An Ol' Broad's Ramblings
Archive for March 2011
…..I don’t give a happy crap! It’s one of those days that the world can fall apart, the politicians can all go…..well, do something that is physically impossible, and I don’t care. I might care later today, but right now….dealing with things going on inside my own four walls is enough.
Kindle……here I come!
President Obama has signed a secret presidential finding authorizing covert operations in Libya, a U.S. official told Fox News, although the administration says it still hasn’t decided whether to arm rebel forces there.
1. concealed; secret; disguised.
2. covered; sheltered.
4. a covering; cover.
5. a shelter or hiding place.
6. concealment or disguise.
You’ll excuse me if I’m a bit confused, but wouldn’t that mean that it’s suppose to be a secret, and U.S. officials aren’t suppose to be blabbing to the press? And I’d like to know why we would aid some folks when we don’t even know who they are, and might be those who will turn around and use the weapons to kill Americans?
OBAMA CRIED, KIDS DIED
by Ann Coulter
“Humanitarian” seems to be the Democrats’ new word for “absolutely no national interest.”
The Democrats were not so interested in a “humanitarian” intervention against a much more brutal dictator in Iraq. But, of course, taking out Saddam Hussein, a state sponsor of terrorism who harbored one of the perpetrators of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, would make Americans safer.
Democrats are furious whenever American boys (girls and gays) are put in harm’s way — unless the troops are on a mission that has nothing whatsoever to do with defending the United States.
Obama ignored the murder, imprisonment and torture of peaceful Iranian protesters demonstrating against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s theft of an election in 2009. But he was hopping mad about Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak getting rough with a mob in Tahrir Square with less distinct objectives.
But I repeat myself.
Harry Reid Chooses Shutdown Over Responsibility
You would think liberals in Congress have nothing better to do with their time. Amid a war in Libya, an effort to aid earthquake and tsunami-stricken Japan, a continuing war in Afghanistan, rising gas prices and endless unemployment, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate are refusing to accept a modest agreement to fund the federal government through the end of the fiscal year. And time is running short. What’s Senator Reid wrangling over? A mere $51 billion in additional budget cuts, which amounts to a few days of government deficit spending.
But Reid’s stonewalling isn’t just about dollars and cents, or saving federal funding for a Cowboy Poetry Festival. Reid and the Democrats in Congress are setting the groundwork for a partial government shutdown so they can attempt to lay the blame at the feet of the Tea Party and Republicans in Congress and gain politically. They’re simply putting electoral politics over the business of our nation.
Lawmakers have debated whether to let grocery stores sell wine for the past four years, but the matter has died in committee each year. Presently, only beer can be sold in supermarkets, while wine and liquor are restricted to the 563 licensed liquor stores in the state. Tennessee law says that each of those liquor stores must be independently owned by a resident of the state.
It’s really not a complicated issue, but I’ll be darned if there aren’t some folks who have made it one. Obviously, this being a buckle of the Bible Belt, you’re going to have some church people who would prefer to not have any sale of alcohol, of any kind, in the state. That’s ok. Each to his/her own. But prohibition, which was a major failure, and saw the rise of crime in the country, was repealed. So, let’s move forward.
Supporters argue that loosening restriction on wine sales will generate more than $11 million in tax revenues and an additional $1.2 million annually for the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, after accounting for the cost of enforcement. They also say it will boost sales of other products, such as meat and cheese.
The tax income would be real handy. I wonder if people are aware of how many cook with wine? A lot of the best dishes have a splash or 10 of wine, and they are mighty tasty. Cooking also decreases the alcohol content, by the way. First off, I don’t drink, but when, on the rare occasion I actually cook, I’ve been known to add a bit of wine to the recipe that calls for it. When shopping for the ingredients, convenience is a great motivator. Having the wine available in the grocery store would go a long way to make shopping more convenient, not to mention the gas that would be saved from having to drive to a variety of places to find the wine you want for your dish.
But opponents said allowing wine sales in grocery stores will lead to more alcohol abuse, especially among teenagers; open the market to pharmacies and convenience stores that can currently sell beer; and shift business from local liquor stores to large, out-of-state chains.
Seriously? THIS is their argument? As a teen, I was not exactly a by the book type of person. If I wanted to get a hold of beer, wine, or even a bottle of the hard stuff, it really wasn’t that big of a problem. Of course, I wasn’t legally able to buy it myself. I never went so far as to even attempt it. I had friends. Legal aged friends, or friends with older siblings of legal age. Do they really believe by not selling wine in grocery store, they are going to prevent teens from drinking? On what planet? Not to mention the fact that having wine in grocery stores does NOT lead to alcohol abuse. The person doing the massive consumption is at fault, not the store where he or she bought it. That’s like blaming a pencil for misspelled words. Someone needs a reality check!
(A side note: I honestly do not understand why some churches use grape juice instead of wine, and I’m a Southern Baptist. Jesus turned water into wine. He drank wine, even if it was a bit watered down. What’s the problem? A quarter ounce of wine in a tiny plastic cup does not make a drunk. Just curious.)
I may not be the brightest bulb in the box, but even I am no where near as clueless as the president evidently believes. I sat, I listened, and I’m still scratching my head. The speech, which was given last night, was passionless, and pretty repetitive. I still have no idea why we are involved in Libya. It’s not because I don’t much care for Obama, which I don’t, it’s just that when politicians start with their double talk, in monotone, I, like most, tend to tune them out.
Portions of the speech appeared to me nothing more than wishful thinking. For example: “…stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan…..” Apparently, the Afghan police wouldn’t exactly agree with Mr Obama’s statement.
