By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Flood Advisory is in effect until 11:30 AM CDT this morning for parts of northeast Oklahoma, including Mayes, Nowata, Rogers, Tulsa, and Wagoner counties, due to heavy rainfall from thunderstorms, with up to 2 inches already fallen and another 1-2 inches expected. Minor flooding is anticipated in low-lying areas. Additionally, a Flood Watch is in effect through Thursday afternoon for Pawnee, Tulsa, and Wagoner counties due to the possibility of excessive rainfall, with 2 to 4 inches of rain, and locally higher amounts of 4 to 6 inches possible, expected from late tonight through Thursday morning. Residents in areas prone to flooding should monitor forecasts and prepare for potential flooding.
Read the original article here
Air Force grants full military funeral honors to Ashli Babbitt, and honestly, it’s a real head-scratcher, isn’t it? The immediate reaction seems to be one of disbelief and outrage. It’s hard to get past the fact that Ashli Babbitt, a person who died while attempting to breach the U.S. Capitol, is now receiving honors typically reserved for those who served the country honorably. It sparks a lot of emotion and raises questions about the criteria for these honors and what they truly represent. The sheer audacity of the situation is what really gets to me.
This decision is seen as a direct slap in the face to the values many hold dear. The comments suggest that it’s a desecration of the sacrifices made by those who have served with integrity, loyalty, and a genuine commitment to the nation. It feels like a betrayal of everything that the military stands for. The emotional impact is palpable, as it strikes deep at a core belief system for a lot of people. The whole thing is viewed as a complete and utter mockery, a travesty that is beyond comprehension. It just seems wrong on so many levels.
The core issue at hand is the perception of Ashli Babbitt. She’s been described with some very strong language – “traitor,” “terrorist,” “treasonous,” even. These are not terms typically associated with someone who is considered worthy of such recognition. The comments make it clear that many believe she deserved to face consequences for her actions, rather than be celebrated or honored. This is the disconnect that makes the whole thing so upsetting. It really highlights the deep divisions and contrasting interpretations of events, where one person’s hero is another person’s villain.
This situation has also brought up the issue of historical revisionism. Some of the comments suggest that the move is an attempt to rewrite history, turning someone who was involved in a violent attempt to overthrow the government into a martyr. It is a perception that really adds another layer of concern to the matter. The narrative of what happened on January 6th is already highly contested, and this decision feels like a deliberate attempt to shape the story in a particular way. History is important, and people are worried about it being skewed.
The timing of these honors also seems to be a sore point. Babbitt died nearly five years ago. The fact that this is happening now, after all this time, raises even more questions. It’s seen as a deliberate act. This is the kind of move that’s guaranteed to ignite a firestorm of controversy and debate. It just feels like there’s a specific intention behind it, not just a matter of routine protocol.
There’s a lot of talk about the potential impact on the military itself. Some of the comments express concern that the decision undermines the military’s core values. It’s almost as if the institution is perceived as being compromised by this decision, that the military is being used as a tool for political gain. It’s understandable that this breeds a lot of distrust. The feeling is that the whole thing is not only dishonoring the sacrifice of Babbitt, but also the countless other military personnel who served honorably.
Another recurring theme is the criticism of those who may have been involved in this decision. The comments seem to directly implicate certain individuals, and suggest a deeper, more nefarious agenda at play. It’s a very accusatory tone, and this seems to point to a deeper and more concerning picture. The suspicion of political motivations is very prominent here. There’s also a strong undertone of disbelief.
The underlying feelings seem to be that this decision is an insult to all veterans. The thought is that if Babbitt is worthy of these honors, then the standards have been lowered to a point where service and sacrifice no longer matter. It has the potential to devalue the service of anyone who has ever served. This hits right at the heart of what the military is about.
It’s clear that a lot of people are disgusted by the decision. The language is raw and unfiltered, conveying a strong sense of outrage and betrayal. It reflects the deep divisions and the very strong feelings that still exist over the events of January 6th. It’s a reminder of how divided this country is right now, and how easily these divides can be exploited.
The situation is seen by many as a clear indication of the state of the country, one that is becoming increasingly unserious. The reaction is one of anger and defiance and this is hardly a small issue. It shows the extent to which political battles have seeped into every aspect of life, even something as seemingly straightforward as military honors. It’s a sign of how much the political landscape has shifted.