A C o n s e r v a t i v e R e s o u r c e W e b s i t e |
|
BlogFiles (2008) |
Index
Essays
Political Stand
Blogs
Speech
The Right Parallels
Florida
Digital Photo Gallery
BlogFile
New
Guest Book
Part Two
We are preparing another Blog post for the 3rd quarter: In the meantime, please read this...
New: The Right Parallels: McCain's VP Choice
Please scroll down to read The Blogs Issues:
Keep the ban on gays in the military and take a moment to sign the petition
below
|
|
LightBookproductions
Blogs . . .
Here we post impromptu Blogs on current issues that reflect our
|
|
|
Blogs
|
|
|
Military Employee Eligibility Act of 1993 |
Home BlogFile Political Stands
We
welcome comments, critical or otherwise. |
Talk Radio... "...the foundation of conservatism is individual liberty. That’s never going to go out of style. The more encroachments against it, the more attempts there are to limit it, the more profound the impact of good conservative talk radio will be. We’re not going anywhere." Rush Limbaugh on the future of conservatism From a recent interview with Jed Babbin at Human Events Online commemorating Rush's 20 Anniversary in Radio Broadcasting. Click here to read Tributes to Rush Limbaugh. |
|
LightBook C o m m u n i c a t i o n s We
are pleased to report that our 1st quarter of year two publication (ending
June 30, 2008) continued to reflect increases in site visitors. The site was
very active during the quarter with over 4200 visitors and page
views from |
The Staff at LightBookproductions would like
to congratulate our site
producer, Palmer Hasty, who has been playing golf
on full-length
courses only one year now, for shooting a par 36 last week (May
1st) on the back
9
at Lansbrook Golf Club in Palm Harbor, Florida. And Mr.
Hasty informed us that score included 2 penalty strokes.
|
LightBookproductions would like to commend Human Events Online for its recent Nielson rating as a "Top News Site." Nielson data show HEO drew more than one million unique visitors for the month of June. That puts HEO ahead of conservative counterparts The Washington Times, Townhall.com, Real Clear Politics, and National Review. |
Blogs
2nd Quarter
Posted August 10, 2008
A sub-committee of the House Armed Services Committee held hearings last week regarding a liberal effort to repeal the 1993 law that bans homosexuality from the military.
At the time of passage, liberals in Congress misinformed the people as to what the law really said, using a deceptive catch phrase "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to mischaracterize the unequivocal conclusion to Congressional research by the Armed Services Committee at that time, and the actual language of the law. We encourage you to read the actual language of the law by clicking here.
As Elaine Donnelly, President of Americansforthemilitary.com said in an email to supporters:
|
|
And read, at the link
below, what the law Congress passed in 1993 regarding homosexuality in the
military really says...as opposed to the deceptive "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell" promotional version the liberal Democrats and liberal media continue to present
to the people. |
|
Re: July 23 Hearing on Repeal of 1993 Law re Gays in the Military Americans for the Military (AFM) Thank you for supporting our AmericansfortheMilitary.com campaign, a special project to defend the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. I am writing to give you a News Update on the situation, which has become more perilous, and to give you some Actions Items--ideas on what you can do to help our military. 1. News Update: Pending Hearing on Homosexuals in the Military The campaign to repeal the 1993 law is moving forward. Our military needs your help to defeat that effort. On June 4 the Center for Military Readiness and several like-minded groups met with House Armed Services Committee (HASC) staff members, who have been planning a hearing on the issue of homosexuals in the military. We learned that the hearing is tentatively scheduled for 2:00 PM on July 23. During the meeting we stated our position clearly: There is no need for a major congressional committee to devote even ten minutes of valuable time to this issue--just to please the “LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered) Left.” Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA), Chairman of the HASC Personnel Subcommittee, plans to give them what they want, even though the 1993 law was passed by Congress with bipartisan, veto-proof majorities, has been upheld as constitutional several times, and enjoys widespread support. We also said that if there is to be a hearing, advocates should be required to show how repeal of the law would improve military readiness, morale, and discipline in the all-volunteer force. They should further explain why the military should be forced to cope with new varieties of social tensions and turbulence resulting from forced cohabitation with professed (not discreet) homosexuals in the military. This is a national defense issue because a strong military depends on discipline and morale. Legislation sponsored by Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) to repeal the law, HR. 1246, is not scheduled for action this year. This hearing is intended to lay the groundwork for repeal of the 1993 law early in 2009--perhaps within the “First 100 Days” of the next administration. Here are some ideas on what you can do to defeat this effort, starting right now: |
After the hearing took place last week, in a report at CNS News (Cybercast News Service), Ms Donnelly pointed out the main problem with the hearing and all the other fuss created by the homosexual lobby and the liberal media's presentation of the issue. “They know what the policy is, but they don’t know what the law is,” Donnelly said, “and they don’t understand the difference between the two. In their public statements, I have seen no indication that they really understand what the difference is.”
To reiterate, the law does not even say that homosexuals can serve as long as they do not (don't ask, don't tell) advertise their homosexuality. The law clearly states that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service," period.
The so-called "policy" is in fact an
illusion created by liberal Democrats in Congress under pressure from
then President Clinton.
Ms Donnelly goes further and
correctly calls the Clinton "policy" an "enforcement scheme" and
"clearly illegal"...the suggestion is that you can serve in the
armed forces as long as you don't say that you are homosexual.
Even though that can happen, and does happen, it is still not the meaning or the intent of the law which is based on valid research and passed by a veto proof bi-partisan majority in Congress. We don't need any more "research" and we definitely don't need any more "hearings" just because what sounds like a liberal Democrat happens to be running for President who has promised to review it. There is no need to review the issue.
Of all the institutions we have to serve the national interest, the Military is by far the one institution that should not be burdened with, or forced by some congressional sub-committee to be distracted by socio-political experimentation.
Col. Bob Maginnis (highlighted in the quote box above) who has already testified before Congress on this issue, told CNS News that this publicity seeking ordeal to repeal the law is obviously "political and has nothing to do with the needs of the military."
I watched a few minutes of that hearing on C-Span. Ms Donnelly's characterization of the hearing as typically a show of juvenile hostility, all the more pathetic via its manifestation in grownups holding elected power, toward those few invited to speak against repealing the law, was accurate.
