There are several pieces of gun legislation making their way through the courts right now throughout the country and of course through the Senate and House. Much to the dismay of many sheriffs around the country, these laws encourage, limit, and control the weapons of the American people and law abiding citizens in new and sweeping ways, and they are taking the financial heat if they do not get what they want from these law enforcement officials.

In Colorado, for example, SB197 is being discussed and pushed through the state’s Senate. The result would be increased restrictions on guns sold after July 1st, which one Colorado Sheriff has insisted his disdain for. Sheriff Maketa has asserted that as far as he was concerned, all guns would be seen as purchased before July 1st and felt the restrictions on the citizens of his community were too much. He, along with other sheriffs, have publically spoken about the need to protect not punish law abiding citizens and gun owners.

Shockingly (or not) the sheriffs who are speaking out are being punished. Of course, this is done under the pretense of budgetary restrictions or other more flowery terms but the state of Colorado is quickly tying, allegedly, the salaries of sheriffs to the gun control positions that they take. The tit-for-tat approach is not new to politics, and I readily understand that. However, it is a clear exertion of power over first amendment a right that is a problem in my view. Sheriffs are important to our country, as are any first responders. Their opinions should not be punished, but listened to. These gentlemen and women are not disclosing classified information but are simply telling their position and how they will enforce the laws once they are enacted. To punish them for these opinions is not only frustrating and childish; it is, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

The term hypocrisy is not new to Capitol Hill. Both sides of the political aisle have been privy to accessing their own depravity at the sacrifices of their morals, or professed morals. The Commander in Chief (Commander being a debatable term) has placed himself as one who is going to change that. He was the President who was going to open up his Administration and make it highly accessible (FAIL). He was the one that was going to make all documents public hours before proposal so that they could be read by the public (FAIL). He professed to be a strong believer in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman (FAIL). So why should his recent exploits and travels surprise anyone?

In recent weeks, the Obama Family has traveled to exotic locations for much needed rest and relaxation. While dodging questions and avoiding direct challenges must be exhausting, these trips are a (forgive the term) middle finger to the American public. While we struggle to make ends meet and unemployment remains dismal, the President and his family are jet setting to unique places and seeing the world for leisure rather than for purpose. This is not only hypocritical but down right insulting.

The President’s family is under pressure and stresses that no family that has not been in that position could understand. I get that he has two beautiful young girls that are essentially growing up with the world watching them. I understand that they deserve to have family experiences and enjoying times with their parents, as any child would. But maybe Mr. Obama missed the memo that it is about who you are with not where you go. Vacations can be had safely within the United States. They can be purpose driven with dad doing work and the children enjoying their time, as many families who are struggling to get by have to do. Taking a jet and travelling the world on my dime (potentially my last one looking at my recent earnings) is not only frustrating but an example of the complete disconnect this President has with the lemmings that followed him and those of us who chose not to. Not only that but, the travel alone has to leave a carbon footprint the size of Wisconsin (I’m sure one of the President’s favorite states in the Union). Mr. Obama, I beg you to understand that your story of empathy is falling short when you seem to wear Bermuda shorts and a golf hat more often than a suit and tie… That just leaves one question: does the teleprompter get its own seat on the plane?

Stop the presses! Another celebrity has joined the gun control debate and has put his two cents into the argument. Jim Carrey, in a song parody for funnyordie.com, has shown that he believes that gun owners are simply trying to maim children and kill innocence. Another celebrity sharing their opinion on gun control? A Canadian no less? What are we to do?

Quite frankly it is becoming ever increasingly frustrating that Hollywood celebrities (though Jim Carrey is not exactly topping the charts in anything these days except his own self-esteem chart) feel the need to caricaturize Middle Americans and gun owners as reckless buffoons who do nothing more than shoot guns in the air for pleasure. Mr. Carrey, in his oh-so-eloquent way, uses this parody to slash at the heartland and safe, law abiding gun owners everywhere as a way to promote a liberal agenda that is thinly veiled behind the sheath of pageantry. He has no problem making fun of country music no less and that is what may be the worst part!

