Orrin Hatch: Leader with Clout or Senator to Doubt?

I am seriously annoyed with Orrin Hatch. and let me tell you why.

Orrin Hatch was recently (relatively) re-elected.  He campaigned about how conservative he was, and how if Mitt Romney won the election that he (Hatch) would be the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee (oooohh...).  He also made promises about stopping ObamaCare.  He made big promises about how it was "Utah's Time to Lead" and that "With Experience Comes Strength"  (This one really irks me).  Former Governer Norm Bangerter bragged about how Orrin Hatch had "clout" in the Senate (see around 47 second mark).

This is one where he talks about "With Experience Comes Strength":

DAHHHH!!!! Where's the duct tape so I can tape my head back together?!?!?!  Seriously Orrin?  "We are at a crossroads, and anyone who thinks that Orrin Hatch is going to quit or walk away from what may be some of the most critical and defining moments in American history simply does not know Orrin Hatch."  Where are you in the battling of Obamacare?  Where are you when it comes to the debt crisis?  Where are you when it comes to Benghazi?  Fast and Furious?  IRS scandal?  Heck, that one should be up your alley, since you were all about finance in your campaign, and we've found out that there have been emails going back and forth between the FEC and the IRS, which is ILLEGAL.  And yet you aren't leading that one either?  What about leading on the NSA's invasion of privacy?

You could pick any of them and lead on it.  Nobody else with "clout" or "experience" is wanting to talk about it or lead on it.  You want to know how to lead?  Look at Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and Rand Paul.  Seriously, Mike Lee has a decent plan, and you can't stand with your fellow Senator from Utah?  Why?  What it looks like to me Orrin is that you are either too old for this game or asleep at the wheel.

There is a third option, which is simply put that you have become your predecessor.  You are so drunk on power that you have forgotten your roots.  Do you remember how you got into office?  You beat the incumbent, Frank Moss, who had served 3 terms.  Do you remember what you said about him?  "What do you call a Senator who's served in office for 18 years?  You call him home."  You've been in office ever since... "serving" 6 terms!  You did take the more cowardly route to get re-elected.  You didn't want to debate Liljenquist in any sort of public forum.  I believe you did one daytime radio debate, when no one could listen.

Orrin Hatch said we were suffering from a crisis of leadership.  Orrin, perhaps you learned how to lead from President Obama?  Maybe you are leading from behind?  Either way, I did vote for you in the primaries, and I've regretted that decision ever since the elections took place.  You were lucky and survived the last election, when your destiny should have been that of Bob Bennet's.  You are carrying as much clout and leadership in office as Clint Eastwood's chair at the Republican National Convention.

You voted against S 1931, which would have extended the payroll tax holiday, shrunk the bloated government, and put some limits back into SNAP (specifically, restricting SNAP being used by people that have $1 million or more in assets).  You voted against S Amdmt 3018, which would have removed the ability of detaining U.S. citizens in the U.S. without charge or trial indefinitely.  You voted for John Brennan to be Director of the CIA (you know, the vote that Rand Paul filibustered for 13 hours to prevent from happening?).  And you've voted for the Gang of Eight bill, which has amnesty written all over it.

Orrin, you are a paper tiger with no teeth.  You have done nothing but make symbolic votes or done that which is politically expedient.  I have lost all faith and confidence in your ability to do that which is right for Utah and this country, but instead doing things that will only benefit you or your agenda.  I am done with you.  I will no longer stand up for you and the actions (or lack thereof) that you have performed in the Senate.  I don't care who is opposite you when it comes to election time, but I will not be voting for you.  I will vote 3rd party or write someone in, but I will not vote for you again,. and I hope that Northern Utah will perhaps have learned its lesson from Orrin Hatch.

George Zimmerman Trial: Why is it important?

OK, so I know this particular trial has been getting a lot of hype and such, and I'm not really one that likes to follow trials and what not, but I believe that this trial is important to the country as a whole. Why? Because the trial of George Zimmerman has already been decided by the public (or how it feels) before it even went on trial.