The angry tone of voice they could not disguise in trying to keep Ms Donnelly from pointing out the difference between the "law" as thoroughly researched and written by Congress and the deceptively promoted "policy" was enough to make one realize that they continue to believe they should be allowed to play nothing wild straight poker with seven cards while everyone else plays by the law, with just five. Ms Donnelly said of the meeting: "We had difficulty being heard, however, because liberal members of the committee attacked our motives, asked absurd questions, and tried to bully us in the presence of hostile media."
The liberal committee members were once again trying the race card. Equating sexual preference with race. To put it another way, if you think that a mere sexual preference, or sexual orientation, whatever deviation that might be outside the natural design, should be elevated in the mind and heart to the same cultural elements that bond a race of people together, then we believe you are not operating with a full deck to begin with.
As Ms Donnelly explained:
"Taking the “civil
rights” argument to its logical, misguided conclusion, the military
will be required to
give special rights to professed (not discreet) homosexuals, and
enforce a corollary policy of “zero tolerance” of anyone who
disagrees. The military does not do things half-way. Commanders will
not be able to improve the situation, since they might be accused of
“intolerance” themselves.
To make the new policy “work,” valuable training
time will be diverted to “diversity” training reflecting the attitudes
of civilian gay activist groups. This training will attempt to
overcome the normal human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual
matters—
a quest that is inappropriate for the military and
unlikely to succeed. "
As we have said before: Anyone who has been persistently stalked and pestered by the closet, or out-of-the-closet homosexual activists, including their sympathizers, then one knows that Ms Donnelly is not exaggerating. For example, Pinellas County in Florida has regretfully become a magnet for these types of people.
We encourage you to take a moment and view Ms Donnelly's testimony at this link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19sLj2zK3qM
In a follow up email to supporters after the
hearing, Ms Donnelly concluded: "I was prepared for and would
have welcomed questions on the issue itself, but the unprofessional
behavior of some members made serious discussion impossible."
"All of this hostility actually proved the point I was trying to make:
If Congress repeals the 1993 law
stating that homosexuals are ineligible for military service, anyone
who disagrees will face the
presumption of “bigotry,” “homophobia,” or worse. Denied promotions
will cause thousands of
people to leave the volunteer force, or avoid it all together."
Produce More Energy America...
|
Congratulations to "American Solutions"
On Tuesday, July 15, at the U.S. Capitol,
"American Solutions"
presented Republican House and Senate leaders with 1.3 million
petition signatures from the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less"
campaign. American Solutions plans to present more petition
signatures at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions this
summer.
Here are some samples: 9. So far, your Democratic House of Representatives has done nothing but propose gimmicks. Your first energy gimmick was to pass a law that allows America to sue OPEC, apparently so we can become more dependent upon Middle East oil. This is puzzling to most Americans. Remind us again what that accomplishes? 8. Your second gimmick was “Use it or Lose it,” based on the notion that millions of acres of land with vast energy reserves are leased by oil companies but not being developed. Unfortunately, no independent geological association in America agreed with that wild claim. And during debate on the House floor, Democrats couldn’t identify even one acre where that was happening. How embarrassing was that?
5. You keep saying Republicans are beholden
to Big Oil, which you despise and accuse of obscene profiteering. But I
noticed your Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has accepted a
whopping $809,000 from energy special interests this session alone-- which
I’m sure you’ll want to return. I’m just curious, but when can those oil
companies expect their checks back? 2. Last Sunday on the news show This Week you said Republicans would have to “get creative” to receive an up-or-down vote on the House floor to explore for more energy here in America. Our founding fathers were creative, too. They established a legislative body where the pressing issues of the day would be openly debated and the majority will of the elected representatives prevails. Are you afraid that, if a vote were taken, you would lose? Isn’t America supposed to be a democracy of the people? While Speaker Pelosi blames the high gas prices on the President and Vice President's interest in "big oil" (see Ann Coulter's quote in the quote box above), the Speaker is also trying to advance her own financial investments via excessive government subsidies for what is called "eco-alternatives," which are frighteningly unreliable when compared to the resources we currently have, and need to tap. As columnist Michelle Malkin recently pointed out The "national wind campaign" Ms Malkin is talking about is not, (contrary to what it might sound like) a reference to Barack Obama's speeches, it's a reference to a wind farm out in Texas being funded by Mr. Pickens. It appears that Mr. Pickens would like for Ms Pelosi to force you and I, the taxpayers, to help relieve some of the burden of his multi-million dollar experiment. As pointed out on this
website several years ago via an issues related letter sent to Senator
Elizabeth Dole (Political
Stand),
"The recent energy conflict between Russia and
Ukraine only highlights the need to accelerate strategic energy
implementation. In a current essay about the crisis in Georgia and Russia's troubling regression into cold-war style aggression, Monica Crowley mentioned the issue of energy. "They extort Eastern Europe on its oil supply. They have blown up part of the oil pipeline that runs through Georgia and Turkey (a NATO member)." Human Events Online. That is simply to point out the depth of complexity and the far reaching dimensions involved in making the right decision regarding our domestic energy production now. Basically, we do not believe it is wise and believe it is a serious mistake, economically and strategically now, to hold increased oil production hostage to super expensive federal spending on what is called "eco-friendly" energy solutions. Framing it so that a so-called legislative compromise is presented to the public as the only solution just reinforces the short sighted and politically motivated thought processes that got us in this situation in the first place.
Note: It's the same butt-headedness that keeps Congress from reforming Social Security. Another looming problem. The liberal Democrats in Congress won't even consider working on that problem until the Republicans delete what is the best idea for Social Security reform so far, that is, Private Savings Accounts. You might recall, President Bush called for Social Security reform, including PSAs back in 1999 when he was campaigning for the Presidency. |
We
encourage you to sign Newt Gingrich's petition "We, therefore, the undersigned citizens of the United States, petition the U.S. Congress to act immediately to lower gasoline prices by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries."
This is an educational link on
the Blog page provided by LightBookproductions.com
for readers interested in learning more about the realties of energy
security for the 21st Century.
"One
person can't stand up and just block the will of the American people.