I would ask Mr. Carrey, then, if gun carrying and owning by those who have the utmost respect for firearms is so wrong, why have you promoted gun usage in your movies? If this issue is to be taken seriously why have you chosen to use it as a form of art in movies like The Mask and other momentarily aggressive, Grade C films?  Why does he choose to have armed bodyguards protecting himself rather than allowing us to protect our families safely? And why does he keep running from valid questions?

Placing his vile rhetoric out onto his Twitter feed, Mr. Carrey received numerous responses. Of course, many were the Occupier-type, young and self-absorbed liberal spawn, that have ignorantly helped lead to such great decisions as the current Commander in Chief and Occupy Wall Street movements (ignore the potential corporate backing). But there was also a great deal of witty and factual debate as well, challenging Mr. Carrey. Look no further than Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) who lambasted not with vile rhetoric but with fact…facts Mr. Carrey glossed over with words that meant nothing.

It is time that Hollywood stop preaching tolerance and begin showing it… It is time that they understood that the lemmings of the world that they surround themselves with do not exist in all pockets of this great country. Do not assume Mr. Carrey that if you stand up and say quack that we will all follow you because you are some sort of celebrity. Some of us have been taught long ago, and rightfully so, clinging to God, guns, and religion is okay and something to be celebrated no matter what I half-hearted and sad celebrity parody says. How about that, eh?

Immigration is once again on the table for the Obama Administration. The President called this week for those on Capitol Hill to tackle the immigration issue and asserted that the “time has come for us to fix it once and for all.” Well, if he says it must be discussed seriously… by an April deadline no less…then the answers should come in. The Commander in Chief (sometimes… when he feels like getting off the golf course to handle real issues outside of a photo opp) has spoken and so it shall be. Right? Wrong…

The most frustrating thing about President Obama is his timing and the outright arrogance with which he speaks (I apologize to my leftist friends who think him infallible). President Obama has punted the issue of immigration around like it was a football in a game of peewee players. He has chosen when to play the issue and when to pull back, like a manipulator. Now, amidst so much turmoil globally (enter North Korea and Syria) he has chosen once again to pick up the issue as a flagship cause.

The President has essentially shut off the debate before it has begun. There is no room for flexibility and sharing of real solutions. Yes, immigration is a problem. Illegal aliens are serving as a drain on our economy in many ways, being trafficked by those with less than ideal intentions, and are being offered services of the government and other agencies without having to pay taxes in many cases. This creates problems both because of and for illegal immigrants. Yet, by taking the stage as a dictator telling his minions on Capitol Hill to do work, a finger snap would have been appropriate at that point, he is putting everyone on the defensive. The work of immigration reform has never truly gone away and if it was such a concern, he could have chosen to stick by the discussion more thoroughly. Instead, when the issues of the world seem so great, it appears he is condescendingly throwing a new coal on the fire to distract from other pertinent issues.

In essence, then, it is not his fervor for immigration reform that is a problem. Rather, it is his attitude and his suddenness to pick up the issue again. Most likely, too, though I am no Ms. Cleo, his role will be to rev up the two sides and watch them fight it out, while he espouses placations and heated language from behind his teleprompter. Nothing is uncalculated in this Administration and we must all watch what the other hand is doing… or maybe I’m just a paranoid Republican speaking my conspiracy theories again…

I should probably preface this post by placing the blame for its inspiration squarely on the shoulders of one current and one former member of the White House Press Corps. The current Press Corps member is none other than CBS News’ Mark Knoller. He has a very interesting Twitter feed (@markknoller) and tweets out some interesting details about White House life not found anywhere else. If President Obama sneaks out to Five Guys for a bacon double-cheeseburger, Mark will know what he topped it with. He’ll also keep you posted on the guest list for most any state dinner. I suspect Mark to be a closet “foodie” but again I digress.

