Why the funding of the military is fundamental to the US

Every once in a while when I get into a discussion about various issues that involve how DC is spending our money, the argument comes up that they don’t like the money going toward the military. I have decided to respond to this comment here. I admit I really didn’t know how to respond to it because I felt it was one of those things that we all have things that we wish the government didn’t pay for and we have to accept it for what it is. But, the problem with that argument about the government not funding the military goes back to one of the basic reasons we are the UNITED States of America. See, back then as we find continue to see now, the states wanted to keep as much decision making at that level rather than having someone in New Hampshire making decisions for Georgia (for instance.) I mean, unless you live in Wyoming, do you really think that the lawmakers from that state understand the needs for a state that has huge urban areas or a lot of farmland? It was the same then when the New England states were more industrialized than the states in the south. And while slavery was an issue it was the only issue that was up for debate as the founding fathers created our country. In fact, there really were only two reasons why they supported joining together the colonies. The two reasons were trade and defense. As you read the Bill of Rights, you can see how they limited the federal government in order to give the states the strength to make their own decisions. In fact, the whole reason for the 10th Amendment is to give the states all the rights not given to the Federal Government, which really were based on the need for a collective group to be able to defend the country from attacks from other countries, as happened with the War of 1812, and to be able to engage in trade with other countries, rather than having 13 colonies separately try to do so. So, isn’t it interesting that the one part of the budget that many on the left would like to not have is one of the few reasons we were formed as a country.

The other side to the argument about not funding the military came to me as I read something about pacifists and their desire to avoid World War II. I can understand that they don’t like the idea of fighting and don’t want to be around it. It reminds me of all the talk about trying to stop bullying. No matter what is said and done, bullying will exist. The most recent example of bullying I saw was a bird that would not allow other birds around the bird feeder. It is part of who we have been created to be. Sadly, sometimes I think the unspoken part of the message about not funding the military is that those who do want to have a strong military, do so because they want war and like the idea of going to war, thus the reason for wanting to fund the military.

Just as much as we would like to live in a crime free world, crime will exist. It was this idea that gave me the way I see the defense budget. I would love to live my life where I don’t have to worry about locking my house and that I could leave my keys in my car with it sitting in my driveway. Sadly, those days are over and we have to protect ourselves from those who would take a car with keys in it or go from house to house looking for an unlocked door. Women have to worry about being attacked and raped. Thus, the need for the military to protect us as a country as well as protect us as individuals in not something that we can avoid. It is something that allows us to have some degree of security that the door will stay locked at night when we go to bed and not be forced open by soldiers of another country.

So that is my two cents on why one of the few rights that the founding fathers gave to the Federal government was for the military.

Sen Schumer shuts down a meeting so citizens can’t meet with our elected officials

whose salaries we pay and are elected by WE THE PEOPLE to represent us in DC.

Well, a meeting is scheduled in a specific room in advance…and then Chuck Schumer decides that the meeting can’t have the room so they can’t meet…

From The Other McCain

Remember Chuck Schumer at one time held what had been Anthony Weiner’s seat and Anthony Weiner considered him to be his mentor and thought he would follow in his footsteps.

So why is it that the Occupy Wall Street group can act in civil disobedience and break the laws and are embraced by the Democrats but yet when a group of citizens arrange a meeting with members of Congress and ensure that everything is done to reserve the room, a Democrat decides to not allow them to meet. So, breaking the law is fine but following the rules is not?

More thoughts on the Occupy groups

In some ways I don’t know quite what to say about the ongoing protests by the Occupy group. As you will see from previous posts, I felt that they didn’t quite get the idea of protesting against big corporations when they were using products of the groups they were protesting against. Then, I realized that they are somewhat like the Tea Party group, except there are a bunch of them that realize that they are being paid to protest by the liberal politicians. Then, I noticed how much the democrats are trying to align with the groups much as the republicans tried to do with the Tea Party. Both parties have tried to play others against these groups and because they are in some ways hijacked by politicians, it enables them to once again play us against each other while they attend cocktail parties together after work. While there are some things that the two groups disagree with at the same time there is one big issue that the two groups totally agree on politicians have forgotten that they are elected by WE THE PEOPLE and let themselves be controlled by special interest groups. Now, I might actually agree with the occupiers a bit more if they were not embraced by so many special interest groups. Sadly, this is not the projection that they have done on the truly grassroots that started the Tea Party. Granted I do think some people and groups have tried to tie themselves to the Tea Party they really haven’t gotten the support of the Tea Party.