She may be trying to protect Harry Reid and Barack Obama, but the
speaker is gonna get rolled. The only question is when. And you can
take that to the bank."
from CNSNews
The Morning Bell
Quick Hits
After proposing a tax plan
that would give the United States one of the highest tax rates in the
The point we are trying to make
at LightBookproductions regarding the creation of strategic
energy policies from both domestic and global perspectives is
reflected in Russia's recent attacks on Georgia.
At the core of the struggle is a
vast network of actual and planned pipelines for shipping Caspian Sea oil to
the world market from countries that were once part of the Soviet empire.
American policymakers working with a BP-led consortium had already helped
build oil and natural gas pipelines across Georgia to the Turkish coast.
Next on the drawing board: another pipeline through Georgia to carry natural
gas from the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea to Austria—offering an
alternate supply to Western Europe, which now depends on Russia for a third
of its energy."
|
Follow
this link to see videos including "Citizens Join GOP Energy Protest in U.S.
House" 
|
Support Cancer Research We commend the Professional Golf Association and the individual players for their support of the Eagles for St. Jude program at the St. Jude Children's Cancer Research Center. This site commends the remarkable contributions many of the individual players are also making to education and the troops in America, as well as Angel Cabrera, for example, the 2007 U.S. Open Champion who financially and personally helps feed needy children in his native Argentina. You can read a satire on The Fairness Doctrine...a modern day absurdity recreated by liberals in the U.S. Congress, as it might happen in sports on the professional golf tour. |
Keep judges off the battlefield
Adapted from a
CNS news story. The
Attorney General of the United States recently delivered a critical speech at
the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Mukasey apparently felt that
the recent ruling by the Supreme Court to allow habeas corpus to detainees at
Guantanamo Bay was perhaps not in the best interest of national
security. It is no surprise the high court ruling suspiciously
sounds like it's motivated by politics. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Patrick Leahy, who appears to approach these issues with the mind of a
lethargic dinosaur while being a powerful point-man for judicial activism in the
senate, considered the Attorney General's speech to be out of line.
Any serious student of the Constitution should take
note here.
As conservative essayist and legal council Ann Coulter (scroll down the page to
read more at LBP previous blog posting) said in a recent essay, "In its
2006 ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court disallowed the Bush
administration's combatant status review tribunals, but wrote: "Nothing prevents
the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority (for trial by
military commission) he believes necessary." Reminder: After the President
exercised his
constitutional option, apparently Justice Kennedy decided the dictates of the
U.S. Constitution would not restrain him from getting his revenge. As we
pointed out before, the option to seek authority from Congress was not an option
that Justice Kennedy was providing to the Executive Branch, it is an option
the Constitution unequivocally provides to the President.
Justice Kennedy's
earlier ruling with the qualification gave the impression that he at least
understood the difference, but his recent action as the "swing vote" decision,
proves he did not place any real value in the difference. I guess we all missed
the fine print version of the Constitution, where it says that the media induced
rock star status of the Supreme Court "swing vote," provides the power to
override the words of the
Constitution.
In delivering his speech, the Attorney General offered a six point
guideline: "Congress must make clear guidelines for court proceedings of terror
suspects
who challenge their detention...." One would think the liberal members (and the
Justice
Kennedy "swing vote") of the high court, who were responsible for the ruling,
might have thought of those potential problems.
Mukassey further pointed out: "New rules must not allow a detainee to come into
the United States for his hearing, either as a plaintiff or a witness, nor
should U.S. soldiers be called off the battlefield to testify at such a
hearing."
While one reads and writes about this issue one constantly hears a voice in
one's head asking: "Why on earth would we be foolish enough to give an
imprisoned enemy combatant access to our civil court system?"
The Senate Judiciary Committee that Leahy chairs would be the first challenge
for the Attorney General's proposal.
Senator Leahy's response indicated that he was offended because the Attorney
General did not "consult" with Congress before he gave the speech, so
therefore, as CNS reported, "Congress may oppose passing any legislation on the
matter...."
Senator Leahy defended his decision by saying: “The Courts have a long history
of considering habeas petitions and of handling national security matters,
including classified information.” Leahy also added that he thinks Congress
should
probably stay out of the matter. Leahy's view of the President's decision to
successfully obtain authority from Congress to disallow detainees access to our
civil court system, goes like this: "The Congress must not rush to pass
another piece of ill-conceived legislation..."
Other points
of contention and concerns expressed
by the Attorney General were:"The court proceedings must protect national
security information." As CNS reported, the Attorney General recalled a
terrorism case from 1995 wherein federal prosecutors had to provide a list of
un-indicted co-conspirators, which included Osama bin Laden. That list
eventually reached bin Laden,
which then became a tipoff that the U.S. was not only aware of him, but of his
co-conspirators.
Mukasey suggested a guideline that would confine detainee cases to the U.S.
District Court in Washington, DC, so that there would be no valid argument to
claim the detainees were not getting a fair habeas court hearing. Mukasey also
emphasized the importance of ensuring that detainees are not brought into the
United States for their habeas hearing. A remote and safe video link from
Guantanamo Bay would be sufficient he said. The Attorney General said that
Congress should
ensure that American soldiers - who might be considered witnesses - "should not
be forced to leave the front lines to testify" because an affidavit after the
battle would do so. "Military personnel should not be required to risk their
lives to crate the sort of arrest reports and chain-of-custody reports that are
used, under very different circumstances, by ordinary law enforcement officers
in the United States."
The fact that the high court would make a ruling like this while we are fighting
an asymmetrical enemy and force the Attorney General to suggest obviously needed
refinements in the first place is problematic. That the Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary
Committee would call these practical proposals "more ill conceived legislation"
is potentially even more problematic.
Quotes from June 22 Blog
"Former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s petition to Congress demanding the removal
of government obstacles to increasing our energy supplies is gathering
momentum by the minute, while the Democrats’ do-nothing Congress wants to
raise fuel prices. "
"Actually, labeling Congress a bunch of 'do-nothings' is almost right, but
not quite.
(They are doing something, that is...) They’re doing their best to create more obstacles to growing our
energy supply. And while the price of energy is already unreasonably
high, they’re working hard on a liberal agenda that will raise the prices
consumers pay for gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas and home heating oil."
