Sadly, the President gave a statement that sounded as if he were reading a recipe from a 3 x 5 note card. There was no emotion, no passion as he spoke. Americans were waiting to hear in no uncertain terms that we would not stand for this and the people who perpetrated this terrorist act would pay for their callous deed. Justice would be served and swiftly.

Instead, when the last utterly dispassionate words left his mouth – he walked away. He took no questions.

If ever there was a time to take questions it was this moment. America had been attacked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. The people wanted their leader to say something of consequence, something of import.

Obama turned and walked away. One lone reporter dared to shout a question, “was this an act of war?”

“Was this an act of war?” The people had a right to know.

The words hung in the air and fell to the ground like a lead balloon.

The President of the United States kept walking. In doing so he  turned his back on the people he swore to serve.

It was also a tell. It was then and there his actions telegraphed to the world the truth may never be known. Or,  if it is ever known it will be learned from sources other than this administration.

In fact, if the truth is ever learned about those seven hours in Benghazi it will be in spite of this administration.

What ensued in the days following the attack is insulting. America and the world was treated to a parade of idiocy declaring a mob outraged by an Internet video was to blame for the deaths of these four men.

The Secretary of State in her best sing-song kindergarten teacher tone gave a lecture outlining again the evil of this video. Her message came astoundingly close to saying, if only we didn’t have to put up with that pesky free speech thing.

Then came the ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base. The unseemliness of her mentioning that video tape while standing next to the caskets of the deceased was chilling.

The rounding up of a crack pot film maker on “parole violations” was reminiscent of something out of the old Soviet Union.

Advertising time was purchased in Pakistan to blame the video. 70,000 dollars worth of air-time to perpetrate the meme of a video instigating the attack.

UN Ambassador Susan Rice sat on 5 Sunday talk shows and blamed that disgusting video.

The President himself stood at the United Nations and repeatedly talked about the video.

Americans are smart and quickly connect the dots. This is not and was not about a video tape. This was a terror attack.

Today the President who in the past has been quick to jump to conclusions – often leading to beer summits – is all for conducting an investigation. Regrettably, whenever politicians in Washington are eager to conduct an investigation it’s almost an admission they’re lying. Investigations becomes stone-walling and continue until people either forget or deduce there’s nothing to the story. (Fast and Furious comes to mind)

However it’s been seven weeks and America has had the chance to meet the families of the men killed that night. America has a persistent social media refusing to let the story disappear. America still has a few good reporters like Catherine Herridge and Jennifer Griffin unearthing facts. Alarmingly a majority of the facts they’ve unearthed are proving to have been facts known by the administration all along.

That day in the Rose Garden was a heart breaking day. The President turned and walked away without answering the most critical question. Had this attack been an act of war? He owed that to America. He works for us. America deserves to know.

The deafening cacophony of silence from the media and a President turning his back on citizens cannot stand in America. This is no longer about party loyalty or conservative vs. liberal. It’s about a man and an administration willfully lying to the people of America.

By turning and walking away he thumbed his nose at the very people who entrusted him with the job. He no longer deserves to hold that office. He deserves to be fired. On election day, God willing, America will turn its back on him and elect Mitt Romney.

Immediately on Twitter people like Piers Morgan were calling for more gun control. Several Hollywood celebs like Jason Alexander began ranting. (Hollywood may want to look at its role in all this)

New York Mayor Bloomberg took to the airwaves before the victims had even been moved from the crime scene to declare stricter gun control is needed.

Brian Ross of ABC News disgraced himself by tossing out without a shred of proof the name of an innocent man in order to promote this might be the work of a crazed Tea Party member.

And so the day went. Folks on Facebook and Twitter understandably angry wanting to blame this on something. People were behaving as people are wont to do when trying to explain the inexplicable. There has to be something done to stop this from happening again.

I couldn’t join in the debate. By nature I’m one to wait. I guess you can say my knee-jerk reaction is to not have a knee-jerk reaction. I sit, I listen, I observe and I wait. Then I collect my thoughts.

