom and Dad are paying for college, or helping etc, there will be the immediate thought that they may cut him off from that funding if he/she does not live up to the standards of the family. But if Uncle Sam/Uncle Obama is paying for school there will no immediate consequences. In fact, that college student will hit "decline"on his cell phone when Mom calls. After all, who needs Mom and Dad when the government is paying for things? What about the consequences of drugs and tattoos? Governments can run ads on TV warning of the consequences of drug abuse to a young person's body...but we are talking about people who feel pretty immortal. And the consideration of being able to earn a living? Won't those tattoos and piercings put a young person at a disadvantage? No worries...the government will be there for the young person if they hit "rock bottom". They won't have to go to Mom and Dad and hear their lectures, take out their tongue rings and get a job. No.... Pell grants, food stamps, public housing will all be there for them if they really screw up. The result? A decline in the character and morals of the society.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son.

In the Parable, a son departs from moral living and spends his birthright on riotous living. When he comes to himself, he returns to his father who compassionately receives him. One of the essential elements of the parable is that the Son hit bottom. There was no government program to bail him out. He basically had no choice but to return and repent. The prodigal had to return to moral living in his father's house. The son is better off in his father's house than if he had continued in riotous living while being supported by some unfeeling sponsor. The father had the means to kill the fatted calf and put a ring on his son's finger because he was not overtaxed. The whole story doesn't work out if we get the wealth redistribution Obama is talking about.

I heard Obama say that if one of his daughters makes a mistake (gets pregnant), he doesn't want her to be "punished" with a child...therefore abortion should be an option. First of all, children aren't a punishment. And at the heart of all of this, is the notion that there should be no punishment for wrongdoing. When you try to take away the consequences of bad behavior, you are, in turn, likely to increase the opportunity for people to behave badly.

Conservatism offers a better way. Let the people keep their money. Empower families to take care of their own. Churches and communities can assist those who are disabled, the Elderly, or those who have made poor choices. There will be accountability when help is given.Conservatism allows us to be compassionate. Our man Mitt understands this principle. It is my prayer that Obama will see it too.