Jed Babbin: Human Events Online
"And the judiciary simply has no power over enemy combatants in wartime.
Such power is committed to the executive as part of the commander in chief's
power, and thus implicitly denied to the judiciary, just as is the power to
declare war is unilaterally committed to Congress. As one law professor said
to me, this is what happens when the swing justice is the dumb justice.
Kennedy's ruling thus effectively overturned the congressional
declaration of war -- the use of force resolution...If there's no war, then
there are no enemy combatants. This is the diabolical arrogance of Kennedy's
opinion.
We've been through this before: Should the military run the war
or should the courts run the war? I think the evidence is in.
Ann Coulter: "Justice Kennedy,
American Idle"
Essay at human events online. Read more quotes from this Coulter essay in The Blogs below at Renegade Judges
"To say two men who live together and engage in sex can be married renders the idea and ideal of marriage meaningless. The court may declare it, but it cannot redefine an institution that nature and nature's God have already defined. As they say in Texas, you can put lipstick and earrings on a pig, and call her Peggy Sue, but it's still a pig." Pat Buchanan: Human Events Online from the Essay: "Post Christian America"
"Without the exploration that took place years ago, less domestic oil and natural gas would be available today to meet consumer demand."
"Today's short-term need
was yesterday's long-term opportunity. If Congress had acted on that
opportunity years ago, America would not be in the energy bind it finds
itself in today. Working with industry, Congress now has the opportunity
to help secure America's energy future. It should not miss the chance
again."
Red Cavaney: President & CEO-American Petroleum
Institute. from The Wall Street Journal (June 20, 2008).
Blogs Posted June 22, 2008
Energy...The
President recently gave a speech wherein he once again challenged Congress to
allow for the expansion of domestic oil production. This was one of the
President's common sense campaign issues eight years ago, and Congress hasn't
really done a thing since then.
Make no mistake, in addition to the
looming problem that energy is becoming a national security issue, in his recent
speech the President kept his focus on the obvious economic benefits for the
nation if Congress would (after how many decades?) create legislation that would
provide the oil companies freedom to drill and produce God knows how many great
paying jobs and, (another
brilliant idea)
more domestic oil.
The liberal myth that "Big
Oil" is and always will be to blame for the current rise in gas prices needs to
be destroyed, period. And it can be destroyed with education, communication, and
pressure applied to Congress.
Don't let the Dem presidential candidates fool you, especially if you are an independent or undecided voter, when they say they will tackle this issue. Predominately because of the liberals in Congress (who are usually helped by a handful of liberal Republicans) the oil companies have had their hands tied with regulations for many years now.
The facts are that while gas reaches $4 a gallon at the pump, as Wendy Schibener, an Intern at Human Events recently said in a recent essay, "the Democrats voted four times in the past year (see Note below) against money-saving, domestic oil production plans – plans that lower the price at the pump and return billions of dollars to the pockets of Americans."
In essence, Congress continues to back away from a vital challenge for America. The challenge to free the oil companies to provide America with energy security while we explore and implement as they become viable, alternative methods of energy production.
The absurdity of this anti-Big Oil platform that the current presidential candidates promote, and that the MSM amplifies for them is exemplified perfectly by a Clinton veto in the 1990s. As Ms Schibener pointed out: "Had former President Clinton not vetoed ANWR in 1995, America would have 1 million barrels of oil per day produced domestically. This would have eliminated much dependence on radical regimes in the Middle East and kept gas prices from rising."
To clarify my point further, in the long term strategic perspective, paying $4 - $4.50 at the pump for a gallon of gas is going to be the easy part of the energy equation, because it was just last week that the President of Iran was in Japan trying to convince one of our strongest and most important allies that it should purchase Iranian oil.
Just several weeks ago Congress indulged in more cope-out, delay tactic scenarios by debating whether or not to demand an additional profits tax (famously known as the Windfall Profits Tax) on the American owned oil companies and whether or not to file a lawsuit against OPEC. Not being an economist, I would still venture to guess that if the oil companies were allowed to drill for existing oil and build new refineries, all the profits considered "obscene" by liberals would become substantial investments into providing energy security for America during the next decade and beyond.
One thing that's happening, and something the liberals won't tell you even if they were aware of it is that technology and infrastructure development for oil companies has decreased while production has increased over the past decade because, unlike Congress, oil companies have to improve to survive not only because that is business, but also because oil companies are becoming an element of national security as per the global perspective, which is something we, and many more Americans, believe Congress has ignored long enough.
Again, Ms Schibenen says it well.
"The fight against OPEC is also long-running with statements made against the
organization by former President Carter’s adviser’s and former Sen. Ted Kennedy
(D-Mass.) in 1979. After almost three decades of finger pointing, it’s pretty
clear that verbal jousting OPEC will not go anywhere.
And neither will the concept of a roll back on oil company tax breaks. This was
also the Democratic plan back in 2006. Didn’t work then, won’t work now.
And Democrats never tire of looking to failed formulas.
Although Obama, Clinton and all the rest of the Dems seem so enthusiastic about
the Windfall Profits Tax, the Senate actually instituted the tax in 1980 under the
Carter Administration. Funny thing is - the Senate repealed the tax in 1988. Why?
Mainly due to the tax’s heavy burden for tax payers and increased American
reliance on foreign oil supplies."
In an Interview with Human Events editor Jed Babbin, former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, also had this to say: "At a time when the Congress should be finding ways to lower the amount of cost to put gas in your wife’s car, they are actually proposing to increase the cost of gasoline, increase the cost of diesel fuel, increase the cost of aviation fuel, increase the cost natural gas, and increase the cost of coal. This is at a time when truckers are at a danger of being put out of business. Airlines are in danger of being put out of business. It’s absolutely amazing."
Truckers in Europe are already on
strike, angry as hell, causing chaos and commercial gridlock in several European
countries because of soaring fuel prices.
We understand the sensitive
economic issues regarding the Gulf of Mexico surrounding Florida, but geologists
have not even been allowed to explore the region, so all we have currently is an
"estimate" from the 1970s.
Like with education, with water
and food, for decades we have failed miserably in creating energy policies
that take into account America's 21st century strategic needs within the global
backdrop.
