Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Speech

Here is the text of President Obama’s speech today:

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
A Just and Lasting Peace
Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize
Thursday, December 10th, 2009
Oslo, Norway

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries – including Norway – in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict – filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease – the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics, and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations – total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of thirty years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations – an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize – America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, and restrict the most dangerous weapons.
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago – “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest – because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another – that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths – that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.”

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait – a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries – and other friends and allies – demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali – we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant – the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior – for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma – there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point – the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists – a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.
I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests – nor the world’s -are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side
Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach – and condemnation without discussion – can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable – and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights – it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that is why helping farmers feed their own people – or nations educate their children and care for the sick – is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action – it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more – and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities – their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint – no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith – for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached – their faith in human progress – must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith – if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace – then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”
So let us reach for the world that ought to be – that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he’s outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that – for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Howard Dean: Capitalism and Socialism Together!

This video of Howard Dean has just surfaced and it shows what we have pretty much known for a while. Obama and the Dems want to change this country completely! Socialism AND Capitalism… maybe more socialism though. Check it out.

http://www.breitbart.tv/howard-dean-declares-debate-between-capitalism-and-socialism-to-be-over/

FULL TEXT: Obama’s Ft. Hood Speech

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
Memorial Service at Fort Hood
November 10, 2009

We come together filled with sorrow for the thirteen Americans that we have lost; with gratitude for the lives that they led; and with a determination to honor them through the work we carry on.

This is a time of war. And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community. It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible.

For those families who have lost a loved one, no words can fill the void that has been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and caregivers. You knew them as mothers and fathers; sons and daughters; sisters and brothers.

But here is what you must also know: your loved ones endure through the life of our nation. Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched. Their life’s work is our security, and the freedom that we too often take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – that is their legacy.

Neither this country – nor the values that we were founded upon – could exist without men and women like these thirteen Americans. And that is why we must pay tribute to their stories.

Chief Warrant Officer Michael Cahill had served in the National Guard and worked as a physician’s assistant for decades. A husband and father of three, he was so committed to his patients that on the day he died, he was back at work just weeks after having a heart attack.

Major Libardo Eduardo Caraveo spoke little English when he came to America as a teenager. But he put himself through college, earned a PhD, and was helping combat units cope with the stress of deployment. He is survived by his wife, sons and step-daughters.

Staff Sergeant Justin DeCrow joined the Army right after high school, married his high school sweetheart, and had served as a light wheeled mechanic and Satellite Communications Operator. He was known as an optimist, a mentor, and a loving husband and father.

After retiring from the Army as a Major, John Gaffaney cared for society’s most vulnerable during two decades as a psychiatric nurse. He spent three years trying to return to active duty in this time of war, and he was preparing to deploy to Iraq as a Captain. He leaves behind a wife and son.

Specialist Frederick Greene was a Tennessean who wanted to join the Army for a long time, and did so in 2008 with the support of his family. As a combat engineer he was a natural leader, and he is survived by his wife and two daughters.

Specialist Jason Hunt was also recently married, with three children to care for. He joined the Army after high school. He did a tour in Iraq, and it was there that he re-enlisted for six more years on his 21st birthday so that he could continue to serve.

Staff Sergeant Amy Krueger was an athlete in high school, joined the Army shortly after 9/11, and had since returned home to speak to students about her experience. When her mother told her she couldn’t take on Osama bin Laden by herself, Amy replied: “Watch me.”

Private First Class Aaron Nemelka was an Eagle Scout who just recently signed up to do one of the most dangerous jobs in the service – diffuse bombs – so that he could help save lives. He was proudly carrying on a tradition of military service that runs deep within his family.

Private First Class Michael Pearson loved his family and loved his music, and his goal was to be a music teacher. He excelled at playing the guitar, and could create songs on the spot and show others how to play. He joined the military a year ago, and was preparing for his first deployment.

Captain Russell Seager worked as a nurse for the VA, helping veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress. He had great respect for the military, and signed up to serve so that he could help soldiers cope with the stress of combat and return to civilian life. He leaves behind a wife and son.

