Karate and You-Know-Who

Last night I decided to watch a little television - which is good, because a little television is exactly what I have.

I sat back on the couch and tuned into this mind-numbing animated sitcom about a morbidly obese man and depraved family. Okay...so far, so good.

I wanted to see this episode because I'm a martial artist, and the stupid fat guy's wife is supposedly doing the karate thing. So, here we go. About halfway through the show, I begin to realize that it's a morality play. Believe it or not, the people who write Family Guy are preaching to us about violence.

"Oh my gawd," the wife (whatever her name is) says. "I've brought violence into my house! I'm the worst mother ever!"

Ya know, I can't tell you how tired I am of the people around me (even if they're only 'around me' electronically) misunderstanding absolutely everything. The martial arts aren't necessarily about violence, and it's clear that the show wasn't written by martial artists or by anyone who'd ever embarked on any kind of serious MA study.

Okay. Enough of that. But I did also notice one other thing. The television had my attention for about forty minutes. During those forty minutes, I saw thirty-two commercials. And of those thirty-two commercials, fourteen were for Barack Obama.

The Power of Imagery vs Memory

In the absence of war, the people forget its horrors. This is why the young are so frequently the first to cry for war. And since it's been a almost twenty years since the end of the Cold War, we as a nation aren't nearly as concerned with the global spread of Communism as we were when I was growing up. I guess this is why so many people in this country have forgotten a few very important things.
They've forgotten about the hundred million or so of their fellow human beings who believed in Marxist Socialism, and died as a direct result of its policies. They've forgotten about the brutal occupations, violent revolutions and wars of agression around the world that made Iraq look like a midsummer's training exercise.

It's the power of the Proletariat ideal - that utopean pipe dream of total equality, wherein all people recieve the same meager amount of food, the same low pay, and the same dismal apartment. They've forgotten what it really means, of course, but they see the imagery. They see the stark, high-contrast colors and the sharp, angled and idealized faces. They hear the rhetoric of those who forgot before they did: the We Will Provide crowd, promising to give them all they need, while evening out their incomes, whose speeches are gaining in popularity with young voters, even while those same voters complain about their already-too-high taxes.

Not everyone who uses this means of propagandizing his or her message is a Communist. In fact, I don't think people who use this kind of imagery today even know what it represents, for the most part. Obviously, the artists know where it came from, but the viewer generally couldn't care less.

Naturally, this is a case of art imitating life - because most Americans don't give a shit about much of anything, and obviously know even less.


But for those of us who grew up actively opposing the global spread of totalitarianism and the rise of a government strong enough to take things away from you for the common good, and for all of us old Cold Warriors, these images still hold a chilling message.

It's a message a lot of people in this country have clearly forgotten. Barack and his supporters, and Hillary and her supporters, aren't Communists, of course. But they've evidently forgotten about the threat posed by a government that's strong enough (big enough, in-your-business enough) to give you whatever it decides you need. Because that's also a government that's strong enough to take away everything you love, in an effort to impose an ideology of complete equality, wherein no one person has any more or less than any other.

Barack Obama is evidently opposed to one person being allowed to have more than another. In a television spot aired ad nauseum in Texas, he complains that, "We've got CEOs making more in ten minutes what the average worker makes in a year."

So what he's saying is, it's a bad thing that some else makes more than you. It's a bad thing that we're not all equal in income, equal in living conditions, and equal in lifestyle. Again, Barack's not really a Communist. But since it's been so long since we as a nation have had to really confront Communism, a lot of people in this country fail to recognize Socialist dogma when they see it. It's a siren song. It sounds good, but will lead you to your doom.

Just ask the hundred million people who've gone before you.

What Are You Unhappy About?

This should have been in State of the Union Address. It's attributed to Jay Leno, but I haven't been able to verify that yet. Whoever wrote it, it's dead-on:

'The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right?

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just isn't happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What are we so unhappy about?''

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?

Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?

Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?

Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?

Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?

I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.

Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings.

Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes , an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.

This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?

Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?

The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?

Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go.

They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by 'justifying' them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about 'how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way'...Insane!

Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.

EDIT: Definitely not written by Jay Leno. Unfortunately, we may never know the identity of its true author. But whoever it was ought to be running for President, in my opinion.

Hey, Where's His Halo?!

Obama supporters puzzle me. I have a co-worker (a normally rational adult) who is wearing blue every day from now through the Texas primary, in support of Barack. She wears at least one Obama campaign button on her blouse every day – yesterday she wore three.

So she’s walking around the office, showing off her willingness to wear the name of a man she doesn’t know and about whom she can’t hold an intelligent conversation – because she doesn’t understand any of his positions. She doesn't understand his positions because he doesn't stick to them, or answer questions with plain, straight talk about exactly what his positions are. She doesn’t realize that she’s wearing blue in support of a candidate who flat-out refuses to display the American flag, because he says it’s not patriotic. Or something like that.

So how does a person who won’t wear the flag on his lapel get thousands of people to wear his name on theirs? How does that happen in America?

Barack has become the poster child for that ubiquitous political catch-word, change. The problem is, “change” doesn’t have any real meaning. Words like that have to come with modifiers, with objects, or else they don’t hold any significance at all. Change your underwear. Change your mind. Change the amount of change in your pocket.