Coincidentally, as I was busy processing the gory details of the events that took place in that movie theater, I was reminded of another evil that took place.

You see, my father was wounded in action July 22, 1944 fighting the battle of Guam. His closest buddy was killed in action that day. The date sticks in my head.

What does one have to do with the other?

As I sat listening to Glenn Miller music, remembering my father and his friend I thought about the pain inflicted on so many during WWII. That made me think of the pain being felt in Aurora and what the two very different events have in common.

Evil.

Just as my father’s generation knew and understood in WWII; there’s evil in the world. In the process of combating that evil there was great loss and sacrifice. Nonetheless after fighting and prevailing, it was understood although good triumphed that day, evil is always waiting to return.

So now that the knee-jerking time has passed and I’ve had time to collect my thoughts I’ve decided what I’ll take away from this tragedy.

I don’t see this as a gun control issue at all. No doubt there are many crafting ways to make it harder for sane people to obtain firearms. (It’s the law abiding who follow the laws, not the criminals.)

The hair-splitters can fight over how many bullets should be in a magazine until they’re blue in the face. A crazy mind will simply find another method.

Aurora already has strict gun laws in place. This didn’t prevent the crime from happening.

Mexico has restrictive gun laws. There’s only one legal place to buy a gun in the country and it takes about a month for a purchase to be approved. Yet this hasn’t inhibited the cartels.

Norway isn’t exactly a gun mecca, yet innocent teens were mowed down by a mad man there.

Murder has been illegal since the beginning of time, yet we haven’t found a way to stop it from happening.

I guess the “we need more gun control” response doesn’t move me because despite all the ammo counting, registries, laws, restrictions, waiting periods and bans there’s always going to be evil in the world. From that fact we can never escape.

For me the question isn’t one of how to control the guns, but rather it’s a question of how as a free society do we protect our selves from a deranged mind?

Try as we may, we can never legislate away evil or crazy. Rather than reflexively proposing more gun control we should focus on the warning signs.

There were signs this deranged mind in Aurora was breaking down. There were no doubt warnings missed along the way to that theater. As a society it’s time we look evil in its face instead of blaming the tools evil uses.

I won’t be joining the cries for more restrictive gun laws. Not because I’m a gun lover, because I’m not. I’m afraid of guns, but like to know there may be a skilled, legal gun owner in the crowd in case a mad man appears.

Instead, I’m going to pray for the victims of this tragedy. There’s no way to make sense of a senseless act and they’re no doubt grappling with this harsh reality. Our prayers will do more to support them now than anything.

There’s evil in the world and always will be. Each generation has faced various forms of evil. Perhaps it’s time this generation asks itself the bigger question; why are young male loners breaking down and what can we do to stop them? In so doing this generation will combat yet another evil.

SOPA would have legislated the Internet. The Internet is one thing the government still hasn’t destroyed with cumbersome regulations. Although they’re trying their level best to take control, so far the free market has been allowed to prevail. SOPA’s ‘good intentions’ were to protect intellectual property from being stolen or pirated. Granted, there are copyright laws on the books that already protect intellectual property, but the Internet is relatively new and therefore the ‘experts’ feel the need to get involved.

This would have been the foot in the door, the camel’s nose under the tent or the entree for the enlightened class to wrangle power and have control of the Internet. The law if enacted had the potential to allow a bureaucrat to decide if a website should and would be shut down. The free speech advocates, the Internet community as well as the general public were up in arms. They responded to the legislators and their response a resounding NO WAY.

It was astounding to see how quickly the bill was put on ice after the outcry from citizens and businesses vehemently opposing the legislation. This got me wondering, why? Not why in the sense why would legislators listen to the people? Rather, why this piece of legislation?