The second (and former) White House Press Corps member is CNN’s latest addition to its fledgling political staff and former ABC Newsman Jake Tapper. Jake’s contribution to this post is what I believe to be the single best book written about the Afghanistan war entitled The Outpost.

This is not a book to be read, but rather an intensely detailed experience to be endured. It does not have a happy ending and the story he relates about this American outpost beats the reader about the head and shoulders.

Tapper relates the story of several injured soldiers whose wounds required them to be medically evacuated to field hospitals. Often these soldiers were then flown to Lanstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany where the heroic medical staff works around the clock trying to save the lives of these American heroes.  Many lives are saved at this facility. Far too many are not as fortunate.

I’m sure I’ve confused you by now as to the point of this post. Rest assured, Dear Reader, I do have a point.

In the past six months President Obama has boarded Air Force One for trips overseas which offered him the opportunity of refueling the Boeing 747 at Germany’s Ramstein Air Force Base. On November 12, 2012, Mark Knoller reported:

Air Force One done refueling at Ramstein and now on final 10hr leg of trip to Thailand. Pres Obama stayed on the plane. (Emphasis added)

And, just this past Saturday Knoller again took to Twitter to report:

After 11hr 36min flight, Pres Obama back from his Mideast trip. Flight home from Amman was 5,935 miles. Refueling stop in Germany bypassed. (Emphasis added)

Here’s my point. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. In my humble opinion, this job is far and away the most important role of that office. It brings with it a responsibility unique to the relationship between a commander and his (or her) troops. Ramstein Air Force Base is but five kilometers from the Lanstuhl Regional Medical Center. The very least the Commander in Chief could do would be to take time out from his golf game, state dinner, fundraiser, or campaign event schedule and pay a visit to those who have given so much in the service of their nation.

He is, after all, the President of the United States. Air Force One goes where he says, stops where he says, and takes off when he says. It’s not like the plane is going to leave without him.

Perhaps I’m being small and petty. If I am, blame Tapper, Knoller, and Twitter.

 

CVS announced this week that as part of accepting healthcare that they will offer, employees must provide and disclose personal health information. Among these items, it was found out that a third party administrator for the company will be requesting that individuals provide them with a detailed medical history and also their weight. If this information is not disclosed, there will be an annual fee of six-hundred dollars assessed to each employee accepting healthcare. As a woman who has learned to keep her weight more secretive than what really happened in Benghazi, the fine seems more appealing than disclosing the information I have learned to keep secret since the moment of conception (insert outrage of feminists everywhere for my honesty…). The reason the company gave for asking this information? Obamacare. But, is this intrusive questioning correct?

Yes… Okay lift your jaws off the floor ladies and hear me out. A company like CVS is going to have to offer healthcare to all of its employees who meet the requirements of the law. The result is growing pool of healthcare costs and premiums, and of course the care that they will need if something were to happen. This is a private company that, from my research, has not received a bailout and is not relying on my money to function… well, my voluntary money maybe because they really do have some great deals, but I digress. Obamacare is going to cost companies thousands of millions of dollars and they, as profit making enterprises, deserve to know or have an estimate of what these costs will be. They have the right to ask the questions that impact their bottom line.

No one at CVS or who is employed there is required to take their help with healthcare. They can choose to find their own (insert much needed healthcare reform debate here). CVS, though, is being forced to offer healthcare to their employees or face exorbitant penalties, and they need to understand the cost that they will be looking at. They are a private company, doing their best to compete, and this information may help them. So while I am not a fan of disclosing such personal information (and surely not the actual number behind my waist line), I do believe CVS has the right to find out what they are dealing with. My prediction: this is just another in the long line of unexpected consequences of our Campaigner-in-Chief’s brilliant policies like Obamacare… oh and by brilliant I mean horrible.