Sadly, while I have watched some groups in some cities be able to work to have a crime free protest, most cities have had a high amount of crime associated with those who are part of the protest. Of course, they also say that they don’t want those 99%ers to be welcome at their protests. But, I read something yesterday that totally changed my mind about this group. There is one little thing that they don’t realize or perhaps a few do and that is when you look at how good even the poorest in this country have it, we are all the 5% of the world that are the wealthiest. As I hear them tell their hardships stories, I realize that it is all about what they don’t have and what others have. But, there are a lot of people who would think they have a lot more than a lot of people. What I don’t hear them talk about is something other than what they have identified as the problem, what are they doing to make changes to the situation. Even before they protested, do donate their money or their time to make a change? Perhaps, they want for themselves more than they really want for others.

When 99 becomes 1

Their signs say that they make up the 99%. I’m still not sure what 99% they make up but as the protests continue I am beginning to see them as a 1%. When they demanded to be able to break the laws that have been set as civil disobedience did they realize that they began to use resources that were being taken from the other 99%. Then, they were joined by others who made up the 99% that they said they made up. But, they didn’t exactly embrace those who joined them. Those who prepared the food began to feel like some moochers were beginning to take advantage of the protests. Then there was the entire thing about the process to decide how to use the donations that have been sent to them. I read about complaints by some of the 99% that felt that there was too much paperwork and a small group had control of money. Wow, are we seeing that there is a 1% in that group of the 99%? They feel like unproductive members of the protest are mooching food and causing problems. Could it be that they are not taking advantage of the lessons they could learn about how people interact even in a system that they think is the ideal communist situation.

But, then I read about the occupy group that wasn’t getting a lot of press until they began to talk to the press about things being stolen and fights breaking out in their group, which they felt were being caused by the homeless that were joining their groups because of the free food and blankets they had. Their biggest complaint was that the police were not making enough of a presence in their area. So, here is a group who are gathering in civil disobedience and not paying the fees or getting permits that would also include additional security and then decide that they want special attention from the police or should I say they need the police to babysit them. When it became evident from their own comments that things were beginning to get out of control, the state decided to save them from themselves because the state could not provide the attention they required. Or should I say at this point 1% of the population (the protesters) were expecting to have resources that were being taken away from the other 99% of the population in order that they could continue to protest with enough police protection to protect themselves from themselves. So, they are demanding to have special treatment during their protests that no one else is receiving or has received in the past. (Remember that the state has required the Tea Party protests to get permits, insurance and probably portapotties.) But, they expect the state to bow down to their requests and provide them with more police which means that other areas are not getting covered or tax payers are paying for additional police hours. But, it doesn’t matter because they are the 99% protesting against the 1% who make more money and pay more taxes. However, what really is happening is that the 99% is becoming a 1% because of their demand for special treatment.

Do the Wall Street Protesters see the big picture or consequences of their actions?

Today, I got a better understanding of what is in the Wall Street protesters minds. However, as I thought about it, they really don’t get the big picture. They get that there is a very small number of people who make a lot of money that aren’t the President of the United States or a member of Congress, who they think should make less money. I think most people think that there are a few who make way too much money. But, when you look at it in another way, most people have felt that a co-worker makes too much money. We can’t control how much others make. You don’t like the way a corporation is run then make other choices as in fight within the organization, run for office so you can try to make laws to change how things are done. Or you can decide to just hang out with your buddies on Wall Street. I have been wondering how they are charging their phones and going to the bathroom and taking care of other business. Could it be that they are borrowing it from corporations without paying for it. The other thing that came to mind and I wish I could find it but it was a comment where someone pointed out that in Egypt when a dictator came to power, the way he did it was to turn the mobs against corporations, the wealthy so that he could divide them and conquer them. As the hand is directed toward a false enemy (who the dictator to be probably paid off) he was able to take power. It is pretty much the way that others have done it as well, such as the Bolsheviks, Mao, Castro, and Chavez.

Then, I read a comment that Steve Gill said about the protest in Nashville. It was comparing the Tea Party to the American Revolution and the Wall Street protesters to the French Revolution. His big point was that America did it by individuals joining together while the French did it in mob rule. A Tale of Two Cities is a great read about what it was like in France during the revolution. But, what came to mind for me, was what I seem to remember about what happened after the French Revolution, which happened to occur because of the fact the Americans were able to fight and win against the British, it was that they didn’t get a democracy, they got Napoleon.

Sadly, I fear that the protesters don’t know history well enough to realize that they are being used just the way that others were used. They don’t seem to realize that the unions who are now supporting them are in bed with the corporations they are protesting. Actually, the unions want to take over the corporations, and what better way than to have some college students take down the corporations so they can take them over…along with all that money that the evil heads earn.

I have said it before and I will say it again. The big difference here is that in all the other countries who got a dictator to replace the tyrant who had been in control had never tasted freedom. We The People, love our freedom and we will fight for it rather than join those who want to take it away from us.