Does the structure and sheer number of people
operating our current Congress allow for
the intelligent and productive management of the people's hard earned tax money,
wherein revolutionary changes could force a refinement in the art of policy making?
The People are beginning to wonder. As actor Chuck Norris recently
commented on the energy situation: "To add insult to injury, a
congressional subcommittee voted a week ago to continue to prevent drilling off
the coasts of America. Are these the best solutions these elected knuckleheads
can come up with?"
For an inside sample view of what's happening in Congress regarding contemporary energy legislation, we quote excerpts from a recent account provided to Human Events by Senator James Inhofe, a ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
We will remind you that several years ago this website pointed out that the current Dem controlled Congress is probably the most inept Congress in modern times. In light of the intense interest Americans are finally paying to the realities (and not the myths) of the energy issue, and the nothing the Dems have done (and we know the election value of this tactic) so we challenge and encourage House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to mirror the Dem presidential candidate platforms with legislative efforts in Congress, because, in the end, the Independents and rational Democrats will run like hell, and I mean, the other way.
| What a
difference three years makes: In 2005, I led the charge against a massive
global warming cap-and-trade bill. It was a lonely battle with few GOP
members willing to join me on the Senate floor to publicly oppose it. Fast forward to June 2008: Not only was I joined by dozens of GOP Senators, but nearly 30% of the Democratic Senators rebelled against their leadership and opposed the Boxer Climate Tax Bill. In the end, Senator Boxer only had at most 35 Democratic Senators willing to vote for final passage on the largest tax bill in U.S. history. The Boxer Climate Tax Bill was so thoroughly disowned by Democratic Leadership that proponents of climate taxes will now be forced to start from scratch next year. Republicans were prepared to debate the bill and were ready to offer amendments. But the Democrats did not want to debate, much less vote, on our amendments that were aimed at protecting American families and workers from the devastating economic impacts of this bill. When faced with the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, it was Democratic Senators who wanted to see this bill die a quick death. Despite claims that we must “act now” to prevent a climate “crisis,” the Boxer Climate Tax Bill would not have resulted in any “action” whatsoever. The bill, often touted as an "insurance policy" against global warming, would instead have been all economic pain for no climate gain. Just a few days after the
embarrassing defeat of the climate bill, the Democrats were at it again.
As the price of gas at the pump continued to climb, Democrats were
proposing yet another energy tax as part of their “solution” to our energy
challenges. The Democrats’ “no” energy bill would increase taxes by $17
billion for America’s oil and gas producers and increase government
bureaucracy. Their bill does nothing to increase access to America’s
extensive oil and natural gas reserves, does nothing for the promotion of
nuclear energy, does nothing to increase refinery capacity, does nothing
for electricity generation or transmission, and does nothing for the
utilization of clean coal. They are attempting to ignore the basic
concepts of supply and demand.
|
Note:
Dems rejected the “Gas Price Act” on June 13, 2007 which planned to improve
domestic fuels security. On June 14, 2007, Democrats rejected Sen. John Warner’s
(R-Va) proposal to authorize the State of Virginia to petition for authorization
to conduct gas exploration and drilling activities in the coastal zone of the
State. On June 19, 2007, Democrats denied Sen. Jim Bunning’s (R-Ky) proposal to
provide standards for clean coal-derived fuels.
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) sponsored the most
recent domestic energy proposal in the Senate. The Senators’ plan, titled “The
American Energy Production Act” (S.2958), projects a production of 24 billion
barrels of oil domestically as well as opens up the potential of oil shale and
coal-to-liquid technology.
Renegade Judges (and Mayors)...
In Greece and Latvia, conservatives there have the same naturally negative reactions to homosexual activists and renegade judges as conservatives in America, especially when judges try to shove same-sex marriage down the throats of normal people who believe in the natural order and design of the universe, and use their majority vote to create laws for civilized protection against the same sex marriage assaults.
The Greeks nor the Latvians are intimidated into
guilt by the media like so often happens in America.
For example, after a Mayor on the Greek Island of Tilos performed a same-sex wedding, the Greek Justice Minister immediately
declared the marriages "non-existent" and said the mayor "arbitrarily"
overstepped his authority while "the prosecutor of Rhodes island -- the
administrative centre of the Dodecanese island group -- called on the mayor to
annul the marriage and opened a preliminary inquiry to examine the mayor's
prosecution for breach of duty." Instead of being content, like
so often happens in America, with the attention from a "quote" in the almighty
press, that government prosecutor is actually doing something about the problem.
As this website warned several years ago regarding liberal Republicans who naively thought that supporting civil unions would become a reasonable compromise to same-sex marriage. They did not understand, or pretended from their closet not to understand, that lawyers would exploit the language and legally justify same-sex marriage via civil unions. Just like they did in California this month. This is why we said at the time that the language of the law via any constitutional amendment should be unambiguous.
And it happened in Greece, as reported by Agence France Press and picked up by the Associated Press and Yahoo News. "Greek gay rights groups exploited a loophole in a 1982 law that does not specify that a civil union must involve a man and a woman."
We sympathize with the conservative Greeks. Here in America we have a situation where 61% of the people of California, our largest state, several years ago voted to ban same-sex marriage, and now three state Supreme Court judges, like rebelling juveniles, and without the legal authority, arbitrarily ruled against the will of the vast majority of the people of California as well as the U.S. Constitution, by declaring that same-sex marriage is now legal in California.
What will happen in America is that homosexuals will now consider it legal to get married in California. Homosexuals from other states that have Constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, and especially with states that do not have the protection of a Constitutional Amendment, will travel to California, get married and return to their state of residence and create expensive chaos as they challenge the courts with the judicially declared "legal" marriage licenses that those renegade judges provided them in California.
Sources: AmericansforTruth: Agence France Press: Associated Press via Yahoo News.