So what change is Barack offering? Well, for starters, he has a plan for universal health care. You have to go to his website to find it, thought - because he won't articulate it in person.

As I’ve shown with my point-by-point analysis a few posts down, his plan is straight Socialism – and it’s almost exactly the same as Hillary’s plan, only worded differently. But it is a plan. Of course, even Barack knows that it will never happen, because health insurance isn’t something that falls within the domain of presidential duties. That’s right, folks – the President of the United States has nothing to do with your health insurance. He (or she, I guess) isn’t an agent for your health care provider, and doesn’t set the rules on who gets insured or for how much. He can suggest sweeping reforms, he can demand sweeping reforms, but that's the limit of his (or her, I guess) power. In order for sweeping reforms to happen, laws have to be made – and that’s the job the Congress, not the President. And for as long as I’ve been following politics, the Congress has been locked in a dead heat on matters of reforming anything.

Barack, of course, spent two years (or was it three?) in the US Senate, which as we all know is one of the houses of Congress. He was in the legislative body that has the power to do it, but it didn't get done! So why hasn’t his plan for universal health care been passed? Well, now we’re back to the Socialist thing. For the reasons why it hasn't been passed in Congress, I'd refer you to my post about why it's Socialist.

Even before Barack’s meteoric assent to center stage – even before he became the apple of George ‘I’d follow him anywhere’ Clooney’s eye – the question on universal health care was long debated and roundly rejected. I’m sure that even Barack’s moonbattiest supporters aren’t toiling under the impression that any of this is a new idea.

But no Congress wants to be the one who took away so much of your money, on the basis of your ability to earn it, and gave it to others on the basis of their need for it. No Congress wants to be the one who crossed the line from charitable giving to forced redistribution of wealth.
And no Congress will do it now, either. Regardless of party, regardless of platform. And regardless of how “articulate” their poster boy is.

I'm Proud of America (if you vote for my husband)

Michelle Obama (Barack's wife) in Milwaukee, either yesterday or the day before:

"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

Now, I have to bring this up. Mrs. Obama is 44 years old, so her "adult lifetime" began in 1982. Between 1982 and today, is she saying that NOTHING has transpired in this country that has made her proud? Are we really that crappy a country?

.

Or, is Mrs. Obama simply displaying that typical Liberal proclivity toward bashing America?

Forty years ago in the American South, riot police were releasing dogs and turning water hoses on people of color. Before that, people of color were often treated much worse than that, by an openly racist and xenophobic society. Today, people of color stand next to anyone, and can receive expensive ivy-league educations on their way to very lucrative careers (as big-time Chicago lawyers, for example). People of color are today running for President of the United States, with a real chance of winning. And evidently, those same people see nothing to be proud of their country about.

I bring up the civil rights movement because I'm proud of how far we've come in that area. There's still a ways to go, we all recognize that. But our progress thus far is something to be proud of this country for (I think, anyway).
Since 1982, the United States has liberated Grenada from Communist Cuban invaders, freed Panama from its drug-smuggling presidente Noriega, liberated Kuwait from ruthless Iraqi hordes, opposed lawless warlords in Somalia, and ousted murderous, Nazi-like totalitarian regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've championed peace between Israel and her neighbors, campaigned for human rights in places like China and North Korea, and Stood side-by-side with South Africans opposing Apartheid.

First Lady Nancy Reagan pays her respects to American casualties of the Grenada invasion, Oct. 1983

Nelson Mandela, imprisoned by the Apartheid regime in South Africa, 1990

How many Pulitzer Prize and Nobel Prize winners have come from the United States since 1982? And how many other countries can compete with that? How many Olympic athletes? World-class musicians? Artists?

Which country pioneered the artificial heart? Come to think of it, Mrs. Obama, being a lawyer for the medical industry, ought to know more about American medical advancements than I would. Still, though, nothing to be proud about there, right?

How many other countries could send the Space Shuttle into space more than a hundred times? That whole deal was pretty new, back when she was a young adult, wasn't it? Not proud of that? Well, let's see what else I can come up with.

How many minority and low-income students have attended American universities in the past 26 years, who would have simply gone hungry had they been born in other countries?

When this country came together after 9/11 in a way reminiscent of the homefronts of the Second World War, I guess Mrs. Obama felt nothing? Was there nothing at all to be proud of, when the Congress of the United States - both houses, both parties - stood on the steps of the Capitol and sang in defiance of tyranny and terror?

How many other countries experience routine, peaceable regime changes every four years, as a function of their constitutions? How many other countries guarantee their citizens the right to speak their minds, to write whatever they want, to worship however they feel is right (or not to, if that’s their choice), the right to refuse quarter to the military, the right to a trial by jury of their peers, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to keep and bear arms, just in case it all goes bad? And then, having guaranteed all that (and much more, of course) in the Constitution, how many other countries would continue to take it seriously, hundreds of years after all that was written?

Is none of this reason to be proud of this country?

Is it possible that someone, given all this, can feel zero pride in the United States, unless people vote for them (or their husbands)? Is it right for ones sense of national pride to be linked only to whether or not people support ones political ambitions?

And here’s the real question: Do we really want a first lady who honestly believes that the only good thing about this country is that her husband is running it? Haven't we seen that before?

