Ubiquity (definition):
Listen to the speech here
Mr. Vice President, and Mr. Speaker, and Members of the Senate and House of Representatives:
Yesterday, December 7, 1941--a date which will live in infamy--the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American Island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation.
As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
But always will our whole Nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces—with the unbounding determination of our people—we will gain the inevitable triumph- so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
May we never forget the cowardice and evil mindset of such enemies, the sacrifice of our young men who died in that attack, and the heroism and sacrifice of the brave young men who ultimately secured victory against our aggressor.
This is Part 3 of my analysis of the 2010 General Election from Orange County, CA. The following is a list of how I am voting on some of the Statewide and Local offices:
Governor
This is Part 2 of my analysis of the 2010 General Election from Orange County, CA.
Propositions
Summary
Prop 19: NO
Prop 20: YES
Prop 21: NO
Prop 22: NO?
Prop 23: YES!!
Prop 24: NO!
Prop 25: NO!!
Prop 26: YES
Prop 27: NO
Rationale
Prop 19: NO -- A Yes vote would result in greater proliferation and availability of marijuana in CA. Children will be able to much more easily acquire it without breaking the law. It will be virtually impossible for the State to regulate or enforce any controls when marijuana is grown in private individuals' backyards. Alcohol and marijuana are not the same: Alcohol is intoxicating when abused and consumed in excess. The sole purpose of smoking pot is to get "stoned." It's interesting how militantly opposed to tobacco smoking our society has become, while at the same time so strongly in favor of pot.
Prop 20: YES -- I'm somewhat torn about this one. On one hand I'm not convinced that this "Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission" is truly independent. How are they held accountable? How are they protected against political influence? Theoretically, we should be able to hold our Representatives accountable by recalling or not re-electing them should they violate our trust. However, when it comes to re-districting, this doesn't seem to work, and allowing the Fox to guard the hen-house is not a reasonable solution in the first place. The Commission already exists for State districts; this measure just expands the juridiction of the Commission to Congressional districts. Every Conservative I know is in favor of this one. I lean in favor of it, but not strongly. The NO position is endorsed by the California Teachers' Association, the Sacramento Bee, and the Sierra Club...Even more reason to vote YES.
Prop 21: NO -- The State of CA is virtually broke. Due to the depression, revenue is down. But CA overspent on unnecessary projects and now is scrambling for money. Rest assured, legislators will find my a myriad of ways to squeeze more money out of the taxpayers. Let us not foist another tax increase upon ourselves! There are other, more appropriate options for the State Parks: 1) Transfer the Parks under Private ownership and control, or 2) Fund the really important Parks from current revenues (if they're really necessary, they'll find a way to do this), or 3) Drop the rest entirely and let private parties buy up the land. Go away you money-sucking leeches! A No-Brainer.
Prop 22: NO? -- Still undecided on this one. But, based on the Ground Rules above, my default position for propositions is NO. On the surface, this looks like a good prop--it claims to prohibit Sacramento from raiding Local sources of revenue. But Conservatives are mixed on this, as there are reportedly other unsavory provisions hidden within. I will continue to study this issue; If my vote changes, i'll update this post.
Prop 23: YES!! -- Temporarily (unfortunately, not permanently) suspends implementation of AB32, the "Global Warming Final Solutions Act." That legislation is not only unnecessary but, even worse, is an attempt by the CA government to overreach, and impose restrictive regulations in the name of "climate change." The effects will be to drive the nail into the coffin of the CA economy. If AB32 goes into effect, jobs will be lost and, I suspect, we will witness another mass exodus of employers and taxpayers out of CA to other, more friendly states. Too bad Prop 23 bill only temporarily suspends this insanity.
Prop 24: NO! -- California already has about the worst business climate in the nation. Employers and employees have left CA in droves to seek greener pastures elsewhere. While other states are trying to lure employers, CA is trying to drive them out by increasing their taxes. Businesses do not pay these taxes--we do: through increased prices, lower wages (or fewer jobs), and lower investment returns (i.e., 401(k) value). Another No-Brainer.
Prop 25: NO!! -- This Proposition is not about passing an on-time Budget. Removing the 2/3 requirement from passing a Budget deprives us of an essential Check and Balance in our Legislature. If this prop passes, liberal legislators will be able to pass through extravagant spending with no opposition. And to pay for this, they will be able to more easily foist upon the taxpayer all sorts of new "creative" tax schemes (described as "fees," "assessments," and what have you). The fact that all the Teachers' Unions are in support of this prop is another strong motivation to oppose it. This is about the biggest No-Brainer on the ballot.
Prop 26: YES -- Call a Tax a Tax. Currently, government officials across the state have been raising taxes on us by disguising them as "fees." This Proposition helps re-classify as taxes those revenue increases that are actually taxes, making it more difficult to enact without a public or 2/3 majority vote. I'm voting YES to stop this insanity.
Prop 27: NO -- A Yes vote would rescind the current re-districting scheme and restore the original, politician-led re-districting that results in gerrymandering districts for state offices in order to keep politicians in power. While I'm not convinced about the aforementioned "Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission," I also know that the politicians can't be trusted to do this themselves. I'm voting NO to leave it as it is.
Part 3 will be a brief analysis of my votes for State and Local offices...
"Willoughby!" cried Sir John; "what, is he in the country? That is good news however? I will ride over to-morrow, and ask him to dinner on Thursday."
"You know him, then," said Mrs. Dashwood.
"Know him? to be sure I do. Why, he is down here every year."
"And what sort of a young man is he?"
"As good a kind of fellow as ever lived, I assure you. A very decent shot, and there is not a bolder rider in England."
"And is that all you can say for him?" cried Marianne, indignantly. "But what are his manners on more intimate acquaintance? What his pursuits, his talents, and genius?"
Sir John was rather puzzled.
"Upon my soul," said he, "I do not know much about him as to all that. But he is a pleasant, good-humoured fellow, and has got the nicest little black bitch of a pointer I ever saw. Was she out with him to-day?"
My grandmother died last week. It wasn't entirely unexpected, but it was sad nonetheless. But she lived to a ripe age of 89 and was a follower of Christ. She was ready to go. It was bitter-sweet.
When my grandfather died ten years ago, he had a funeral in the church but there was no graveside/burial service. Whoever wanted said a few words and that was about it. So this time, especially since there was to be only one service (at the graveside) I offered my father the option of me presiding over a simple burial service. In the end, they found a pastor from the Calvary Chapel my grandmother used to attend and he presided over the service.
I'm sad to say I was pretty disappointed with the service. In true Calvary Chapel form, it was very informal. But, what's worse, while the pastor talked a lot, very little was actually said. There was virtually no Scripture reading, no presentation of the Gospel, no comfort given to the grieving in the objective work of Christ on their behalf, and no talk about the Resurrection. If I would have given the homily, I would probably have said something like the following. It's by no means perfect, but I think it touches upon some of the more important points of objective comfort for Christians:
...in the US House or Senate to stand up to President Obama and say, to his face, the same things this British member of the European Parliament said to PM Gordon Brown?
Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP for South East England, gives a speech during Gordon Brown´s visit to the European Parliament on 24th March, 2009.