Latvia...We commend the six members of the Latvia First Party
To the hundreds of people in Latvia who viewed this website during our first year of publication; We at LightBookproductions thank you for your visit.
| News Item from Latvia And we stand with conservative Latvians in the Parliament's First Party who are standing their ground against the intimidation tactics of a political group within the European Parliament called Intergroup on Gay and Lesbian Rights. Latvians can read an essay on this site at this link Why We Love to Hate Hate-Crimes Legislation and you will understand why conservatives in America will be praising you for standing your ground. You are up against the same kind of political assault including attempts at speech and thought control that conservatives are up against here in America.
|
Renegade judges continued...Meanwhile, regretfully U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy appears to have allowed the media glamorization of his "swing vote" status go to his head in what appears to be his quest to overpower all three branches of government in the Boumediene case which allows Guantanamo detainees access to the American court court system.
In the first place, one
would seriously question why the Guantanamo detainee issue was once
again reviewed by the high court. I mean, what was the purpose
this time?
A logical mind, and even a legal expert or
constitutional scholar would have presumed that the court resolved the
issue when Justice Kennedy ruled with the four liberals, while at the
same time realizing they were probably wrong, he said, in his opinion
from Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that the President (the Executive
Branch) could, because (the Constitution, not Justice Kennedy)
says he can, Constitutionally obtain the authority he needed by taking
the issue to the Legislative Branch.
And that's exactly what the President did. As Ann Coulter points out in her recent essay.
| In the court's
earlier attempts to stick its nose into such military operations as the
detainment of enemy combatants at Guantanamo, the court dangled the
possibility that it would eventually let go. In its 2006 ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court disallowed the Bush administration's combatant status review tribunals, but wrote: "Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority (for trial by military commission) he believes necessary." So Bush returned to Congress and sought authority for the military commissions he deemed necessary -- just as the court had suggested -- and Congress passed the Military Commissions Act. But as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent in the Boumediene case last week: It turns out the justices "were just kidding." Ann Coulter humaneventsonline |
Ms Coulter is right. We didn't even know there was a fourth branch of government. We suspected during the Democratic primary race that Senator Hillary Clinton might be trying to create a fourth branch of government because she was the first person ever to figure out how to define a loss as a win and we were thinking that no one with such a gift would be wasting it on a mere presidential primary. During further research we were informed that a fourth branch of government, in fact, does not exist, at least not in the Constitution, but, as Ann suggests, perhaps Justice Kennedy might be planning to start one.
|
The majority opinion by Justice Kennedy in Boumediene held that it would be very troubling from the standpoint of "separation of powers" for there to be someplace in the world in which the political branches could operate without oversight from Justice Kennedy, one of the four powers of our government (the other three being the executive, legislative and judicial branches). So now even procedures written by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch have failed Kennedy's test. He says the law violates "separation of powers," which is true only if "separation of powers" means Justice Kennedy always gets final say. But now, even aliens get special constitutional privileges merely for being caught on a battlefield trying to kill Americans. I think I prefer Canada's system of giving preference to non-citizens who have skills and assets. Ann Coulter humaneventsonline |
|
C O M M U N I C A T I O N S
|
from the Blogs
Reform Budget "Congressman Paul Ryan of
Wisconsin has offered a long-term solution that avoids tax increases.
The Heritage Foundation has offered like-minded proposals along similar lines.
We challenge those who disagree with his approach to offer their
long-term solution."
The Foundry at
The Heritage
Foundation
The War on Terror "In
recent weeks, the vocabulary police opened a new front in the war on terror
by issuing a list of “do’s” and “don’ts” for terrorism terminology."
"New Terror Terminology" by Colonel Oliver North
Recommended Reading at
human events online
Jeb Bush: Former Governor
of Florida
Scroll down to read more in the Blogs
FISA Security
"Currently, we
are asking our troops and intelligence professionals to operate with one
hand tied behind their back. Undercutting good intelligence by not
passing FISA, reduces our ability to defend ourselves, and
endangers the lives of Americans."
Senator John Cornyn of Texas
The Iraq War...Create
a vortex that destroys itself
In the past several days McClatchy
News has posted several informative reports from Iraq.
For
example: Fifty Iraqi political leaders traveled to Sadr City on
Sunday.
"Whatever point the crisis reaches we will keep our efforts to put an end
to it," said Ahmed Radhi, a member of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the
largest Sunni Muslim bloc. Radhi said the leaders formed a committee
to meet with Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to solve problems plaguing
Sadr City.
"We have a delegation meeting with Maliki to let him know the real
situation going on in the city," said Nassar al Rubaie, a Sadrist. "We
have lawmakers from different blocs and parties to come and watch the
situation on the ground."
McClatchy News April 27
It appears that Iran has been using the ranting Sadr and his localized Mahdi militias to distract the Iraqi government and the Iraqi-American forces from the intricate, and to a degree, more subtle and more powerful and influence of Qassem Suleimani.
We believe that before any "demands" from the politicians be considered in that particular situation, the political leaders currently in Sadr City should, as they have promised, simply exercise their responsibility and work diligently with the Sadrists to help remove insurgents and weapons without any particular "demands." If these political leaders now in Sadr City are not infiltrated puppets of Suleimani, then there should be no problem with publicly demanding the removal of insurgents and weapons instead of making "demands" of the government. If they are puppets of Suleimani, then it would be the appropriate time to reveal that connection.
In other words, in the West our logic runs like this: If there are no insurgents and no weapons with which to kill us or the Iraqi people, no matter who they are loyal to, then there will be no need for military action. Until that time, the negotiation, or the "deal" via the "demands" that the political leaders are trying to make, appears to be someone's weapon.
But the U.S.-backed Iraqi forces in Sadr City are not only fighting Mahdi
Army militiamen, said Lt. Col. Steve Stover, the U.S. military spokesman
for Baghdad.
"I don't think it's all Muqtada al Sadr (followers) and I don't think
everyone is listening to him," Stover said. Insurgents are "continuing to
attack us now even since Sadr's last message."
Stover said that while the areas of Rashid and Karrada are fairly quiet,
there has been some violence in Sadr City, particularly the southern part
of the city. Security forces have provided food, water, medical supplies,
generators and stoves to residents there, he said.
"You are going to see life get a lot better for Iraqis in the south part
of Sadr City," he said.
Iraqi Brig. Gen. Qassim Atta echoed Stover's comments, saying security
forces are focused on providing services for residents in Sadr City.
"There is no siege in Sadr City," Atta said during a press conference
Sunday. "The movement is normal, except in areas where there are still
military operations."
