Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Holding Up the Military

In the paper today was a headline, "Hastert threatens to stop defense bill, Speaker wants action on immigration, court security". I read on to find out that House Speaker, Dennis Hastert(R) from Illinois had decided that a defense bill should have some unrelated measures attached. One of the unrelated measures was a bill to allow judges to carry a concealed weapon. The other was legislation already passed by the house which would make it easier to detain and deport illegal and criminal immigrants in a bid to curb gang violence. The Senate has already passed a broad immigration measure that also included such provisions.

The bill that Hastert and House leaders are holding up as they attempt to make these attachments deals with provisions that effect the military. Notable among those provisions would be pay raises and weapons spending. Now I am not a gungho support the military industurial complex kind of guy, but really picture this:

You are soldier in Iraq. You wake every morning wondering if this is the day when you and your buddies get caught by some terrorist bomb or if this is the day that you witness a bunch of Iraqs get blown up by their fellow country men. Toss in a few worries about your weapon failing and few thoughts of home such as how is the family making out finacially?

You fire up your laptop and read the some news from stateside. You discover that you may not get a pay raise for this job that no "fortunate son" wants to do and that the budget for your weapons might fail. All because the U.S. has to keep them immigrants out and let the judge hide a pistol in his rob.

Does the Speaker of the House support our troops? I am sure he does. He just hasn't come to grips with Plantation style working conditions. Once again, the great Bob Wills can be quoted,

Little bee sucks the blossom, big bee gets the honey,
Dark man picks the cotton, White man gets the money.

Perhaps it should be modified a bit. Say,

Little bee gets his butt shot off, big bee gets his bucks
Soldier worries 'bout his firearm, da judge gets his luck



Blogger Jay said...

This is the type of thing that really frosts me. He hold the military bill up for something unrelated and maybe a bit more controversial and then he claims the Democrats hate the military and won't pass the bill. Then, everybody in the main stream media runs out there and repeats his bull. Drives me crazy.

10:38 PM  
Blogger gawilli said...

This is ridiculous. Our government at work. Not only that, but why would a judge need to carry a concealed weapon? It just does not make good sense to me at all. We can't bring them home, but we are going to hold up pay raises and arms.

10:51 PM  
Blogger Betty said...

Good post. I wonder why anybody needs to carry a concealed weapon. I remember how stunned I was when I discovered that a woman I worked with carried a gun in her purse. Surely she didn't feal all that threatened here in little old Harrison!

We have done such a disservice to our service men. By "we", I mean the current administration, of course.

3:43 PM  
Blogger daddy d said...

Our USA military should be able to take care of the country's military actions. USA soliers need the good tools to do their work and live. Nuts is that other stuff.

7:41 PM  
Blogger Molly said...

If a law-abiding citizen enters a courtroom, the citizen must pass through a metal detector to insure that a weapon is not secreted into the hallowed halls. However, the judge can pack heat. What would be the reason that the judge would need a gun in the courtroom...to administer swift and expedient justice if the defendent is found guilty of a capital crime? I agree with Gawilli; this is ridiculous.

Furthermore, if we cannot bring the soldiers home, we ought to properly equip them and properly pay them. But most of all, we should set a timeline to bring the soldiers home.

9:38 PM  
Blogger SongBird said...

Let me just say that I agree with all the comments on this post thus far!!!

10:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home