Private Francheska Velez, the daughter of a father from Colombia and a Puerto Rican mother, had recently served in Korea and in Iraq, and was pursuing a career in the Army. When she was killed, she was pregnant with her first child, and was excited about becoming a mother.

Lieutenant Colonel Juanita Warman was the daughter and granddaughter of Army veterans. She was a single mother who put herself through college and graduate school, and served as a nurse practitioner while raising her two daughters. She also left behind a loving husband.

Private First Class Kham Xiong came to America from Thailand as a small child. He was a husband and father who followed his brother into the military because his family had a strong history of service. He was preparing for his first deployment to Afghanistan.

These men and women came from all parts of the country. Some had long careers in the military. Some had signed up to serve in the shadow of 9/11. Some had known intense combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some cared for those did. Their lives speak to the strength, the dignity and the decency of those who serve, and that is how they will be remembered.

That same spirit is embodied in the community here at Fort Hood, and in the many wounded who are still recovering. In those terrible minutes during the attack, soldiers made makeshift tourniquets out of their clothes. They braved gunfire to reach the wounded, and ferried them to safety in the backs of cars and a pick-up truck.

One young soldier, Amber Bahr, was so intent on helping others that she did not realize for some time that she, herself, had been shot in the back. Two police officers – Mark Todd and Kim Munley – saved countless lives by risking their own. One medic – Francisco de la Serna – treated both Officer Munley and the gunman who shot her.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know – no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice – in this world, and the next.

These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.

As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon. Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call – the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm’s way.

We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.

We are a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln’s words, and always pray to be on the side of God.

We are a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today. We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality. That is who we are as a people.

Tomorrow is Veterans Day. It is a chance to pause, and to pay tribute – for students to learn of the struggles that preceded them; for families to honor the service of parents and grandparents; for citizens to reflect upon the sacrifices that have been made in pursuit of a more perfect union.

For history is filled with heroes. You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf. But as we honor the many generations who have served, I think all of us – every single American – must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who have come before.

We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.

This generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have volunteered in a time of certain danger. They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known. They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places. They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains. They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war. They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and stations – all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.

In today’s wars, there is not always a simple ceremony that signals our troops’ success – no surrender papers to be signed, or capital to be claimed. But the measure of their impact is no less great – in a world of threats that no know borders, it will be marked in the safety of our cities and towns, and the security and opportunity that is extended abroad. And it will serve as testimony to the character of those who serve, and the example that you set for America and for the world.

Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to thirteen men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home. Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.

Long after they are laid to rest – when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today’s servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown – it will be said of this generation that they believed under the most trying of tests; that they persevered not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; and that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.

So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity. We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those we lost. And may God bless the United States of America.

RUSH LIMBAUGH TAKES ON THE NFL AND THE RACE CARD

A great piece by Rush Limbaugh was put online last night by the Wall Street Journal. I encourage you to read it. On today’s Chad Hasty Show we will discuss this topic. Read the story and let me know what you think.

Rush Limbaugh: The Race Card, Football, and Me

Part of the article:

The NFL players union boss, DeMaurice Smith, jumped in. A Washington criminal defense lawyer, Democratic Party supporter and Barack Obama donor, he sent a much publicized email to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell saying that it was important for the league to reject discrimination and hatred.

When Mr. Goodell was asked about me, he suggested that my 2003 comment criticizing the media’s coverage of Donovan McNabb—in which I said the media was cheerleading Mr. McNabb because they wanted a successful black quarterback—fell short of the NFL’s “high standard.” High standard? Half a decade later, the media would behave the same way about the presidential candidacy of Mr. Obama.

OBAMA: THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER AND PRESIDENT

President Obama has obviously forgotten what being  President of the United States is all about. Obama’s job is to protect the people of the United States. To look out for our well being. To be the man in the office who is confronted with many problems, but can make a decision on how to better this country. The President should also listen to the people.

President Obama isn’t doing any of that.

Instead the President of the United States has decided he wants to become the Supreme Community Organizer of the United States. President Obama is actually taking time to fly to Europe, not to discuss Afghanistan or the global economy, but to try and woo the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and get the 2016 games in Chicago. Why? It’s not his job to do this! Let the Mayor of Chicago do that or maybe Michael Jordan or Mike Ditka. NOT the President. I would be saying the same thing if George W. Bush had taken time off to go and lobby for the games in Texas.