Richard Ellis, Vice President of Communications for McDonald's, was recently named to the Board of Directors of the NGLCC. In a press release, the NGLCC praised Ellis for his "vast Board experience with LGBT and advocacy related organizations." It's alarming that the overseer of McDonald's advertising campaigns directly geared toward families will now be a leader in the NGLCC's campaign to weaken traditional values.
The NGLCC's efforts on
behalf of homosexuality threaten the family, the definition of marriage and
the very religious freedom we hold so dear.
Family
Research Council May 14
Valid clues as to how the modern-day Dems will
govern ... Hint (badly)
We believe LightBookproductions was correct
in pointing out earlier that the creation of what still appears to be
an unsolvable delegate mess is at least one clue as to how the Dems
will govern if voted into The White House. As Senator
Clinton presses her tortured logic regarding the poll driven
hypothetical that she could beat McCain easier than Obama could while in
reality, it appears certain that she is going to be the loser while she
creates a fissure of rock solid anger within the
Democratic Party.
Conservative Jed Babbin at Human Events Online
makes a good point in correlating the delegate mess and its potential
of leading the Dems to a convention that would display some scary
similarities to the disastrous convention of 1968.
This year should be theirs: the
Republican president is more unpopular than any in the history of the
Gallup Poll, the war in Iraq confused and unwon. But the Democrats are
polarized by the Howard Dean primary scheme beyond Obama’s ability to
heal.
Obama seemed confident that he could
unify a Democratic Party that is more divided, more wounded than at
any time since Lyndon Johnson announced he would not seek his party’s
nomination for president in 1968. But can he?
No matter how many times Howard Dean
pleads, no matter if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (the weakest
congressional leaders in modern memory) pressure the superdelegates,
there is no way Hillary Clinton can be beaten without a bitter and
divisive convention fight. And Clinton is preparing for just that.
Americans have forgotten what a
contested convention looks like. In 2004, both parties provided a
boring three-day coronation of their nominees, and never was heard a
discouraging word. The Democrats even managed to keep their crazies --
such as the gay-lesbian-transgender types who shouted the Boy Scouts
off the stage in 2000 -- out of camera range. This year the
Republicans will remain boring. The Dems will provide a spectacle that
will rival the John Belushi food fight scene in “Animal House.”
This time, the crazies outside will be
matched by crazies inside. Look for the CodePinkos, the MoveOn’ers and
every illegal alien support group to be marching, shouting and dancing
in the aisles as hapless Howard Dean tries to keep order.
Conservatives still strong in Florida...Traditional
marriage and Choice in Education.
The people of Florida will
have the opportunity to vote via a Referendum in November on a
Constitutional Amendment that unequivocally defines marriage as
between a man and a woman. The people of Florida have the
opportunity this November to show the nation that Florida law making
is not a mirror image of how California allows activist judges to
dictate changes in the laws created by the 2000 legislature in
California, who were in
turn responding to the 61% majority will of the people. A
long time ago LightBookproductions warned, because we believed
it was obvious, that when conservatives tried to appease gay rights
activists by standing against legalizing gay marriage and at the same
time, for whatever reason, supporting civil unions, that it would lead
to twisted justifications by activist judges for legalizing gay
marriage. That is precisely what has just happened in
California. More on this issue later.
The reality is that the
liberals and the activist judges on the state Supreme Court feared
that vouchers would take away funding from the "public school system."
While at the same time they could not provide the leadership and
vision it would take to improve the schools in the public school
system, always complaining in the press "there wasn't enough money."
As the former governor
pointed out recently in the Florida press:
Note: If you want to know just how ultra liberal
the St Petersburg Times really is: Last year after a city manager
within the Times local coverage area revealed that he was going to have a
sex change operation, the St. Petersburg Times treated this person as
a super hero who the paper couldn't write enough about. (This
episode got more attention than when, a few months ago, a fake bomb was slipped by the
Tampa International Airport Security detail.)
This week, House Democrat leaders face a
choice. They can adjourn for another two week break without passing
terrorist surveillance legislation critical to keeping America safe.
Or they can be responsible, and approve these updates to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
An incident last May clearly demonstrates the
importance of this legislation. Three U.S. troops were kidnapped in Iraq,
south of Baghdad, by al Qaeda terrorists. The U.S. military immediately
launched a search and rescue operation.
About three months later
(May 9, 2008) Michelle Oddis, a news producer for Human Events
Online, reported on this issue wherein Ms Oddis pointed out the
main obstacle to the passage of this important legislation all along:
Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents, as Pat Buchanan
calls it, Sodom on the Bay. For those who don't keep up with
politics, that's Mr. Buchanan's sarcastic reference to the San
Francisco Bay area, known for its liberalism and homosexual
population.
Originally there was a
majority of House votes prepared to pass the revised FISA legislation,
as Ms Oddis points out. On January 28, twenty-one Blue Dog
(conservative-moderate Democrats) signed a letter urging Speaker Pelosi to
move forward with bi-partisan FISA legislation in the House in the same form
that passed the Senate in October (2007). They wrote: "The
Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing
all these issues and we would fully support that measure should it ready the
house floor without substantial change." In their
letter the Blue Dogs even highlighted that FISA legislation should
include targeted immunity for carriers that participate in anti-terrorism
surveillance programs, a provision that is contested among their Democrat
colleagues. Pelosi ignored the Blue Dogs' letter and refused to bring
the Senate bill to the House Floor despite the obvious fact that it would
have passed by a simple majority vote. She continues to keep the bill
buried even after an urgent request form Attorney General Michael Mukasey
and Director of National Intelligence J.M. McConnell.
Michelle Oddis: Human Events
Online
Speaker Pelosi then
spearheaded a contrary bill that would not provide immunity to the
telecommunications companies that help track terrorist communications.
The President, who would obviously and correctly veto such a bill,
said: "Companies that may have helped us save lives should be thanked
for their patriotic service, not subjected to billion dollar lawsuits
that will make them less willing to help the future. The House
bill may be good for class action trial lawyers, but it would be
terrible for the United States."
The new glitch in this
pathetic episode of anti-American hard-headedness, is that now the
Blue Dog Democrats who supported the Senate version have tucked their
tails and run, for unrevealed political reasons, an now support
Pelosi's version.