.

I realize there are things we need desperately to fix. I get that. But even with all of this country's flaws, I have to wonder: Is that warm, fuzzy feeling Michelle Obama gets when people support her husband's campaign really the only worthwhile thing about America?

Responsibility vs. Liberalism

Notice I didn't title the post "Conservatism vs. Liberalism". This is because I'm not sure what it means to be a Conservative any more. It looks to me like the Conservative movement in this country has been hijacked by pretty-much the same ideologies that so successfully hijacked the Liberal movement back in the 1970s, effectively killed it in the 1980s, and have maintained a stranglehold on its corpse to this day. But that's a different post.



Basically, I believe in the politics of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

I believe that your health insurance is your responsibility. Keeping your job, feeding your family, making your car payment, and paying for whatever kind of home you live in are all your responsibility, too. I believe that if you need more money, you should try to get a better paying job, or take a second job working nights (we've all been there), or whatever you have to do. Taking care of yourself is YOUR JOB.

Contrary to popular belief, the government is NOT your collective babysitter. It is NOT the responsibility of the government to raise the minimum wage so you can have more money. It is NOT the responsibility of the government to force your mortgage company to lower your payments, or to feed your children at school, or to install cheaper light bulbs in your apartment. And it is NOT the government's responsibility to provide you with health insurance.

It's really just that simple, folks. It's not mean or uncompassionate, either. I want you to succeed - but I want you to succeed on your own merits. When you've arrived, you'll be able to say that no one ever gave you anything, that you earned everything you have. And there's a certain kind of satisfaction in that - at least, that's how I see it.

People who see it my way also believe in a smaller government, and in less government interference in the lives of ordinary citizens. I don't believe it's a good thing to create six different new government agencies to oversee how my doctor is treating me, or to keep tabs on how my medical information is stored, or to make sure that my insurance company isn't making too much money.

And that's another thing. It isn't wrong to make a lot of money; at least it wasn't wrong when I was a kid. Lately it's become popular in the Left to bash the wealthy, and to blame this problem or that on them. But I remember this being America, the land of opportunity - not the land where the government won't let your company get too big, and won't let you make too much money. Work hard, work smart, make all the right business decisions - and then some arch-liberal Democrat gets elected and takes away your profits?! That's not the America I remember (of course, I grew up during the Reagan presidency, so maybe that's it).

When you allow the government so far into your life that they're paying for your child's meals, half of your rent and all of your health insurance, you forget that the government had to get that money from somewhere. And the source of all that money is ALWAYS higher taxes on others who have also worked hard for their income. What you're doing is forcing others to pay your way, and that's not how it's supposed to be in America.

It's your job to live your life. It's your responsibility to ensure that it's the kind of life you want it to be. When it becomes the government's job to give you everything you have, the government must, by its own very nature, take money from me, shift it around a little, and hand it to you - and vice-versa. This is the definition of Socialism. It's not a good thing.

Susan Shelley, in her excellent blog "America Wants to Know", calls it Collectivism. The idea is that those with more money are forced to share it with those who have less. Here's her fanstastic post about Barack's explanation of his own health care reform program (when he had to break it down for a five-year-old, what he said was straight out of the Communist Manifesto): http://www.extremeink.com/awtk/2007/11/barack-obama-explains-socialism.html.

Never mind YOUR years of training and hard work that went into those gains; they belong to the People now. It will never work in America, just like it didn't work in Russia, and has produced nothing but all manner of horrible poverty wherever it's been tried (Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Eastern Europe, Venezuela, Angola, etc etc).

Socialism doesn't work. Not here, not now.

Not ever.

.

.

.

.

NEXT UP: Michelle Obama tells you why she's never been proud of her country, until now.

Why Obama's Health Care Plan Won't Work

I think it would be fair to say, after reading his website, that Senator Obama has some pretty kooky, moonbat ideas about healthcare.

So without further ado, here are some ideas that I gathered in a single, half-hour cruise through the doubletalk and politico-speak of his website. Text in black is my understanding of some of the points I found on his site, while the comments in blue are my smart-alecky opinion:

1. Under the Obama health care plan, private insurance companies would be forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions. I wonder how much that would cost for the insurance companies (meaning, how much it would cost the consumer)?

2. The Government would pay an income-related individual federal subsidy for all those who do not qualify for the various medical insurance handout programs. That's written for people who don't understand the First Noble Truth of government: The government pays for NOTHING. Taxpayers pay for everything the government does. They may not be telling you this, but additional agencies, programs and projects are ALWAYS paid for by additional taxes. Period. You folks who like the idea of "the government" paying your way through life have a rude awakening heading your way.

3. Insurance companies would be required by federal law to report your health information to the federal government. This would be "to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met." Is it just me, or would you also like to avoid seeing your private medical information being reported to some inept federal agency? Can you say PROLETARIAT, boys and girls? Good. I knew you could.

4. An Obama health care program would create, among other agencies, the National Health Insurance Exchange. It would be the job of this agency to create rules and standards for private insurance companies, in order to "ensure fairness". Liberals never tire of the old class warfare dogma. What they're doing here is mandating that the federal government create yet another agency whose job is to watchdog your life. Hope ya feel better, knowing the National Health Care Exchange is out there, making sure that the world is safe for HMOs. But the real problem here is the old question, WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT'S FAIR? Would that be the poor, the downtrodden, the exploited workers? Doesn't any of this sound familiar?