In 2010 the switch boards at the House, Senate and the White House were flooded. Businesses and private citizens all over the country expressed impassioned opposition to a piece of legislation that would affect every single American. The same legislators who the other day were concerned about pragmatism and getting a piece of legislation ‘right’ had absolutely no qualms about pushing through an incredibly unpopular 2000 page law regulating one sixth of the US economy. In fact, we were told to pass the bill so we could find out what was in the bill.

I don’t have the answers. Maybe I’m too cynical or maybe not cynical enough to pretend to understand why one piece of despised legislation gets put on ice and another gets crammed down our throats. I’m just making an observation and scratching my head. Wouldn’t it have been nice if before taking over healthcare those illustrious ‘statesmen’ would have applied the same pragmatism and put it on hold until they got it ‘right?’

Being First Lady is quite similar to being Miss America.  The job used to be pretty easy.  Just look good, smile for the cameras and try not to be controversial.  That’s how it used to be but now, like Miss America, the First Lady has to have a platform.

Nancy Reagan wanted us to say no to drugs; a noble endeavor.  Who wants to see kids strung out and wasted?  Laura Bush wanted kids to read.  Readers are Leaders after all right?  So when you came along and began advocating getting rid of childhood obesity this too seemed fairly admirable.  Healthy living is a good thing right?

Not so fast.  According to the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) when you introduced your “Let’s Move” anti-obesity campaign you ‘unfairly singled out fat kids, turning them into targets.’  NAAFA’s Publicity Director, Peggy Howell, even went on to say that you ‘essentially gave permission to everyone to condemn the children with higher body weights.’

Wow Michelle! Once again the law of unintended consequences kicks in and kicks butt.

I am sure you did not intend to make chubby kids all across the country the target of bullies. Nor do I think you wanted to make it politically correct to marginalize our less than slim kids.  Childhood is tough enough; surely the First Lady of the United States isn’t trying to make it any more difficult for kids who happen to be of a certain body type.

I have to admit when you started your campaign to wipeout childhood obesity and began advocating telling people what foods they should eat; I had a hard time with that.  I mean let’s be real you are not exactly a petite woman.  I don’t have defiant tendencies, but I will admit the thought ran through my head ‘when Michelle Obama can fit in my skirts then she can tell me what to eat.’

Then I see Barry sneaking out at every chance to eat a cheeseburger with his buddies.  Poor Barry, that man looks hungry. I worry he has the opposite problem.  He needs larger portions and more frequent meals.  He’s got those pointy shoulders and looks like his drawers would land on the floor if he wasn’t wearing a belt.

I guess what I am trying to say Michelle is maybe you should xnay on the atfay and simply promote healthy lifestyles.  The NAAFA lady may have a point when she says “When children of higher body weight hear we have to wipeout childhood obesity in one generation, for them those words translate to: we have to eliminate obese children. They hear: your body is bad. They hear: thin equals good, fat equals bad. They hear: your body is bad,”

I know you are just trying to help us have healthy kids.  This isn’t some kind of Alinsky tactic of picking a target and marginalizing it.  Nobody who wears so many cute sweater sets could possibly be that devious.  So how about we all promote healthy living, exercise and not single out obese kids.  Let’s go back to calling the slightly plumper kids what we used to call them; husky.

Sincerely,

Edna Marie

EdnaMarie.com

Ronald Reagan’s words are as relevant today as they were in 1964.  Yes the film clip is dated and the audience is of another era, but conservatism is conservatism and does not change simply because the times change.  The truths of economic freedom, adherence to the constitution, the strength of the private sector and the evils of the gradual and subtle encroachment of the government into our daily lives are as pertinent in 2010 as they were when Ronald Reagan stood at that podium and told Americans that it was ”A Time for Choosing.”