Not only is it not Obama’s job, but what happens if he’s told no? It will make him look even weaker to people here in the U.S. and around the world.

Robert Gibbs also told us yesterday that President Obama has been discussing gang violence in Chicago with top advisors and will have some type of policy (speech) soon.

Again, it’s not Obama’s job to create some new policy about gangs. We all know they are bad. It’s not going to be this huge revelation to us. I don’t want my President or his top advisers concentrating on gang violence. They have much bigger problems to tackle. Let local people take care of the gangs. Let States take care of violence. Yes, the President should care about the youth and their future, but if he would help fix the economy and bring jobs back to this country it might cut down on some violence.

President Obama needs to figure out what his priorities are. He has 2 wars, the economy, jobs, terror, health care, immigration, and more on his plate. Why take the time to mess with the Olympics and gangs?

If Obama wants to worry about gangs, Olympics, youth violence, and people participating in community service, then it’s time for Obama to resign and run for Mayor of Chicago. He could even run for Governor if he wants. Right now, the President is in over his head and he might not know what he’s doing. He’s proven to be an ineffective President when it comes to big national issues, so now it’s time to get back to concentrating on being a community organizer.

LFN AMMO REPORT 8.28.09

Every Friday Lubbock’s First News will bring you the LFN Ammo Report at 8am. This is where we give you the information on where to find ammo and how much it cost. Of course, this information could change day to day and we only get information from 3-4 places each week so keep that in mind. Here is this weeks LFN Ammo Report(numbers gathered on Thursday):

Big 5 Sports: NO LONGER PARTICIPATING.

Academy: 9mm- IN STOCK $11.99-24.99, 380-NONE in stock, .22-IN STOCK $6.49 -$10.99, .40-IN STOCK $24.99 – $29.99, .357-IN STOCK $19.99, .45-IN STOCK $18.99 – $22.99

Sharp Shooters(limit 2-5 boxes): 9mm-IN STOCK for $13.95-$60.00, 380-IN STOCK for $38.00-$40.00, .22 ammo-IN STOCK for $3.95-$39.95,.40-IN STOCK for $27.00-$75.00, .357-IN STOCK for $31.00-$50.00, .45-IN STOCK for $23.00-$49.95

LSG Tactical Arms: 9mm-IN STOCK for $14.00-$45.00, 380-NONE IN STOCK, .22-IN STOCK for $2.95-$35.00,.40-IN STOCK for $17.00-$30.00, .357-IN STOCK for $25.00-$45.00, .45-IN STOCK for $30.00-$50.00

Gander Mountain (all prices $14.99 and up): 9mm-IN STOCK, 380-IN STOCK, .22-IN STOCK for $2.00+.40-IN STOCK .357-IN STOCK, .45-IN STOCK

TABC ISSUES STATEMENT, MAJOR DELAY IN ALCOHOL SALES

FROM THE TABC:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   August 20, 2009

Citizen Protests Delay Processing of TABC Permit Applications in Lubbock County

A countywide local option election was held in Lubbock County on May 9, 2009, legalizing the sale of:
-Alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption (e.g., beer, wine and spirits in grocery stores, convenience stores and liquor stores)
-Alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption in a restaurant that holds a food and beverage certification (e.g., beer, wine and spirits in restaurants)

Following the election, because of zoning issues, a temporary restraining order in the City of Lubbock prevented any permits from being issued within the city limits for several months. That restraining order was lifted on August 10, 2009.

However, delays will continue for businesses in Lubbock County. TABC has received three general protests, as well as several specific protests, regarding applications for new licenses and permits for locations in the county.

The basis for these protests is this: There is some disagreement among the citizens of Lubbock County (including within the City of Lubbock) over how to interpret a law that says that the wet/dry status resulting from a city or Justice of the Peace (JP) precinct election prevails against the status resulting from a countywide election. See Section 251.73 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code below.

Both sides of the disagreement have a legitimate claim, and it is a disagreement that will be settled in a court of law by a judge. TABC will take a neutral stance throughout the process.

Any application in the county for permit types that were not already legal prior to the May election could be subject to a protest hearing which will delay, or possibly stop, the issuance of the permit.