5. "The Exchange" would force private insurance companies to issue a policy to every applicant, regardless of ability to pay or pre-existing condition. So if you're the owner of a small insurance operation, get ready to be out of business. Beautiful, huh? Betcha didn't know you were the problem, didja?

6. Every employer would be required to either "Make a meaningful contribution to the cost of their employers' insurance, or "Contribute a percentage of their payroll toward the cost of the national plan". FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS MEANS, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED...Yay. Let's just forget all those who gave their lives to fight the spread of Communism in this world. Let's all be rabid Socialists. No prob.

7. The Obama plan would require that health care providers and hospitals "utilize proven disease management programs." Does this mean that the government gets to decide what treatment you receive? Sounds that way, doesn't it? It MANDATES that your PROVIDER utilize proven PROGRAMS, and not others that you may prefer. What about someting that's not so 'proven'? Do you want the government telling you which treatments you can use ? (you think the FDA is bad now...)

8. It would require all providers (doctors, hospitals, etc) publicly report "disparity" figures - how many of this certain race were treated this month, how many of that gender. What we need right now is less race-baiting, not more. This is the most disappointing point I found on his website.

9. This plan would reorganize how doctors and other health care professionals are paid. Barack wants doctors to be paid according to the 'quality' of their work, rather than on how well they persorm during whatever evaluations they do. I can sorta see this one. The idea is to avoid the waiting-room experience and keep the clinics and hospitals focused on their task. However, I must ask: What happened to the profit margin for these doctors? What ever happened to moving the line along? See, here's the problem: Without the simple volume incentive of profit, you get what they have in the UK, which is an inherent inability to see a doctor without a six-month wait. Honestly, is that what you want?

10. He would establish an "Independent Institute" to gather information and assist in the decision-making process, and to be a watchdog agency for the other agencies being created with this initiative. I just use the Internet, which as we all know was invented by Al Gore - but will soon be rendered obsolete by this new, useful federal govenment program and/or agency. I think we're up to what, three? Four? Five?

11. Barack Obama doesn't like that your medical records are often kept in paper files at your doctor's office. His plan would earmark TEN BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, for FIVE YEARS, to convert your medical records - whether you want this done or not - into electronic files, which can then be stored in some central database, for everyone in the world to see. I just don't know what to say about this. It genuinely sounds too ludicrous to be considered, but there it is, right on his website. PLUS: Who pays for this particular $50 BILLION new federal prgram? Well, I'll give you one guess...But the real problem here is that now your medical records will be accessible to every teenaged hacker in the world, as opposed to being safely tucked away in your doctor's office, as they are now. I dunno - you tell me: Has the fact that your medical records are kept in your doctor's office ever caused you a serious health problem? Me neither.

12. The plan would force the largest insurance companies to pay more in claims, in an effort designed specifically to limit their profits. This is typical Socialist class envy at work, folks. This is typical haves-versus-have-nots Marxism. The essence of the Communist class struggle lies in the idea that the government can tell everyone how much they need. It can tell the rich that they don't need as much, and then it can take from the rich and redistribute that wealth throughout the lower echelons of the economic structure. Obama's plan seeks to punish large insurance companies for their success by mandating larger claim payments sepcifically from them, in an attempt to appease those who feel the big companies make too much money.

13. This plan would also "allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe...". I would ask how the government would actually police that "safe" rule. The safety aspect is the reason for the existence of the FDA to begin with, but the FDA has no jurisdiction outside the US. So how does the US government regulate the 'safety' of drugs manufactured and purchased overseas? Smells like yet another government agency to me.

Now, I'm not just bashing Obama just to be bashing Obama. Honest. I can also point out some fallacies regarding Senator Obama and his campaign: He is NOT, for example, a Muslim - and he never was. He has a Muslim name, but that's because his father was from Kenya. Also, the Che Guevara flag in his Houston campaign office was NOT placed there by a member of his campaign, but by one of your typical moonbat Obama supporters. Is there a difference? I'll leave that for you to decide.

But beyond all that, I have some serious ideological differences with the senator, and they're the same differences I have with the Clintons, and with any other arch-liberal Mars-orbiters out there. So I'll explain all that a little more in the next post.

NEXT UP: The Politics of Personal Responsibility

So I Guess We're All Evil (Except You with the Signs)

Here’s a beautiful example of some of the whack-job bloofy that makes this country great. I got a letter from a friend of a friend, one of those out-there writers who still think the war in Iraq is about stealing their oil.

I envision this odd worldview that ties everything together. See, Bush and his evil lackey Cheney (who are normally stupid but suddenly got really bright) duped the whole world (sans our really, really smart friends in France) into invading Iraq in order to steal their oil, to feed it to our SUVs in an effort to pollute the environment and quicken global warming, for the purpose of making the Earth uninhabitable for future generations. Because, of course, it will be Halliburton, staffed by illegal Mexicans (brought up by the secret North American Union via the Trans-Texas Corridor), who gets the multi-billion-dollar contract to build the first moon colony - which is the real reason for the Space Shuttle program - with parts built by children in China and shipped via Dubai Ports World.