President Obama said in a joint statement (surprised he shared the spotlight) this week that the use of agents or chemical weapons in Syria would be a ‘game-changer.’ Essentially, he asserted that such weapons were unacceptable if used and that action would need to be taken if so. Yet, he was quick to point out that the Administration had to take their time and trust that they actually were being used before action could be taken. The investigation would continue, then, into the Syrian case and be dealt with in time. He also was quick to say that he did not know what action would be taken if he did in fact find that these weapons had been used.

It is difficult for me to understand the President’s approach to Foreign Policy. I understand the issue is complicated and that the world is much larger and more intricate than even the greatest of minds could grasp. Yet, the mixed messages from this message are beyond my comprehension. Foreign policy has not been a strong selling point for Mr. Obama. He has been hesitant to speak about Benghazi at best and at worst has been downright lying about the situation (my money is on the latter). Islamic terrorists are not called terrorists by this administration, unless they are found with their terrorist membership card and are wearing an “I Heart Terrorism” t-shirt when they kill (hello Ft. Hood Massacre). He is anything but strong when it comes to these actions and I question why we should ever believe he would garner a backbone and be the tough guy with anyone other than the Republicans.

Syria, I am afraid, will just be another attempt at chest pumping and back tracking in an attempt to look tough and sound tougher, without actually doing anything. As with most things, even if the facts are found to be true—as most indications are now purporting—the likelihood that this will actually go anywhere is about as likely as the President giving up golf when the nation needs him: it just is not going to happen.

Where the Money Needs To Go

By

Filed Under Latest News on Mar 19 


The discussion has been had time and again. The military-industrial complex is the reason, it is purported, that the debt is so large and the deficit ever increasing. It is our war-minded attitude, they say, that has drawn us into fiscal restraints and nothing else is to blame. We need to bring our troops home and keep them here, away from the hustle and tortures of war and from the missions they so desperately believe in. But, if it is the military that is eating up our money and our heroes that deserve respect, why have so many on both sides of the aisle failed them?

I, too, believe that there is waste in every sector of government and in every program. If you look closely enough, you will find places in every home that can save money and the same goes for the programs of the American government. This includes the military where wasteful spending in some areas has not allowed for increased protection and care in others. One area, however, that I believe we need to recognize that both sides have failed to address and not use as a political football is the care of our military heroes.

The United States government has failed our veteran’s. The VA is packed with paperwork delays and red tape that makes getting care quickly virtually impossible. Among returning war heroes, there are increased rates of mental disease, alcoholism, drug addition, depression and more. Just this week, another military hero turned his own gun on himself because he was overcome by the grief and emotion of the days he spent away. Military pay is completely inadequate to raise a family on, to care for children, and to get ahead. Yet, our Congressmen and women sit atop their Ivory towers bantering about irrelevant cuts and hypothetical expenditures while discussing the military as objects of pity, outrage, or just another drop in the fiscal outlay of American budgetary considerations.

Enough is enough. These military heroes are our best and brightest, willing to do what many of us would not. We fail to provide them with adequate equipment, care, and post-war treatment. We use them as props at the Oscars and debate wars as if they were the causes. It is time for the men and women in Washington to put themselves last and these heroes first. Though I am a fiscal hawk, the money needs to be located and it needs to be directly given to these men and women to get the care that they deserve. Forgive me if I think researching an otter in Iowa or a beaver in Boston is less vital than caring for these men and women. I guess Joe Biden might classify me as unpatriotic or some other “Crazy Uncle Joe” term. But it is time we streamlined and made cuts where possible in order to protect these great men and women before we lose another.

No, we will never know the heart and feelings of a man truly unless we are, in fact, that man. But, it is fairly clear that the relationship between President Barack Obama and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu is not a friendly one. At best, it is tumultuous and at worst, it is volatile. Whenever Netanyahu must listen to President Obama or be confined in a small space with him, the silent looks he provides are priceless. It appears as if he is listening to a young child talk on and on in an explanation that has no basis or no founding but is almost comical if it were not so disturbing.