 Many have an opinion on his guilt or innocent (with the press painting Trayvon Martin as a saint, and Zimmerman as a bigoted, racist, evil from the pits of hell, basically). NBC was even guilty of tweaking the 911 phone call to try and paint him as a racist guy (click here).  Sure, NBC says it was an editing "error" but come on... You expect me to believe that editing out the dispatcher asking what he looked like so it sounded like Zimmerman saying, "He's scary.  He looks black".  Come on.

When it comes to Zimmerman, I've had mixed feelings.  Why did he try to chase Trayvon Martin down?  Zimmerman did look pretty bloodied up, though, so I don't necessarily buy that he was actively hunting him down to kill him.  Was he really doing it in self-defense?  I don't really know, and neither did the press.  In fact, the only ones that decide are the members of the jury after hearing the testimony and evidence of both sides.

However, this hasn't stopped it from becoming politicized.  Obama made the comment back in March 2012 that if he had a son, "... he would look like Trayvon Martin".  (click here).  Why in the world would he make such a comment a whole year and 4 months before the trial even began?  If you ask him or his administration about the IRS scandal(s) (like the targeting of "tea party", "patriot", etc.; the outrageous wasteful spending; the leaking of SSN numbers; need I go on), or the Fast and Furious scandal, or Benghazi; he and his Administration have the same answer, "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation."  So, why did he comment?

As the head of the Executive Branch, shouldn't he be more concerned about law enforcement rather than passing judgement on what the thinks happened that night?

Again, I have withheld judgment on the Zimmerman trial, until I saw this video.  This video is an exchange between the judge and Zimmerman.

Here's my question: Is that legal?  Is the judge able to step in like this in a trial?  I thought the lawyer is the legal representation for the defendant, and that the judge should be addressing the lawyer, not the witness... I don't know if he's innocent or guilty, but he does deserve a fair trial.  That's a common civil right listed in the Bill of Rights (the 6th amendment to be exact... "and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence [sic]").

So, what are your thoughts?  Did the judge have the right to try and get out of him whether he would testify or not?  Or does that seem to be not the role of the judge.  In my opinion, it does open the door for appeal on either side to say that it was a mistrial.

Tolerance: What is it? (And what it isn't)

What is tolerance?  I think it depends on the person.  Some will be of the opinion that tolerance is: "a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : toleration"  (click here for source).  However, many today don't believe that tolerance is something that as "the act of allowing something".  Some take tolerance to mean something to the effect of, "I'll let it slide as long as it doesn't offend me.  If it offends me, I will not allow it to happen and I will do everything in my power to stop that from happening."

But, if you look at the definition above, it doesn't mention anything about taking offence.  In fact, it uses words like "differing from" and "conflicting with one's own" when describing the beliefs in question.  Some forget that we have here in the United States many different freedoms (religion, press, speech, etc.)  

However, the freedom from offence (meaning that I have a right to NOT be offended) is never enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, as well as it shouldn't.  How in the world would you have freedom of speech in a country that wouldn't allow people to be offended at something?  Answer, you couldn't.

There are many polarizing issues facing the country today, and it seems to me that there isn't much tolerance going on.  What I mean by that is the fact that if you lose the argument, you deal with it, or letter b above: "the act of allowing something".  I didn't really want to have Barack Obama become POTUS.  However, I know that he won, and I'm tolerating it.  I don't like it, but I am tolerating it.  There are some laws that I "tolerate" as well.  I'm not a fan of income tax, but I tolerate it (or any taxes, for that matter).  There is one law that I don't really like tolerating, but I am just the same, and that is abortion.

In Texas, lawmakers have been trying to make abortions past 20 weeks illegal.  As expected, it's a pretty polarizing issue.  After a Texas lawmaker filibustered the bill for some 11 hours, the body voted on the bill and it did receive the majority vote.  However, because the vote took place after midnight, it was outside of the congressional session, it was not a valid vote.  So, Governor Rick Perry called for a special session of congress, in order for congress to have an official vote on the bill.