Welcome to the New Religion. And, all you conservative heretics out there, you will convert! Jihad isn't just for terrorists any more!

Anyway, since the letter was apparently in response to something I wrote here, and since this friend of a friend wrote me the letter because he was (for whatever reason) unable to leave a comment here {remind me to look into that – come to think of it, there haven’t been any comments here for a very long time}, I thought I’d go ahead and include his letter – and my response – here.

Terrorists bomb Iraqi oil facilities in northern Iraq

Robert's Letter:

Jerry,

Spring 2001 Michael Klare, an international security expert and author of Resource Wars, reported the military had increasingly come to “define resource security as their primary mission.” An article in the Army War College's journal by Jeffrey Record, a former staff member of the Senate armed services committee, argued for “shooting in the Persian Gulf on behalf of lower gas prices” and “advocated the acceptability of presidential subterfuge in the promotion of a conflict” and “explicitly urged painting over the US's actual reasons for warfare with a nobly high-minded veneer, seeing such as a necessity for mobilizing public support for a conflict.”

April 2001 Gen. Tommy Franks, C.O. of US forces in the Persian Gulf/South Asia area, testified to Congress that his command's key mission was “access to energy resources.” The next month US Central Command began plans for war with Afghanistan. (Sydney Morning Herald 12/26/02)

April 2001 “Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century,” a report commissioned by former Secretary of State James Baker and the Council on Foreign Relations stated that the US remained a prisoner of energy needs and needed “military intervention” to secure its oil supply. Saddam Hussein should be overthrown so the US could control Iraq’s oil. (Sunday Herald 10/5/02)

It looks like Alan Greenspan was right when he said our war on Iraq was for oil.
Robert Flynn
http://www.robert-flynn.net/

.

My Response:

Robert,

My purpose with war-like discussion on the blog was really more to point out the lunacy of far-fringe-left moonbats like Code Pinko and the mayor of Berserkeley than to rehash the old, tired (and frankly just plain silly) argument that the Iraq War was all about oil. But, since you're a friend of Mike's (and I'm proof that Mike has some strange friends), I'll go through it one more time.

Think about this. Since the US went into Iraq, what has happened to international crude prices? Where exactly is all that Iraqi oil?

No, my friend. You're way off. In fact, I'm afraid you're missing the whole point. The Gulf War (1991) was about oil - and was fought (and lost by Kuwait) before the Americans ever entered the theater. What followed (the American 'liberation' of Kuwait) was about 2 things: 1, establishing a military presence in the region and establishing precedent for US military intervention in defense of allies in the region, and 2, securing future US interests in the Kuwaiti petro market, because it was already known in the halls of American government that we'd soon be alienating the Iraqi petro market.

This current war is a whole different thing. The dynamic is all wrong. The US went into Iraq in 2003 because regime change in Iraq has been US policy for four presidents now. Even back in the day when Rummy was shaking hands with Uncle Saddam, folks like Ronaldus Maximus, Daddy Bush and Wild Bill were scheming to remove Uncle Saddam from office. It's really both as simple and as complex as that.

Couldn't be done during Reagan's time, because we were backing the Iraqis against the Iranians (because of our opposition to their caliphate-inspired 'revolution' and their penchant for taking American hostages - plus, it was only a few years after the Desert One fiasco). Simple enough. But then, even after the two sides wore each other down like children who fell asleep while fighting in the car, we didn't do it because we were in the midst of regime change here in Los Estados (out with Ronaldus Maximus, in with Daddy Bush).

Daddy Bush knew things about Saddam that Ronaldus never knew. One of the benefits of having a president who'd been the Director of the CIA, as opposed to a president who'd been a B-list actor (not that I'm anti-Reagan, mind you...but in that situation, Bush was more on-the-ball). By this point, Saddam was getting it from both sides. He had to deal with saber rattling from Washington on one hand, and petro theft from Kuwait on the other (millions of barrels of light sweet crude - some of the best oil in the world - from the Iraqi part of the Rumalia Oil Field). Add into the mix Saddam's complete inability to think rationally, and there you have it, folks. Bus loads of Iraqi troops roll into Kuwait City (that's how the Iraqis initially invaded Kuwait, by bus.).

Of course, this cemented the US anti-Saddam policy. But it also set it back about 10 years. The idea was to remove Saddam before, but then when he invaded Kuwait, we couldn't do it because it would appear to the rest of the world that US had overstepped its mandate from the UN (to lead a coalition to liberate Kuwait). Whether he knew it or not, Saddam had bought himself some years by invading Kuwait.

Fast-forward to 2002 or 2003. Bush Jr. (I think, anyway) is looking for reasons to hit Saddam. He has some personally-imposed guidelines, if this is the case. One, it can't be a personal reason, meaning that he can't hit Iraq because Iraq tried to kill his father. Another is that it can't be unverifiable. This means that, if he says there are weapons, by God there'd better be weapons. Let's not just go in there and never find them. For twelve years now, (as of 2003) mind you, everyone from Hillary Clintoris to individual Iraqi dissidents have been swearing to the presence of a weapons program. And not all of them were wrong.

