ANOTHER BLURB

LOOKING BACK

 

After analyzing and evaluating President Bush's performance over the past 6 ½ years and comparing his actions with what we might have had if we had elected his opponents in 2000 and 2004, I am satisfied with his job performance. Am I happy about our involvement in Iraq?  No.  Do we have a choice? No.

 

The Democrats among us have been busy creating dissent.  It is easy to point out imperfection if those who are pointing out what is wrong, are not responsible for getting it right. The Democrats occupy that lofty position now and thus, they can quarterback the President's actions without fear.  However, if President Clinton had taken the actions that should have been taken during his term in office, we would have undoubtedly been stronger and more able to overcome the fanatics and lunatics of terrorism today.  It is easy to grade a job performance based on 20/20 vision especially when the performance is not subject to day to day micro review by ones opponents.    

 

I dislike our involvement in Iraq.  I wish we did not have to be there.  However, I admire the President's steadfastness because I believe he is right.  I question whether the people of Iraq are worth the price that our young soldiers are paying.  On the other hand I believe, as the President does, that the war on terror is real andthat we have no choice. I do not believe that the people of Iraq are stepping up to the plate and adequately assuming responsibility for their country's defense. They are not unlike those of us here who would rather bury their head in the sand and let someone else carry the load.  However, we cannot abandon them.  We must give them time to find their way and to assume that responsibility. 

 

In my opinion both Presidents Clinton and Bush 41 compromised our security in their handling of the mid-east and on September 11, 2001 we paid the price.  I do not want to make that mistake again. 

 

 

LIVE EARTH

LIVE EARTH AS I SEE IT

 

A tongue in cheek digression and a reality check.

 

I could not help but think as I read about the LIVE EARTH celebrations over the weekend that we must surely be premature in our rush to preserving the earth.  It seems to me that we have another problem that needs to be resolved first.  There are some mid east fanatics turned terrorists who have vowed to kill all who do not share their ideology. Aren't we brushing that problem under the rug and rushing off to solve another one that may need attention but is secondary to the crises we have? 

 

I do believe that we need to be aware of "climate change", "earth warming" and the environment in general.  We have an inherent obligation to pursue sensible actions and habits that reflect good stewardship.  However, we really need to concentrate our attention on resolving the greater issue that faces us in the Mideast - terrorism?  Insofar as I am concerned, I have no desire to leave a pristine environment for the terrorists to enjoy while they make the lives of my descendants a living hell.

 

Bible reading people have long believed the threat of civilization's demise is preordained.  The Bible calls it "fire".  Is global warming  another "inner net discovery" by the former Vice President?

 

As for Democratic Presidential Candidate, John Edwards, who has said that the "War on Terrorism" is simply a bumper sticker, he should know.   He gained his relevance as a "old bumper sticker"? 

 

I am willing to believe in the need to improve the environment, when the rest of the World is ready to believe that we need to improve the attitude in the Mid-East.  Let's get first things first.

 

 

 

 

 

SHAME ON THE GOVERNOR?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-arnold5jul05,0,5054369.story?coll=la-home-center

 

The article cited above from the Los Angeles Times reports that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger travels by private jet and stays in luxury hotels on his many trips on behalf of the citizens of California.  The point of the story is to report that this travel is billed to a private non profit group.  The article suggests that the Governor may be abusing use of this tax exempt group and we, as taxpayers of California, are somehow being abused by the tax exempt dollars that are going into the Governor's travel.

 

I am sorry but I fail to see how the people of California can be suffering from this so called "charity" particularly when one considers that the Governor serves without pay and at his own expense.  If we Californians are going to adopt such a narrow view, it seems to me that it is time we really looked at the over paid, over spent and over empowered legislators and California State employment dollars that we spend for plain unadulterated  incompetence.

Near the end of the article (page 2 of the on line report)  the Governor's service without pay is acknowledged, "Schwarzenegger declines to take his state salary, and he does give to charities. From 2002 through 2004, for example, he reported $2.5 million in charitable donations and about $55 million in total income. Also included is another dig at the Governor's willingness to take advantage of the "people of California, "The governor's other charitable activities include his sponsorship of nonprofits that provide recreation programs for children."

 

And our politicians to the "left" wonder why talk radio succeeds?  It succeeds because "fairness in media" does not exist and talk radio is the only source for people to actually have an opportunity to speak out. Talk radio achieves what no amount of governmental "fairness" could hope to achieve.