Protest hearings will be held in the City of Lubbock, either before the Lubbock County Judge or before the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), depending on the type of license or permit involved.

“We recognize the sense of urgency on the part of the business owners and the community when it comes to having this issue settled, and we will move forward as quickly as possible.” said Public Information Officer Carolyn Beck. “Although the ballot measures passed with an overwhelming majority, TABC cannot issue permits without following the law.”

Because of the complexity of the issues, it could be several weeks before a hearing is scheduled. Because of full court dockets, it could be several months before any hearings take place.

“People on both sides of the issue feel very strongly,” continued Beck, “and both the protestants and the applicants will be given the opportunity to be heard by a judge. Our agency is committed to facilitating a fair and transparent process and keeping the citizens of the county informed as it moves forward. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the issue will be resolved quickly.”

Following the May 9th election, prior to protests being filed, several permits had already been issued in Lubbock County that were new permit types for the communities: Goble Supply Auto & AG Supply in Abernathy (wine and beer off-premises); Rick’s Place – Liquor in Wolfforth (package store and beer off-premises); Kwik Stop in Wolfforth (package store and beer off-premises); Cagle Steaks outside Lubbock city limits (mixed beverage in a restaurant). If a judge rules that these areas are dry, it is unclear at this time what will happen to these permits. However, TABC does not have the legal authority to cancel a permit without the permit holder being given an opportunity to be heard before a judge.

Contact:   Carolyn Beck, Public Information Officer, 512-206-3347

Additional Information

Wet-Dry Certification
Before TABC processes a license or permit application, the city and county must certify the application as being at a location that is wet for that type of permit. TABC issues licenses and permits based on the wet-dry certification from the city and county. TABC’s role is not to determine whether a location is wet or dry. Any disagreement with the city or county’s wet-dry certification will be settled through a hearing process.

Relevant Excerpt from the Alcoholic Beverage Code
Sec. 251.73. Prevailing Status: Resolution of Conflicts. To insure that each voter has the maximum possible control over the status of the sale of alcoholic beverages in the area where he resides:
(1) the status that resulted from or is the result of a duly called election for an incorporated city or town prevails against the status that resulted from or is the result of a duly called election in a justice precinct or county in which the incorporated city or town, or any part of it is contained; and
(2) the status that resulted or is the result of a duly called election for a justice precinct prevails against the status that resulted from or is the result of a duly called election in an incorporated city or town in which the justice precinct is wholly contained or in a county in which the justice precinct is located.

What is a Protest?
The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code provides opportunities for citizens and government officials to object to the issuance of a license or permit. The agency calls this process a protest.

Most of the grounds for refusal or denial of a license or a permit can be determined by TABC as part of the application process. If legal grounds exist and are found during that process, the applicant may be disqualified.

Some grounds exist for refusal or denial that are subject to interpretation on the basis of the facts involved.

What Role Does TABC Play?
It is the policy of TABC to provide every interested person, including TABC employees, government officials and citizens of Texas, a full and fair opportunity to object to the issuance of an alcoholic beverage license or permit based upon legal grounds established under the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code or other law.

In service to this policy, TABC establishes a process by which protests to license and permit applications may be resolved in an efficient, timely, and consistent manner, giving due regard to the legal rights and interests of the agency, industry, other government units, and the public.

TABC’s job is not to take sides but to ensure that applicants meet all qualifications to obtain the license or permit as outlined in the Alcoholic Beverage Code.

Protest Hearings
In this case, protest hearings will be held in Lubbock County. The protesting party will be notified at least 10 days in advance of the time and place of the hearing. The hearing will be held according to the rules of the Texas Administrative Procedures Act, (V.T.C.A., Government Code, §2001 et seq.).

For a liquor permit, a judge designated by the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) will inform all parties of the time, date, and location for the hearing. The judge will handle all pre-trial matters, make rulings as necessary and conduct the final hearing on its own merits.

For a beer or beer/wine license, the county judge, acting as an administrative law judge, will hold the hearing in the same manner as for permits.

In this case, because TABC will be a neutral party to the protests, both sides will have the opportunity to present evidence to the judge – the protestants and the applicants. A hearing on a single applicant is not likely to last more than a day.