Yes, you and I do have a rendez vous with destiny.  Let’s remember what we believe and go win one for the Gipper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY

No one who has lived in this country during the last five years can fail to be aware of how the balance of our society has been increasingly tilted in favour of the State at the expense of individual freedom. “

These words were not written this week, this month or this year.  They were written April 11, 1979 in the forward to the Conservative General Election Manifesto, by Margaret Thatcher.   As America is now facing similar circumstances, harkening back to Baroness Thatcher’s Britain of 1979 enables us to see that while things appear bleak in the U.S., we are by no means as far gone as Britain was in 1979.  However, 1979 Britain is analogous to our current situation in America and there is a great deal to be learned.

In 1979 Britain was considered a hopeless case.  Socialism was advanced, Labour was in charge, there was rampant pessimism and the general consensus was that Britain was no longer seen as a global power.  Margaret Thatcher reversed this. 

Claire Berlinski, author of “There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters” recently gave a lecture at the Heritage Foundation.   Ms. Berlinski stated that Lady Thatcher was successful in winning public opinion not because she was willing to compromise, but because she pointed out that socialism is an inherently wicked system.  It is not a matter of a good idea that has just been misapplied, but that it is morally wrong and produces weak citizens and should be rejected root and branch at all costs.  Ms. Berlinski also referenced the work of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation.  Any conservative seriously considering running for the Presidency of the United States must familiarize himself or herself with Margaret Thatcher’s success in Britain if he or she is to stand a chance at succeeding in turning America’s fortunes around. 

Berlinski also noted that a strong moral case against centralized power needs to be made.   Americans still believe in the American dream and know that any system which takes away the individual’s right to make choices is evil.  In a country that embraces freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, the case must also be made for economic freedom.   Economic freedom is ethical.  Economic freedom empowers the individual and creates stronger citizens.    There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to help the sick and poor, but a society cannot provide for the sick and poor by stealing from those who produce to give to those who do not.  It is via the free market that healthy societies are sustained.

America is at a turning point and now more than ever the question is not about compromising, it is about standing for something.  Margaret Thatcher stood for something.   In order for a candidate to get elected and to succeed as  President in turning America around, that person must stand for something.  To quote Baroness Thatcher, “Our country’s relative decline is not inevitable. We in the Conservative Party think we can reverse it, not because we think we have all the answers but because we think we have the one answer that matters most. We want to work with the grain of human nature, helping people to help themselves – and others. This is the way to restore that self-reliance and self-confidence which are the basis of personal responsibility and national success.” 

The American people are realistic and can handle the truth.  They understand that a financially weak country cannot remain a super power and they do not want to see America in a state of decline.   Americans are disgusted with politicians who are out of touch or who arrogantly deride the electorate.  They want to be told the truth and are willing to accept the difficult task of working towards recovery.  Margaret Thatcher understood these same facts about the British electorate in 1979 and the candidate who is willing to tell it like it is to the American people today will be the one to save America from demise.    Perhaps an even more timely quotation comes from Keith Joseph, the man Margaret Thatcher once referred to as her closest political friend, “This is not the time to be mealy mouthed.  Intervention is destroying us.”  

I guess my question is would anybody have even heard of this tiny church was it not for these high profile individuals taking to the airwaves to speak out against the event?  Are they not making the book burning into a huge media event that otherwise may have been ignored?  It’s a small church in a Florida town; they even meet in a metal building.  I guess what I am saying is this is not some large major Christian denomination inciting hatred and blasphemy among its followers.   Like it or not, in America there is freedom of speech. Barring a lack of a burn permit and regardless of how creepy any book burning is, it is protected under the first amendment and the Reverend is within his rights.

The argument has been made that this event in Florida will place our troops in harm’s way.  Now nobody wants to see our military in any greater danger as a result of a senseless act, but I have a hard time understanding how an obscure church in Gainesville, Florida will place our military in any greater danger than say vacillating over policy for months or telegraphing a withdrawal date.  Why Harry Reid and Dick Durbin, declaring the Iraq war lost and comparing our soldiers to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, did far more to harm our troops with their rhetoric because they are in positions of power.  This congregation is just a small faction that probably would never have been heard of except on the local news.  However, with all this free publicity, the Reverend Jones is now making the circuit of news shows gaining notoriety for his cause.  What better way to get others to join in and organize similar protests than to give the guy a platform for his anti-Islamic hatred?

