According to Webster: “need,” A lack of something required or desirable: Necessity;
According to Webster: “need·y,” (in context) Impoverished.
Homeless folks in Americaare, ..or (should be) an area of concern for the Obama administration, and “every” elected representative in Washington D.C. Albeit sadly, (at least by my research), Barack Obama and America’s ruling “liberal” ilk (sadly) has no interest in the “200,000 to 500,000” folks without addresses. Because folks (without addresses) can’t vote and (again sadly) in the 21st Century, ..folks who can’t cast a vote for one side of the aisle or the other, don’t count with either side of the aisle.
I was born 19 days after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, a day explicated; (to go down in infamy) by then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The second world war, and/or, (The Big One), as labeled by those who participated, was a war to end all wars. However as history bears out, (at least in my opinion), every war is a war to end all wars, as every war (at least in my opinion) is or has been a war that was unnecessary, at least to the men who sacrificed life and limb, as well as the folks who always get stuck with the tab, and/or, the taxpayers.
Question: So why do “we” have wars?
..but not for the people.
Question: If not for the people, ..then who?
When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt didn’t shrink off to a smoke-filled room in the West Wing with a clutch of shaky legislators to create more government.
Roosevelt understood who he was and why he had been elected to the office of President of the United States.
Roosevelt was the commander-in-chief, he didn’t need the Department of Homeland Security as our wistful wimpy Bush 43, nor did Roosevelt need a patriot act. He understood that he was the man as Harry Truman who followed him with the placard on his desk of that read…
42 men prior to George W. Bush understood what the job was and accepted their responsibility.
Question: Did a (twilight zone) phenomenon occur on Y2K to put America in the “out of control” tailspin that we have been experiencing sense of electing Bush 43?
A Commander in Chief with the “responsibility” of defending America, should never have his picture taken looking like a deer caught in the headlights.
Nor should a Commander in Chief set shrunken in the corner while observing a military operation which he claims to have initiated.
Can you imagine Teddy Roosevelt or George Washington (not) setting astride a proud mount in “front” of their troops?
Personal observation: If America is going to elect individuals who act like little girls in the face of adversity, don’t you think it would make more sense to elect someone who has moved past their frightened little girl stage?
Truth forges understanding, I’ll be back tomorrow