The judge will have up to 60 days to file a ruling (proposal for decision), and then each side will have up to 15 days to file objections, and then another 15 days to respond to the opposing side’s objections. TABC Administrator Alan Steen makes the final decision, typically signing an order that concurs with the judge’s proposal for decision. Both sides are given 20 days to request a rehearing. If the application is denied and a request for rehearing is denied, the applicant may appeal to district court. If the application is approved and a request for rehearing is denied, there is no opportunity for the protestant to appeal.

DON WORKMAN DOESN’T WANT YOU TO BUY ALCOHOL

I will start off by saying I’ve never met Don Workman. I’m sure he’s a nice man who is deeply devoted to God and his Church. I’m sure he means well and only wants the best for his City, State, and Country.

That being said…

He’s trying to rob you of your vote Lubbock. Today I recieved the protest forms from the TABC office in Austin, and Don Workman along with Lauran Collins (both of Lubbock, though Workman used to live in Hockley County) are the 2 people in Lubbock protesting the election.

By the way Don Workman is a liar since he told KCBD that he was doing research for the parties. Turns out he was one of those parties.

Collins is using an ad from a 1950’s era AJ calling for people to vote against intoxicating beverages as her reasoning. Here is part of her statement:

Lubbock a local option election was believed held on August 6, 1950. Complainant has a copy of a petition printed in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal listing citizens requesting a “vote against the sale of all intoxicating beverages Saturday August 6.” The clipping did not have a year nor indicate if it was a county-wide or city of Lubbock option. Thus option was believed to have been held in the early 50’s. This should be of public record but complainant has not obtained the details as of this date.

Nothing solid there. From what I hear the TABC should have on record every election dealing with alcohol on record.

**UPDATE** The Collins protest was prepared by the same attorney that represents the Lubbock Area Baptist Association (LABA). His name, Craig Brummett.

There are also protests from people in Abernathy, Slaton, and New Deal. We will get to those on the show tomorrow.

More on this later and on the show.

LABA ISN’T DONE YET

This morning on LFN we spoke with John Hatch of Texas Petition Strategies (podcast) regarding a possible new delay in issueing permits for businesses to sell alcohol in Lubbock. Apparently LABA (Lubbock Area Baptist Association) and a man named Don Workman are working to prevent everything from moving forward. 2 protests have been filed with the TABC challenging the election, and we should know today whether the TABC will hear the protest or not.

It’s time for Workman and LABA to get out of the way and recognize the will of the people. The people in Lubbock County and the City of Lubbock spoke on this issue and the vote wasn’t even close. This is the work of desperate men (and women for you P.C. people) who are trying to cling to a power they once had in Lubbock. Now, they can use the legal system all they want. I don’t want their rights taken away. However, they must look at the future. By continuing this fight all they are doing is bringing a bad name to themselves and to LABA. Even if there was a re-vote in Lubbock, it would be a crushing defeat for LABA. Why not focus on other issues facing Lubbock?

Workman and LABA are no better than the liberals trying to force Healthcare down our throats. Just like the Democrats, they aren’t listening to you, the people. They are trying to force their ideals on the whole city.

The people have spoken. You may not agree with the results, you may not like the results, but it’s time to move on. The longer this goes on, the worse LABA, Workman, and others will look.

To hear this morning’s interview with John Hatch click HERE.

CITY OF LUBBOCK NAMES JUDGE SAM MEDINA CITY ATTORNEY

From the City of Lubbock:

Council Hires City Attorney

The Lubbock City Council has named Judge Sam Medina as Lubbock’s City Attorney, effective October 1.  Judge Sam Medina currently serves as the 237th State Judicial District Court Judge.

Medina was raised in Crosbyton, graduated from Texas Tech Law School, was in private practice from 1976 to 1995, and was the first Hispanic to be elected to a county-wide position in Lubbock County when, in 1995, he became judge of the County Court at Law No. 1.  Judge Medina has served as the 237th State Judicial District Court Judge since 1999.

Mayor Tom Martin says, “We are proud to have the judge with us here at the City.  His integrity, demeanor, and experience are a great asset to City staff, the City Council, the Mayor, and the community as a whole.”