It's pretty silly to assert, knowing what we know now, that the whole weapons thing was just a made-up excuse to go to war for oil. Although, I have no doubt that the reports about the weapons program played perfectly into Washington's plans, and their accuracy was an issue relegated to the back burner.

By the time the first US reporters (with some troops embedded in their units) rolled across the Iraqi border, there were no reasons. Curve Ball was already known to be full of crap, but it didn't matter. Regime change was on its way, and even Baghdad Bob couldn't stop it ("There are no American tanks...").

Listen. I've seen the Iraqi oil infrastructure with my own two eyes. There was never a threat of the US taking Iraq's oil. I wish I could say that we don't give a crap about their oil, but that would be taking it too far. But still, I can attest to the fact that, until the US (and many other coutntries, mind you) went in there and worked with the Iraqis on RIO (Restore Iraqi Oil), no one - not the Iraqis or anyone else - was getting Iraqi oil. This is why the Oil for Food program was such a sham, and why Saddam's peeps were starving while he depleted the nation's European bankrolls to build new palaces.

No, I'm afraid it wasn't to gain access to their oil. If the US military said it was, then either you're (or your source is) taking the quote out of context, or someone's talking through their ass. And I don't believe anything General Franks has to say about it (just like some don't believe General Petreus). General Franks, a registered Democrat, did the same Macciavellian (sp?) thing the Democrats in Congress did. They purposely failed in their duties to prosecute a full-out war, in order to saddle a sitting president with that failure. It's the only explanation I can see for Franks' shoddy performance in Iraq (it was only after Petreus took over that things in Iraq started to improve - and dont try to tell me they haven't improved, because I was there - and if you need to hear it from troops instead of fat civilians like me, ask Mike's daughter-in-law).

I wish the war was about oil. The reason I say this is that while we've been largely stymied, until recently, by terrorist insurgents (no, not Iraqis fighting for their homeland, as some peacenik wannabes would have you believe, but actual foreign Al Qaeda terrorists who only want to kill Americans - I know because I've met them and asked them), we won the war well enough to simply take their oil, if that was what we were after. And if we'd done that, then maybe I could pay less than $3 a gallon for my gas.

~Jerry

NEXT UP: The truth about Obama's health care plan (it ain't pretty)

More from Code Pinko

Now, does that mean they're promising not to reproduce, at least until there are no more wars in the world? And another thing: I've seen dozens and dozens of pictures of Code Pinko women, and these two are the closest I've seen to attractive. I mean, if they're gonna use sex as a weapon (no I know, women never do that), they should at least be women someone would wanna fuck in the first place. I'm just sayin'...

Recruiters stalk our youth?! You mean like lionesses in the grassland stalk their prey? When my cat stalks something (which he does a lot), he crounches up behind it and wiggles his butt. You suppose that's what the recruiters are doing? 'Cause I'd protest that, myself. NO BUTT-WIGGLING IN OUR SCHOOLS!

And be sure, while you're at it, to teach your children to hate America. You know, the country that gave you more freedoms than any other country in the world. Yeah, hate that.

NEXT UP: Letter from a Friend

Is This Your Mayor, Berkeley?

Tom Bates, Mayor of the City of Berkeley, California, protesting what he thinks is a Marine Corps recruiting office (it isn't). He's wearing a pink beret and standing proudly in front of a pink banner that reads "No Military Predators". If you live in Berkeley, is this your mayor? Is this what you call supporting the troops?

Okay, it's time to post the warning letter. With Code Pink and their little buddies getting as raucus as possible, it's only reasonable to expect such insanity here in Houston, where political campaign offices are bedecked with Che Guevara flags, but their staffers can't tell me the difference between a liberal candidate and a conservative one. Make Out, Not War. Pretty friggin' weak, folks.