We believe basically that
it is a possibility that Speaker Pelosi has convinced the Blue Dog
Democrats, who were previously constructive on this issue, that the
Dems will win the Presidential election and if so, that would of
course mean they would benefit from the tax increase
policies a Dem president and Dem congress will certainly legislate
if they win. That, or either she threatened to use her power to
punish them if they persisted in supporting the revised FISA
legislation, because the trial lawyers contribute so much money to the
Dems while the Dems construct nebulous policies that
intentionally create enough confusion wherein the solution depends on
who wins a court battle fought by expensive trial lawyers.
Energy...We need pragmatic leadership now...
We expressed a concern
about the issue of energy as it pertains to economics and national
security to Senator Elizabeth Dole several years ago. As the
price of oil keeps going higher it continues to be painfully obvious
that America needs a viable energy strategy. To think, and to
try fooling the people via the press that developing alternative fuel
sources in a time frame that would allow us to withdraw from
aggressively developing more oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power,
appears to be insane. The longer Congress panders to the environmental
nuts and ignores this reality, the more dangerous the situation is
going to get.
And amidst all that, the nomination will be contested. Hillary Clinton
is reportedly lining up superdelegates who will stick with her through
several nominating ballot votes. Obama will do the same.
Human Events Online
The Florida Supreme
Court ruled that vouchers for private schools violated a
constitutional requirement that public education be "uniform."
Under this tortured reasoning, a better education from a private
school was unconstitutional just because it was different than the
education provided by a public school."
Fortunately
the state's Taxation and Budget Reform Commission took action last week to
address the concerns of the courts and place these important issues before
Florida voters in November. Voters will decide whether to embrace
religious freedom or deny faith-based organizations a seat at the table.
And voters will ultimately decide the best way to provide a quality
education. Do we give parents choices and trust that they know what is
best for their child's education, or do we trust a regressive government
monopoly of our public school system to meet the unique needs of every
Florida child?"
Florida students are no
longer just competing with students in Georgia, California, New York and
Texas for coveted high-wage jobs. They are competing with their peers
around the world. Countries like China, Sweden and Singapore are
focusing on tomorrow's economy and placing a premium on education and
innovation to ensure they can keep pace with their rivals. For
decades, America set that pace, and now we are falling behind...Florida
needs a 21st century education system for a 21st century world , and school
choice can be an important catalyst to make this vision a reality."
Jeb Bush: Former Governor
of Florida
The
traumatic impact that this kind of revelation of psychological disturbance
might have on the young
teenage child the former man had with his wife got minimal attention. On Mother's Day of last year the St. Petersburg Times
posted, in terms of newspaper space, a giant portrait on the front
page of the Sunday paper of the new "mother" who at the time was
still positioned as the "father" in the marriage. Someone who
discovered a cure for cancer would not get that kind coverage.
It had the tone of being a crass, in-your-face insult to real, normal
mothers.
The Senate has passed this legislation with an overwhelming bipartisan
majority. But the House insists on dithering and playing political games
instead of removing burdensome and unnecessary legal restrictions to U.S.
intelligence gathering.
At one point during the debate, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay
Rockefeller, D-W.Va., who helped pass the Senate version, declared that
without these measures our intelligence will be "degraded." Similarly, the
Director of National Intelligence said without this legislation, we lack the
necessary tools to intercept communications between foreign nationals.
Within hours, a new source of information was discovered that required
electronic surveillance of phone conversations. Then, a maze of complicated
U.S. laws kicked in, stopping progress on the new lead for nearly 10 long
hours.
Weeks later, the body of one missing American was found in the Euphrates
River. The terrorists claimed the other two had been executed. No one knows
whether they would have been found if the intelligence lead had been
immediately followed.
Restrictions in an outdated federal law greatly hampered rescue efforts
while government lawyers back in the U.S. sorted through a legal quagmire to
develop “probable cause” for electronic surveillance. Cpl. Ryan Collins of
Vernon, Texas was killed while participating in the unsuccessful attempt to
find the missing troops.
We all agree that laws must be followed. Our American soldiers did that in
Iraq. It’s also clear, however, that existing law can prevent immediate use
of our latest and best intelligence-gathering technology, when quick action
is critical to the lives of Americans. When this is the case, it’s up to
Congress to change the law.
At the time of this Iraq incident, electronic surveillance for intelligence
and military use was subject to the 1978 FISA law. Last year, Congress
approved a temporary update—the Protect America Act. In early February, a
bipartisan majority of the Senate voted to extend key parts of the Protect
America Act for six years.
But instead of approving the Senate bill, House leaders left for a 10-day
recess. So the Protect America Act expired on Feb. 16. Now our troops and
intelligence community are again operating under legal constraints that
delay tracking terrorists who use Internet and cell phone devices that did
not exist when FISA was enacted.
Some 98 percent of America’s electronic technology is owned by private
companies, and their cooperation is essential in preventing terrorist
attacks. But trial lawyers have filed lawsuits seeking billions of dollars
from telecommunications firms that have helped our government stop another
9/11. Human
Events Online: Senator John Cornyn (Texas).
Note: Personal Savings
Accounts would not be mandated, or forced on anyone, PSAs would simply
be an option, part of the solution. Democrats in Congress have
refused to even discuss Social Security Reform for eight years (since
President Bush took office) because of this potentially constructive
change being proposed.
It was frustratingly deja vu
all over again to hear Senator Clinton on Bill O'Reilly's The
Factor answer (to some politicians that is synonymous with
avoiding) a question about energy. When O'Reilly asked the Senator
how she could believe voters could take her "gas tax holiday"
seriously ... after voting all these years in the
Senate against energy producing legislation, (including a vote against
drilling for oil in Alaska) ... all the Senator could say, pathetically
avoiding the question, was that Americans are paying too much for gas.
Somehow we knew that. For whatever reason O'Reilly quickly let her off
the hook; But I don't think the voters should let the liberal Democrats off
the hook on this issue in the fall election.
Note: We have not said that it is insane to develop alternative
forms of energy. We have said though, that it is insane to try and do it
without, in parallel, aggressively developing further the standard
energy sources our economy, our lives and our national security
currently depend on.