It just doesn’t add up to me.  I mean let’s face it; our enemy has proven time and again that they hate everything about us and our way of life and the freedoms we enjoy.  Should we reject our American tradition of freedom of speech so we don’t upset the enemy?

While the Reverend Jones’s incredibly insensitive publicity stunt should be condemned and he should be urged to cancel the event, we as Americans still embrace the fundamental individual right to free speech.  By coercing him into cancelling the Koran burning and tempering speech out of fear, is this not playing directly into the hands of our enemies?

Every time some crazy person snaps or commits an act of violence the main stream media and or the intelegencia on the left inevitably feel compelled to try and create a link, no matter how thin the thread, to someone or something on the right.  Several examples come to mind.  Not long ago, Keith Olberman went so far as to blame Bill O’Reilly for the murder of abortion doctor, Dr. George Tiller.  After the Oklahoma City bombing, President Bill Clinton famously tried to pin the blame on conservative talk radio.  And of course the media have gone out of their way to malign the entire Tea Party movement in order to support their narrative that the Tea Party members are hateful racists and their rhetoric incites violence.

Well Wednesday a very disturbed man entered the Discovery Chanel building in Silver Spring, Maryland.  He was armed and took hostages.  He also had a list of demands, demands that according to the gunman’s website had their genesis when he experienced an “awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”.  As we learn more about James Lee, the crazed gunman, it becomes evident that he was obsessed with saving the planet.  Does this mean that the environmental movement is inciting violence?  Does this mean that the green movement is responsible for Mr. Lee’s act of terror?  Will Keith Olberman be blaming Al Gore for Mr. Lee’s hostage taking and ultimately his death?

No, of course not.  Whenever a horrific act is perpetrated by someone who espouses views that are left of center, the media never look to the views of the person.  Instead, the media determine that the individual is disturbed, a loner, an outlier or a sick person.  Never do the media make the same connection to the person’s liberal ideology as they most certainly would if the perpetrator listened to talk radio or liked Glen Beck.  Not once will they mention which news channel Mr. Lee preferred, unless he watched Fox News.  Rest assured, had he been a fan of Fox News,  the media would be all over the story  and would have made the quantum leap to claim that he had been stirred up and incited by his choice of media outlet. 

Until the media can be honest with themselves, the “what if” question will be asked.  Let’s face it, there are a lot of disturbed people in the world and they are on both ends of the political spectrum.  Al Gore is no more responsible for James Lee taking hostages as Bill O’Reilly was for the murder of Dr. Tiller.  James Lee was a disturbed individual who found a cause he could use as a vehicle for his craziness.  Nobody but Mr. Lee can be blamed.  But let’s face it; what if it had  been revealed that he listened to Rush Limbaugh?   The stories on the news this morning would be very different.  

Whether you believe the mosque should be built where the landing gear of the airplanes that struck the twin towers landed or not, is not what I am referring to, but rather, whether Americans are tolerant enough.  I keep seeing the brilliant elite on television lecturing about tolerance and the more I listen the more confused I become.  Thus, I went to dictionary.com for some clarification.  This is what I found;

Tolerance:  (noun) a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.

Okay, fair enough.  I think most of us can grasp the concept and agree that America is a very tolerant country.  Especially when you consider other countries in the world such as, oh I don’t know, let’s say Saudi Arabia where currently it is illegal to build a church, synagogue or temple and it is also forbidden to import copies of the Bible or Torah.  Why yes, it is fair to say America is much more tolerant. 

Some of the quotes I have read throughout the debate have really bordered on being sanctimonious.  According to Keith Burris in the Register Citizen, “our highest value is tolerance”.  Wow, that is a mighty sweeping statement.  I would have thought the value of human life would rank a bit higher, but apparently not.  Tolerance is the highest value.

