 |
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.
Posted on 07/22/2009 10:33:56 AM PDT by Danae
In a letter to President Obama, Oregon District 1 Representative David Wu has asked the President to reevaluate the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. In an effort to allow Homosexual personnel to openly serve in the Military, David Wu has come out of the closet and gone yet farther down the slippery slope of Federalism, once again subtly attacking the sovereign rights of the states. The Oregon National Guard, while under the control of Oregon’s Governor, still has to meet any and all requirements of the Federal Department of Defense, which is of course a federal entity.
But fear not, Wu ranks only 324 in the house and 214 in the Democrat party according Congress.org. Even after 10 years in the House, he is not exactly influential in National Politics.
From the perspective of the military, the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy is about unit cohesion and overall Moral of the troops. Removing this policy from the military will have a negative impact on that unit cohesion and of course the overall moral of the troops. Why Mr. Wu would want to negatively impact the military with something like this is hard to quantify. At best, it is pandering to the homosexual community in a manner that can only have negative consequences for all involved.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Oregon ping! :)
Thanks, Danae!
|
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.
No, thank you! Running a ping list must be a fair bit of work!
Libertarian ping! :)
Thanks for the ping! “The love that dare not speak it’s name” can’t seem to shut up anymore.
I’m not sure how a request to Obama to reconsider DODT “attacks” states’ rights. Wouldn’t it allow the Oregon National Guard to set its own policy on the issue?
And Dianna should realize that “Federalism” is actually the system that gives states sovereign rights; she uses the word to mean more power to the federal government at the expense of states. I don’t necessarily disagree with her on the issues, but between this and her bizzare punctuation and capitalization, her writing is atrocious.
The National Guard has to follow DOD instructions. It is not as if they get a say in the matter.
Federalists support more central government control. Republicans by definition favor states rights over the Federal.
These definitions come from American History, and are historically based. Federalism does not give the states rights, The states agreed to become part of the Union, not the other way around, or have you not read the 10th Amendment recently?
Okay, the issue is already under federal control, so a change in the rule wouldn't change this. I don't see how Wu's request was an attack on states' rights if the states already don't have any say on the issue.
As for your definition of "federalism," the word most simply refers to a system that splits power between the federal government and the states. Because the federal government has so much power right now, the word is typically used today to refer to policies that shift power back toward the states.
I had not heard about David Wu and Sam Adams!
No, you are incorrect. Federalism is all about giving the Fed more power as opposed to Statism, or Republican-ism which asserts that certain issues like Marriage and other issues rightfully belong with the state.
Just look at the water rights issues. The Fed proposes changing two words, from Navigable water ways to Waters, which would give the fed control over ALL the waters in the country, removing from the state and individual water rights. That is referred to as Federalism.
You have your terms mixed up. Federalism is giving power to the fed, taking it from the states.
Republicanism is referring to the states rights, and the states which make up the republic. Thats where the terms come from. If you don’t believe me, look it up. This is exactly how it was taught to me in my History course.
Federalism, in contrast, refers to the distribution of power between the federal government and the states, and is usually used to refer to the principle of giving power back to the states. Here's its definition: federalism
Sorry, but I am going to stick with the definitions my College professor gave me in History. I got an A in the class with 101.25%. I trust her more than you.
Your are kidding of course. Even after he admitted trying to rape a college classmate, he was re-elected by a higher margin. Democrats love a man who knows what he wants and will do anything to get it.
I go to Harvard. Maybe you should consider a better school (or take better notes).
BTW, I linked to Miriam-Webster definitions, so you don’t have to trust me, you can look it up for yourself. But apparently you choose not to.
You're arguing with the dictionary, ma'am ... that's a sure sign that you're in big trouble, argument wise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.