So anyway, here's the letter.
_________________________________________

To the Houston offices of Code Pink:
I respect your initiative and your drive to speak your mind about President Bush and Operation Iraqi Freedom (which you call “Bush’s War”). While I disagree with much of your content, I do support your right to say it. Disagreement, in my opinion, is the cornerstone of truly free speech, and while we may stand on opposing sides of the aisle, we’re all Americans at the end of the day. In many ways, these differences are worth celebrating.
That said, I’ve been watching the debate that’s been raging in California lately, in which Code Pink and the Berkeley City Council have decided to wage a campaign against the United States Marine Corps. Even in this action, I must support the right of Code Pink and Berkeley to speak their mind, even if I disagree with the message.
While the City Council of Berkeley does indeed have the legal right to make any proclamations the Council deems appropriate, it should be recognized that even persons or organizations operating within their legal rights can overstep the bounds of decency and societal normalcy. Such is the case with some of the disgusting, hurtful and misleading statements the City of Berkeley has made recently about the United States Marine Corps, as an extension of Code Pink’s vitriolic anti-military campaign.
Beyond my insignificant opinion about what’s been said, there’s a more important issue at work here. The right to free speech stops at the willful hindrance of US military personnel in the performance of their assigned duties. The actions of some protestors in California have crossed that line many times over, and have given your organization a bad name in the eyes of many Americans who held nothing against you before.
This is the reason for my letter.
Houston has always been a great place to get the message out, regardless what that message is. We can often protest here with little threat of violence, and people are generally supportive of the exercise of free speech. I’ve even seen opposing demonstrators lay down their signs and have lunch together to discuss their differences. Don’t try this in California, folks.
Houston is also home to a number of Armed Forces recruiting offices, Reserve Component training facilities and armories, and military families. Members of the United States Armed Services recruit, train, consolidate, and in fact live here in the Houston area. It is their right and sworn duty as service members to conduct their business efficiently and effectively. Further, these activities of the United States Armed Forces are responsible, at least in part, for the freedom of speech that is enjoyed by all Americans, including Code Pink and other psycho-fringe protest groups.
Members and Veterans of the United States Armed Forces, their families and loved ones, and the vast majority of the People of the United States, are justifiably proud of their service. This includes the majority of Houstonians, who believe that the United States Armed Forces should be honored by all citizens, and not villainized by a handful of leftist anti-war hippie throwbacks, whose warped little word view holds these heroes responsible for their own personal failures.
You may see your comrades in California as heroes and their actions as heroic examples to be emulated here in Houston. But while you plan your typically anti-American, anti-military operations here in our town, remember that people here will not stand for the nonsense that your whacko fringe group is up to out there in Granola Land, and that we will defend our military establishments here. The kind of efforts to show vitriolic hatred for American military personnel that we've seen from Code Pinks and its supporters in California and elsewhere, to include protests and signs with hateful, divisive slogans, is a cause of further suffering in this world. Your actions have done more harm than good, because not a single person has refused to serve his country because of your tirades. Not a single terrorist, soldier or innocent civilian has been spared in this war or any other because of the actions of people like you. You're not alleiviating suffering, you're adding to it.
We, as private citizens of the United States, will consider it our duty as peace-loving Americans to thwart any and all attempts on your part to interfere with our Armed Forces in the conduct of their official duties. This includes, but is by no means limited to, recruiting and all recruiting-related activities.

Treason is not a protected right under the Constitution of the United States. Consider yourselves duly notified.

NEXT UP: Even more from Code Pinko

Boycott Berkeley

Spelling, anyone? And here's where the protestors should feel really stupid: The word under the pink card is "Selection". See, this isn't even a recruiting office they're protesting. It's an officer selection office, which a completely different thing, and has nothing to do with high schools or children or quotas or "predators". But they don't care, do they? Show them the sign that proves they're wrong, and they cover it up with their own misspelled, misrepresented and misinformed assumptions.

This is probably a photoshop. The banner probably read something like "withdrawal" or "pullout" of the American troops. Maybe something more like "desertion" or "Imprisonment". But given that Code Pink gave $600,000 to terrorists in Fallujah WHILE THE US MARINES WERE LOCKED IN AN ALL-OUT, MONTH-LONG BATTLE against those exact terrorists, I'd say whoever did the photoshop job hit the nail squarely on its anti-American little head. Wouldn't you?

Tom Bates, the mayor of Berkeley, California, said this:
"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave."

The Marines don't belong? Are you fucking serious? Is that what the people of California think? Are the people of Berkeley really that far gone? This is the very definition of INGRATE, and in my view, it's tantamount to TREASON. Seriously, this whole Berkeley thing is turning my stomach. Even if you hate the Marines, for a City Council and their elected (I assume) mayor to act this way is the exact antithesis of what I want my children to learn. This is exactly the kind of behavior that made most people in this country turn against their hippie bullshit in the first place.

So here are some resources for supporting a nationwide ban on Berkeley. Fuck 'em. Before you do business with anyone, ask if they or any of their supporting businesses are operating in Berkeley - and if so, thanks but no thanks. This especially goes for tourism. Don't visit Berkeley, especially this coming summer. Tell your neighbors what the Berserkeleys are doing to the United States Marine Corps, and tell people like Code Pink that we support our Marines.

Big Dog: http://www.onebigdog.net/boycott-berkeley/
Center for the Advancement of Capitalism:
http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-boycotting-berkeley-is-important.htm
How Berkeley boycotts just about everyone else: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/1997/08/berkeley.html
Free Republic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1969391/posts
Petition in Support of the USMC: http://www.capitalismcenter.org/Advocacy/Marine_Petition/default.htm
ConservaBabes: http://conservababes.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1699
Intellectual Activism: http://intellectualactivism.blogsavy.com/2008/02/03/activism-opportunity-boycott-berkley/
Yahoo Answers: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080201133552AAAZVxk
yeah, I know it's Fox, but somehow they're the only ones reporting it straight: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330527,00.html

Cao's Blog is VERY IMPORTANT for anyone who wants to learn about Code Pink's real agenda, and about how these so-called "peace activists" really operate. Warning: This will make you very, very mad: http://caosblog.com/6190

And here's a great piece from Front Page on just exactly who this Code Pink bunch really is, and who's really pulling the strings behind thsi whole anti-military thing: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={3C98A01F-6F98-45A0-86D6-ACA9DE62D1B8}

NEXT UP: An Open Letter of Warning to Code Pink and Like Groups in Houston
IN PROGRESS: Barack Obama's Unacceptably Leftist World View (and you people want this guy to be president?!)

A WARNING FOR CODE PINK

Normally when I write a blog post, I try to include a pic or two for context. But in this case, I just couldn't stomach any of the pics I saw online of this Code Pink group.