The President will be travelling again to Israel to speak with the Prime Minister. He will do the jovial handshakes in front of the press and the stern looks of promises he will never meet. Netanyahu will smile and clasp hands in a weakened embrace of a strained relationship. The White House has lowered the goals of the meeting, basically stating it is a time to talk and promote peace… which really, who would not say that? Peace, though, in my opinion is not what needs to be focused on. Rather, Israel needs to see a strong ally in the United States and not a talker in Chief.

It is time that the President raised his hand in a show of, if nothing else, political grandeur that would say we were still listening. Yes, peace between Israel and Pakistan is the ultimate goal but can we quit fooling ourselves into thinking that that’s a possibility in our current environment? Pakistan, Iran, and other countries have a hatred for Israel that is palpable. The promises that are made and the gestures of peace are a falsehood. Israel must know that they have a strong ally in us and that the U.S. is willing to stand with them. Or, though I do not agree, President Obama needs to quit patronizing the Prime Minister and making those awkward “here’s-my-crazy-uncle-standing-next-to-me-in-the-family-photo” moments and simply say what he thinks rather than placate.

As a woman, I have becoming increasingly angry regarding the way that the political debate is framed regarding my vote. I am a solid conservative, proudly so. I have sat in classrooms where I was told that I was a sellout because of my support of Republican candidates. As frustrating as that was, it taught me something: sometimes you must stand by your views and take the hits (no matter how inappropriate and annoying) because you know what you stand for is right.

So what does this personal anecdote have to do with anything, aside from giving you a glimpse into my psyche? As interesting a world as that might be, or bland, my story is what the Republican Party needs to learn. That sometimes the message must remain the same no matter what the outside world says is wrong with it. If you know you are right and the core of what you want is best, then you must weather the storm rather than float with it.

As CPAC wraps up, there is an almost unified sense of enthusiasm among Republicans, especially the youth of the Party. It is a sense of one party, working together amidst the disagreements that every Party has, and focusing on the commonalities that are shared. Sure, there were debates about gay marriage and other social issues, but the idea was the same. Bring the party together with passion and excitement. Of course, this will fade. It always does and something happens when they return to Washington or their political punditry roles. But for that moment, the strength of the Party is seen and the message seems clear.

It is this that must be bottled up and taken with them to Capitol Hill. Do not waiver. Do not bend your message. It is time for strength and unification against a common enemy (forgive me leftists if that language is too harsh). There is more that brings this family of party members together rather than separates them and the American people will listen if they wish or they will not. But what do you stand for if you pander? Absolutely nothing.

We all remember those days in school when the teacher would tell us that the whole room was going to be punished because little Jimmy, Suzy, and Casey could not learn to walk instead of run down the hall. Though the vast majority in the class had done no such thing, or taken no such action to validate, the whole room would be punished with a detention or time away at recess. This frustrating act continued until the little troublemakers learned, and I remember feeling very confused by the situation. I had not run down the hall. I had not broken the rules, nor did the great majority of my classmates. Why then did we need the same fate as those who did?

As an adult, I thought that personal responsibility would be the name of the game and that group punishments for individual actions would be a rarity. It seems now, though, that I must worry about the teacher of our nation—the government—punishing me for others actions that I had no part in nor deserve to be taken to task for. From removing soda from my cup and telling me I can only drink a certain amount because my friend drinks too much, to taking my cheeseburgers away because of my neighbor’s waistline, the reach of the government’s arm is creeping slowly and steadily toward greater power.

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee has once again redefined and underscored the nanny state in which we live. They approved a hard party-line vote to ban assault weapons. The justification surrounding the action has been safety and protecting a tragic gun-related violent explosion to happen again, which is effective right? That’s right, just ignore Chicago… the President does. But what this is really saying is that because of the actions of a few, deranged, and deeply disturbed individuals I am once again being punished. I am being punished for a crime I never committed and held accountable for massacres that were not at my hands. I am back in grade school once again, but this time, I do not think I will ever get to leave.