This has drawn all sorts of demonstrations on both sides of the issue.  However, the two groups have some majorly different approaches to demonstrate their points of view.  Below is a video showing the demonstrations occurring.  The pro-life group that doesn't want abortions after 20 weeks was singing "Amazing Grace" while the pro-choice group was chanting "Hail Satan".  The pro-choice group was also heard chanting "Mary should have had an abortion" (you know, Mary, the mother of Jesus).  

Here's a link to the full story (WARNING: there are pictures of some of the protesters signs in the article that some may find offensive).

Pretty chilling, right?  I think this video shows something that is important to realize.  Besides the fact that it shows how divided our country really is, but it also shows how people can't tolerate opposing views.

Perhaps in another post I will comment on the lunacy that it is that we are arguing about having an abortion after 20 weeks (which is when you can pretty much definitively tell whether your baby is a boy or a girl, can find and measure all of the major organs of the body and such).

Just because we are tolerating a view does not mean that we don't have the right to express opposition of those views that we are tolerating.  Indeed, both sides in the video above have every right to express their points of view.  However, tolerance means we don't get nasty when we are expressing our points of view.

Tolerance is a word that has been a word that has been twisted to try to help make some sort of political point.  Let's look at the true examples of tolerance that have helped make things move forward: Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr.  These men opposed the system, but they did it with peace, tolerance, and love.

Independence Day: What does it really mean?

Yesterday I spent most of Independence Day up in the mountains; away from the hustle and bustle of what happens in town celebrations for that day. Many say, "Happy 4th of July!" and the like. However, I wondered, "Why do we say 'Happy 4th of July'? Is it really that hard to say 'Independence Day'?" Then again, why do we write "Merry X-mas" instead of "Merry Christmas"? Is it because that is shorter as well? Some argue other purposes and such. I'm not going to go into the argument of people trying to take Christ out of Christmas. One, that's a very long story; and Two, that's not the point of my post. The point of my post is this: Independence Day is a big deal. Why? Many say that it was the birth of our nation, which it is. But I think some don't realize what that birth looked like and what it consisted of. July 4, 1776 was the day we signed the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. That didn't come until several years later, after the American Revolution, and after the Articles of Confederation were about to fall apart, in 1787. So, what are we celebrating on Independence Day? We are celebrating the fact that there were men like John Hancock, George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and several others; that decided to put their money where their mouth was and sign an official declaration to King George and say "Enough is enough. We are no longer going to be subject to your rule," and start a revolution. That's what this day is about. They put everything on the line, their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, so they could establish freedom, justice, sovereignty and independence. With that in mind, please remember what Independence Day really stands for while we celebrate with friends and family; while we blow up fireworks; while we do whatever we do to celebrate this Independence Day, and I don't mean the movie with Will Smith, Bill Pullman, and Jeff Goldblum. Have a great Independence Day weekend!

Political Correctness: A New Form of Terrorism

Before people start freaking out about the title of this post, I believe the definition of terrorism is in order.  Therefore, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, terrorism is: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." Link found here.

Now, what is terror?  Again, from Merriam-Webster, terror is: 

Definition of TERROR

1

: a state of intense fear

2

a : one that inspires fear : scourge

b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion>

c : a cause of anxiety : worry

d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat

3

: reign of terror

4

: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

Link found here.

That being said, what does political correctness do?  It's main goal and purpose is to make us reform our speech so that we don't offend someone else (i.e. using "African-American" rather than saying they are "black", saying "hard of hearing" rather than "deaf" even though those in the deaf community would rather be called "Deaf", etc.).

Now, am I saying that we should speak to intentionally offend?  No, but I think we are at a point with our political correctness now that it causes "terror" (according to 2c of terror).  Honestly, does anyone feel like they can say what they would really like to say?  Or is everybody so freaked out that they are going to offend someone, that they can't portray the thoughts they would like to?