Part 1 - Some Background

I went to their website, though (link intentionally withheld - you're welcome). What I found was the website of a group who, on the surface, is simply sticking up for its right to free speech.

They want the US to pull its troops out of Iraq (and, I presume, Afghanistan, although I'm not sure they know the difference between the two). That's fine. Free speech being what it is, anyone speaking his or her mind on any topic such as this has my wholehearted support in doing so. I may disagree, but whatever. Disagreement is the whole point to protected free speech.

But I also reserve the right of rebuttal. Because what I found when I drilled a little deeper on Code Pink's website, was a thoroughly disgusting, anti-American, anti-military sentiment that runs deep.

Deep enough to call American troops in the field, during a war, murderers.

Deep enough to launch a whole section of their site dedicated to explaining how to 'combat' military recruiting in your schools.

Deep enough to launch a campaign to get the US Marines kicked out of Berkeley, California.

Now, I know, it's only Berserkeley, but my question is this: How far does a group like Code Pinko have to go before its actions run into Treason? How many members of your organization have to chain themselves to the doors of recruiting offices before someone gets charged with hindering US military operations?

And maybe even more important - What ever happened to Americans being Americans? What ever happened to supporting our military, instead of condemning them?

Marines are not murderers. There have been isolated incidents, yes, but that can't speak to the morality of the whole Marine Corps.

Marines are also not unwelcome intruders. They are the brave and valliant defenders of our liberties, including our right to free speech. They are the selfless, self-sacrificing guardians of Code Pinko's legal right to call them killers.

These Code Pinko people are sickening. They have the right to their opinion, of course - but their opinion is disgusting. This is the lowest form of human life I can imagine: People who thrive, living high on the hog (as we used to say back home), in that affluent American suburban way, never once in their lives wanting for anything, never lacking anything more serious than a fresh coat of paint on their white picket fences, while not only criticizing but actively opposing the very people who secured that life for them.

They make me sick, and I hope they have the same effect on you. These are the kind of people who demonstrate at the funeral services of fallen servicemembers, holding signs that give the thumbs-up to Bin Laden and company. These are the kind of people who spit on returning American veterans who've been in harm's way overseas for a year or more.

I've always known there were people out there who were demonstrating against our efforts in this war. I understand that, to an extent. But the kind of anti-American monsters who throw rocks at passing military folks, hold sit-ins and public breast feedings (?!) on the doorstep of a military recruiting office, and put up websites calling our valliant troops mercenaries - these things are far beyond anything I would have imagined. I'm thoroughly and completely disgusted.

Part 2 - My Message to Code Pink (and like groups)

I understand nonviolence, folks. I'm a Buddhist, after all. And I'd like nothing better than for this war to be over and for our troops to be home - All of them. But if you're connected in any way with a group like Code Pink, I'm begging you to do whatever you have to do to sever those ties immediately, and repent. Beg your country's forgiveness now, before it's too late. You don't have to support the war. But don't let me catch you chaining yourself to the doors of a military recruiting office in my town. Don't let me catch you doing anything to demean or hinder the United States Armed Forces. After all they've done for us - for you - I don't think there's a court anywhere in this country (except in California and probably New York) who'd punish a veteran for defending them.

NEXT UP: Boycott Berkeley!

Clarifying

After re-reading my inaugural post for this blog, I think I may have been a little misleading. This isn't going to be a strictly political, strictly stupidhead-bashing, or strictly anything else blog. My intent for this blog is to become a place for me to spout off about my own beliefs. Comments will be open to all, until that's abused and I have to moderate them. You can agree or disagree, call me an idiot, whatever.

Just a place to write about my positions, on a great many things. A few things, however, will not be covered here, because I have a few other blogs specifically for them.

Buddhism and topics of specific Buddhist interest will be covered on my Buddhist blog, Tengu House: http://www.tenguhouse.typepad.com/.

I write essays on the martial arts and related topics at Aiki-Kuzushi: http://aikikuzushi.blogspot.com/.

And you can follow the progress of my 1/35th scale military models projects at Panzers in the Pantry: http://panzerpantry.blogspot.com/.

Anything else will be covered here. I expect to post here roughly once a week, depending on what's going on. You might be surprised by what I have to say; Yes, I'm a Buddhist, but I'm also a conservative, and generally vote Republican (not always, though). Many of my stances tend to lean toward the liberal (I support gay marriage, for example). And sometimes I'm just neutral (stem cell research, among others). So read away, comment, and have fun. Or don't.

Inaugural Post

I guess I'm just fed up with typical American ignorance. I'm seeing it everywhere now, even (sometimes especially) in people with much greater education that mine. I'm seeing it pop up in every walk of American life: People who can calculate the effects of some physics equation in great detail, but who still think the price of milk is set by the president.

Tomorrow I'll probably post a story about this group called "Code Pink," a radical feminist peace-activist gang out in California, whose purpose right now is to shut down military recruiting stations in places like Berkeley. First of all, I'm wondering how many people the Marines are getting in places like that, where such openly anti-American activites are actually supported by City Council - and second, I'm wondering how it is that we as a nation are allowing radical groups like this to interfere with military business. But I'll explore this issue further in coming installments here at NDA.