“But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That’s what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.” Mr President, what exactly are our ‘interests and values’ in Libya? When your own Secretary of Defense tells the American public just the opposite, I wonder if, perhaps, there is something we don’t know about Libya? I don’t remember you mentioning that Europe gets the majority of its oil from Libya, and we get almost none (0.5%). So, if I’m understanding this correctly, even though there were thousands of protestors in the streets shouting “No War For Oil” when we went into Iraq, and we get NO oil from Iraq, we are now involved in a war….excuse me, a “kinetic military action” for oil….it’s just for someone else’s oil. Do I have that right? Now honestly, I don’t mind backing up our allies, if we still have any left, which I’m starting to question, since our long time close allies have been insulted repeatedly by this administration, just how is this action in the best interest of the U.S.’s ‘interests and values’?
And just why would ANY of the ‘coalition’ be aiding sworn enemies?
“I made it clear that Qaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.” Honestly, nothing was made clear. When you make such a statement, you should be ready to back it up. If you don’t want ‘regime change’, and make that clear to the world, then the reaction will be pretty much to embolden the person you want to step down, but let know you don’t really mean it. As a side note, since the American people have lost confidence in your “legitimacy to lead”, does that mean you will be stepping down?
One of the sticking points many, on both sides, are having a problem with: “Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean.” The problem? Well, in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, it clearly states “The Congress shall have power…..To declare war,….“ In Article 2, Section 2: “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;…” The way I understand it, he’s the Commander in Chief WHEN the military is called into action by Congress. I may have this all wrong, not being a Constitutional scholar, but apparently, when the president bypassed Congress, and went to the U.N., he is NOT the CiC of the military involved in the “kinetic military action”.
If this is truly a ‘humanitarian crisis’, why is the U.S., along with Great Britain, France, and whoever else is involved lobbing bombs on the country? In my opinion, if you are going to provide humanitarian aid, you drop food and medical supplies to those in need.
One statement really gave me a chin dropping moment. “To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.” My thoughts automatically turned back to Iran in 2009, with the slaughter of ‘fellow human beings’ demanding freedom. Many of those young protestors, and political rights activists against Ahmadinijad’s regime have since been executed, yet this administration remains silent.
“As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe.” I’m afraid I don’t get the connection with keeping this country safe, and bombing Libya. If this statement is true, why are radical Islamists sneaking across our southern border? Why are we being overrun by criminal elements who, daily, break our laws, by ignoring our sovereignty? We are being invaded, yet your concern is with a country on the other side of the world that has little to do with our safety.
There are many more questions to be answered Mr President. While some may believe you have addressed the nation’s concerns in this matter, there are others, like myself, who are still waiting for a clear response, and not a pretty, droning, uninspiring speech.
I listened, as best I could.
That would save LOTS of taxpayer dollars. Naturally, a lot of RINOs would have to be cut as well. Heh.
What Would Democrats Cut?
As a third temporary spending bill expires next week, the attention of Capitol Hill will once again be focused on producing a permanent spending bill to keep the federal government open and operating. The threat of a government shutdown would not exist had the Democratically controlled 111th Congress passed a budget for this fiscal year. In fact, not only did they fail to pass a budget, but for the for the first time in the history of the budget-making process, last year’s Congress failed to even vote on a budget. And now, even as the consequences of their failure are just days a way, the Democrats have still failed to agree on a plan that cuts spending.
I’ll be the first to admit anger towards the FDR administration during WWII….they knew what was going on, and refused entry to so many who could have been saved. But for Poland, of all places, to criticize?? Give me a flippin’ break! Pot….meet kettle!
That’s really funny….coming from Ahmanutjob’s people.
I’m not so sure Merkel was wrong, despite all the criticism. I’m thinking more and more, since there was no military intervention in Tunisia, or in Egypt, well, except for those left wing loons, why the sudden interest in Libya? The West really has NO real allies in the Middle East (except Israel), and with all the turmoil going on, we’ll find we have even fewer.
Remove ALL troops…… carpet bomb!
Why hasn’t the CIA, or some such alphabet, taken this raving loony tune out?
A rather nutty situation.
I’d say they probably already have. And there’s not much doubt that hard core Islamists will do the same in every other so called secular, or moderate country.
They are butt ugly, way over priced, too expensive to maintain, rolling death traps. Why would anyone want one?
Tempers are flaring out here in the REAL world, too! I’d suggest they, both parties, stop pussy footin’ around, and do they job they were elected to do! WE, The People, are fed up with your back room deals, power grabs, and don’t give a flying flip whether you want to be re-elected or not. YOU are not indispensable! YOU work for US!
Why don’t they call them what they are? Communists! And communism destroys, it does not create. How El Paso could have fallen for such B.S. is beyond me. Hopefully, common sense will prevail and the trend will be reversed!
That low life female should have bowed out gracefully when she lost the primary! Instead, the country is stuck with one more RINO that MUST be defeated. How any woman can condone the murder of innocent babies, paid for by the taxpayer, is completely beyond my comprehension!
Just who the hell does she think she’s kidding? Contrary to what the morons in the Swamp think, we are NOT blithering idiots!
Why couldn’t Tennessee have gotten a strong governor like Wisconsin, instead of a wishy washy one?
I’m pretty sure most politicians are!
Lawsuits against whom? Saudi Arabia? Osama bin Laden? All of Islam?
It’s the people who VOTE that decide. NOT the courts, or a minority of loud mouthed thugs!
Dude is way too greenie for my tastes.
Let’s face facts here…..contrary to D’Bama’s words, this is NOT exactly a ‘transparent’ administration.
1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.