Is that perhaps why we don't like our politicians so much?  Is it because the couch everything they say and do into such affect that it won't offend anyone, but it results in them getting nothing done?  Somebody I know posted this to Facebook, and I find it fitting.

When will we have American leaders again?  When was the last time we had such leaders?  I can't see Obama saying anything like this to Putin, Moorsi, or any other world leader.  Indeed, hasn't he said there would be a red line when it came to Iran and nuclear developments?  What about Syria?

I don't think George W. Bush was like this either.  He made speeches during 2001 after 9/11 that filled people with hope, but then entered 2 wars that he did not have the clear goal of winning.  I don't think Clinton would fit in this boat either (indeed, using the definition of "is" to try to get out of problems in court rooms doesn't exactly instill confidence and shows poor leadership).

I think part of all of this is the terrorism of PC.  It's gotten to the point that Obama didn't want to call anything terrorism (Benghazi [a spontaneous uprising due to a YouTube video], Fort Hood massacre [a workplace shooting, even though the shooter was yelling 'Allahu Akhbar'], etc.).

Nobody can say that "Islamic Extremism" is bad, because instantly they bring up that there are plenty of good Muslim people.  I'm not doubting that there are good Muslim people out there practicing their faith, but we can't deny that Islamic Extremism is a problem either.

In short, Political Correctness is a bigger impediment on our free speech then is anything else is in this country, and it shouldn't be that way.  Along with free speech should come the recognition that it doesn't include the right to not be offended.  I have the right to free speech.  You have the right to free speech, and I don't have the right to try and shut your free speech down, as much as it might offend me.  The same applies the other way around.  I can offend you as much as you want, but you don't have the right to shut me down. You have the right to change which website you're looking at, which TV show you're watching, etc., but just because you are offended by what someone says or does in support of their free speech doesn't mean that it should be shut down.

So what are your thoughts?  Am I out in left field on this one?  Or does what I say make sense?

Welcome to Rants of a Thinker!

Welcome to Rants of a Thinker!  What's the purpose of the blog?  If you couldn't get it from the title of the blog, allow me to explain.  This blog's purpose is to comment about current events, news, topics, etc. in an open forum.  I will present my point of view on the topic, and comments will be welcome to agree or disagree with the opinions presented on this blog.

Why did I create this blog?  Aren't there enough talking heads out there?  Yes, there are.  However, I believe that they are just that, talking heads.  They are hired by Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, or some other media outlet to present THEIR (the network's) opinion.  I figure that a blog is a perfect place to add this kind of commentary.  I'm not being paid to do this, and I don't know if I ever would want to be paid for doing this.

So, who am I?  I'm your typical Joe.  I work as a software engineer for a company.  I've got a wife and 2 kids (with another on the way).  I see the things that are happening around me, but I have had more important things to worry about than what's being talked about on the news, until recently.

When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States back in 2008, I knew we were in trouble.  I lived in Venezuela under the reign of Hugo Chavez for about a year and a half.  I knew what "Yes we can" really meant.  However, everyone thought  I was crazy.  And so I kept my mouth shut.

As time moved on, I noticed more and more happening.  With the scandals that broke during the first part of his administration starting to come to light at the end of 2012, I knew things were in serious trouble.  Now we have Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS targeting nonprofit groups, the AP phone seizures, the Fox News journalist, the tracking of all phone calls on Verizon, as well as all internet activity being recorded from the top internet providers, I knew that I couldn't keep my silence anymore.

I know that somewhere in the vault of the US government that this is being tracked, recorded, and saved for purposes unknown to me; nor do I think it logical that they do so.  However, there needs to be a record somewhere that states the obvious: this is WRONG.

Thus,  I decided to create this blog.  This blog will state what needs to be said, but that no one will say.  I hope that you enjoy and hopefully learn something from it.