But then when I see those people who passionately feel the mosque should be built elsewhere, I get very confused.  Because these people are saying, that while they agree it is perfectly within the rights of the developers of the mosque to build where ever they wish to, they feel it is not appropriate to build there.  Ah, so this is where the confusion comes into play.  If the people opposed to building a mosque near ground zero are being intolerant, are not the supporters of the mosque also being intolerant?  By saying that opposing the construction of the mosque is being intolerant, they are being intolerant of the differing opinions of those opposed to construction.  Geez, are you with me on this?  So how can there be tolerance for one side without intolerance for the other?

My favorite quote comes from Renee Antonelli Valente in the CliffviewPilot.com.  Renee states “But please, in the name of tolerance, let’s remember that by its very definition, tolerance is not intended to be selective.”  

WHAT???  This is where I get tripped up with this tolerance talk.  Of course tolerance is intended to be selective!!!  That is why there are certain things we will tolerate and certain things we won’t.  That is where the entire concept of ZERO TOLERANCE comes from.  Good grief, these self righteous tolerant people are perplexing.  

Let’s face it there are certain things that are intolerable.  Things such as beheadings, suicide bombers, stoning, and the complete subjugation of women are just a few intolerable things that come to mind. 

So, I guess what I am trying to figure out is whether I am tolerant enough of all these tolerant people.  Quite honestly, if I happen to have a differing opinion on a hot topic such as gay marriage, abortion or amnesty for illegal aliens, I wonder would these incredibly tolerant people tolerate me and my opinion or would I be subjected to ad homonym attacks?  Or by virtue of my differing opinion, would I then become the intolerant one?  Just curious. 

An even bigger question in this entire discussion of tolerance is what ever happened to common decency?  We all have certain rights in this country that we often choose not to exercise.  In a large melting pot country such as America, not only is it necessary to be tolerant of those who are different, we also have responsibilities as citizens.  Sometimes, just because we have the right doesn’t make it right.  Sometimes we must make decisions based upon the consideration of others and how it will make them feel.  It is the tolerant thing to do.

1)       Help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math

2)      Expand our international relationships

3)      To find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contributions to science and math and engineering

Most disturbing of all was his comment that “the United States is not going to travel beyond low-Earth orbit on its own and that no country is going to make it to mars without international help.” 

Why not?

I was stunned.  My, how far we have come from that warm July day in 1962 when President Kennedy stated;

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

Still a bit gob smacked by the thought that NASA is venturing into the area of self-esteem building, I harkened back to the Space Act of 1958 to try and see if this group therapy is even permissible according to the Administration’s charter.  I was unable to find one mention of the psyches of engineers and mathematicians, but I did find item number 9 of the Declaration of Policy and Purpose to be extremely thought provoking.

 “The preservation of the United States pre-eminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing” 

When I read this, it seems pretty apparent that the current administration is deviating from the charter laid out for NASA and severely compromising American superiority in the area of space flight.  They’ve all but acquiesced and said that the good old U.S. can (will) no longer achieve its space flight agenda by itself.  Consequently, the pre-eminent position of the United States is no longer assured or even the goal.  Former NASA Chief, Michael Griffin, goes further when he states “the space agency’s new goal to improve relations with the Islamic world and boost Muslim self-esteem is a “perversion” of NASA’s original mission to explore space.”

To be fair to NASA Chief Bolden, he is simply carrying out the policy.  NASA policy is and always has been set with the administration.  So what does this say about the current administration’s view of the purpose of NASA?  It is looking more and more as if the administration wishes to make NASA a multi-national, collectivist scientific clearing house.  One where there will be no pre-eminent leader, but rather a space United Nations of sorts.  The only problem with this is it most assuredly means that the United States will no longer be superior in these vital technologies and NASA will become as dysfunctional as the earth version of the U.N.  Additionally, NASA’s charter does not allow this.  This is utter foolishness.  NASA is and should always be about U.S. space exploration and should never aspire to be an international life coach.