Capitol Hill is all aflutter with the talk of budgets, taxes, reductions, and more. Cable news continues to banter about the conversations of whether or not this proposal will succeed, or what will hypothetically occur if one or the other is accepted. The deadlock that comes with a two-party system appears to be reaching its boiling point once again while issues of foreign policy—anyone remember Benghazi or concern about North Korean and Iranian recent actions?—and other matters are moved to the side for the political charade. Sure, this debate has to be had and it is an important one, but I cannot help but think maybe the sequestration, the budget debate, and the fiscal volleyball game was not unplanned.

The Democrats are beginning to pursue their own budget plans, hoping to push something forward into the spotlight after the Ryan Budget was introduced. Sources on Capitol Hill are now saying that the Democrats’ budget proposal is sequestration based and hidden amongst the leaves of charade tactics and cuts is a wealth of problematic proposals. When the sequestration ends, there will be no room for mistake that the net gains will not outweigh the net losses, and once again we will find ourselves in a state of fiscal emergency. The result is a budget proposal that will actually increase the national debt and deficit in the coming decades, though it will appear like a potential winner to the wandering eyes that may glance at it. Unlike Paul Ryan’s budget which reaches deep into the pockets of the government and proposes a solid balance in the next ten years, this plan will lead us down this fiscally damned path once again.

The proposals… the debating… the glitzy campaign-like stops by President Obama have been fun and sometimes even entertaining to watch. The threats of sequestration seemed heartfelt and passionate by the Administration, maybe not so much heartfelt as a camera opportunity but I digress, all seem like the two sides may be interested in reaching an end. But really, maybe it was all a charade. Maybe the sequestration was the plan from the beginning. Of course, though he has tiptoed around it, President Obama had a hand in the creation of the sequestration and he may just be utilizing it to its full potential. The Democrats can now create a plan that takes the current cuts into consideration and potentially fool the public once again into thinking that they are providing a serious plan. Could it be this was the plan from the beginning? Or is this just another chance for our dear Commander in Chief and the Democrat lemmings that follow him to not let another crisis go unused?

Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan has faded from his once fame of being a Vice-Presidential nominee, but he continues to make his presence known on Capitol Hill. The young GOP superstar has proposed a budget this week that makes plans for fiscal restraint and promises of a debt free future for the United States. A longshot, the bill also contains the request for a repeal of Obamacare and changes to the structure of healthcare in the United States. Though a longshot, that the perpetual campaigner-in-chief will be sure to balk at, the Ryan Budget leads to a greater discussion of what the limitations are when it comes to discussing entitlements.

A tax by any other name would still be an entitlement, and that is exactly what Obamacare is. It is another set of regulatory restrictions meant to hold the American Public attached to a need for another program. Sure, employers are the ones that will be required to provide the healthcare offerings and they will be the ones to suffer directly through the penalties, but the essence is the same: hook people onto having someone else pay for a product that they themselves should be responsible to pay.

Will cuts in entitlement programs, or programs with the same goal, ever be a true and legitimate topic of conversation in today’s world? Will the American public be willing to talk about the entitlement programs that they have grown to love and need as a potential source of cuts, as they are part of the problem we are broke? In my opinion, for what it is worth, it is doubtful that this discussion will ever be had without concern and all out tantrum throwing. The government has successfully hooked people onto the belief that they need the government’s programs rather than empower them to make their own choices. The Obamacare legislation is sure to continue to this trend and the Ryan Budget may lose credibility out of the gate because it has made an attempt at restructuring. It may have been a bridge too far but at least one GOPer has the guts to bring it up and not back down.

The Obama Administration has been doing a new dance in recent weeks. They are actually reaching out to GOP lawmakers in an effort to get the budget under control and address the serious financial situation that the country is facing. Or at least that’s what they want us to think…

It is not unheard of for a President to spend time with leaders outside of their parties. Many a President has had great confidants and formidable but respected opponents in the Party that serves as their greatest competition. The Obama Administration, however, has not been one of these varieties. President Obama has appeared arrogant, egotistical, and inflexible when it comes to dealing with conservative leaders in the past (Insert a throwback of the healthcare debate and the much publicized conversation with Republicans here.)

Forgive me, then, for being a bit skeptical regarding his recent change of heart. All of a sudden, President Obama is making a heightened and very public attempt at courting the leaders on the other side of the aisle. Call it jaded, but the leader that has avoided creating a budget and really leading the pack on financial issues, aside from complaining and moaning in front of the cameras about the GOP and tea partiers, does not have a solid foundation for reaching out now.

Ultimately, there will have to be cooperation and conversation in order for a deal to be reached, but this public charade appears more to be about public opinion rather than actual results. Shockingly, the public is beginning to wake up to his game and though the devotees remain, more and more are seeing the rhetoric as an empty promise of dreams never fulfilled. This is just one more ploy in the ever running play of the perpetual campaigner and many GOP leaders continue to be the willing pawns and props in the background.

For many students who grew up and attended school in the United States, including this author, a trip to the nation’s capital was one of the highlights of school. I remember being so excited to get out of the small town in which I lived and head to the big city of Washington D.C. where everything seemed so historic and monumental. A trip to the White House was one of the highlights of the educational venture and, even at a young age, provided a sense of awe and inspiration. With recent cuts, however, the Obama Administration is showing their power by picking on a formidable opponent… children and stopping these tours in their tracks.

Sequestration has been implemented and budget cuts are being witnessed across several different areas in governmental programs. The Obama Administration continues to use children as pawns in the debate, cutting the funding to the aforementioned tours of the White House and putting schools on high alert regarding their federal funding. President Obama continues to speak out on the issue, threatening further funding cuts to the American student and using children as a theme throughout his speeches, preying on the compassion of millions of Americans.

Sure, we all know that something has to be done in order to get this country on better footing, but it appears to me that President Obama’s use of children has been solely a way to tug at the heart strings of America rather than do actual work on the problem. Threaten, and they will work, seems to be the motto of the White House, but the plan is backfiring. Public opinion polls are seeing what the rest of us have known for a while: that the Obama Administration is part of the blame in this problem, a fact that they had hoped to avoid with the beautiful rhetoric that seemed to lull Americans into devotion for the last five years.  The beauty of the spoken word appears to be wearing thin for the ever-campaigning President. Cutting tour funding may be one way to save the budget, but the public is not buying that it is the best. It is simply a demonstrative way for the White House to show their power… a power that is now considered a weakness by many in the country.

Who knew that politicians were such great and long-winded talkers? Okay… We all did but Senator Rand Paul truly put his talents of talking to the test with his filibuster on the Senate floor this week. While John “I forgot what I stand for” McCain was dining at fancy restaurants and criticizing what he called a political stunt, Paul stood firm for nearly thirteen hours of filibustering. His goal was not to simply discredit another Obama cabinet nominee, though that motive may have been enough. His political posturing was an ode to civil liberties. As he spent that over half a day talking, the goal as he affirms it was to delay the Senate confirmation on the Obama nominee for CIA director, John Brennan. Brennan has supported the drone campaign of the Obama Administration as a technique for seeking and destroying enemies before proper Miranda Rights are given.

Political posturing for personal gain or not, this action by Senator Paul begs bigger question: why are more of our statesmen not so outreached by the use of drones and, specifically, their potential to be used on American soil. Of course, we all want to be protected from outside enemies (insert gun control debate here). But the idea that the government of the United States could potentially have the power to strike down civilians, native citizens to this country using a drone is a bit scary and unsettling. Sure, there are some of you out there that may think this would never happen and maybe you are right. But it is in the real possibility that it could occur that the real fear should develop. When we give away our rights, we may never retain them again. When we give power to the government, we can kiss gaining that power back goodbye. So, though I do not agree with Senator Paul on everything, I am glad that someone stood up to the machine that is President Obama… even if only for the thirteen hours he was able to keep his vocal chords active.