Today's Cartoon

I know it's an old issue by now, but it's a sad day when the worst president in my lifetime berates the sitting president, in order to gain favor with the international community. There used to be a tradition among former presidents, wherein such derision was reserved for smoky back rooms and then only after said president left office.

But somehow, somewhere along the line, something really ugly happened. The liberal left devolved into the blame-America-first crowd, choosing to side with proven enemies of this country rather than accept (and work with) conservative leadership.

I tend to lump all of these people into one category. To my way of thinking, Code Pink and their lapdogs in Berkeley are the same as a Democrat senator who wants to make a law that I can only make so much money before my profits are capped. Same thing. Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, and Jimmy Carter. Poverty pimps, playing to the fears of the uneducated masses (and the educated and quasi-educated like Cindy Sheehan). These are all examples of what's wrong with America today.

The American way of life includes private enterprise. It also includes Marine Corps recuiters. Further, it includes people like me, supporting our president during a time of war, and has no room for the likes of Pelosi (purposely curtailing our ability to fight the war against terrorists by allowing the surveillance act to expire) and Carter (speaking out irrationally and irresponsibly against a sitting president in a time of war). Why don't we hear these people criticizing Ahmadinijad, or Muqtada al-Sadr? Why don't we see them doing something to actively support our war effort?

Why do we have to fight this war abroad AND fight these miscreants at home?


Great cartoon.

Obama's Anger

March 20, 2008
Obama's AngerBy Ed Kaitz

"The anger is real. It is powerful, and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races." - Barack Obama
.
Back in the late 1980s I was on a plane flying out of New Orleans and sitting next to me was a rather interesting and, according to Barack Obama, unusual black man. Friendly, gregarious, and wise beyond his years, we immediately hit it off. I had been working on Vietnamese commercial fishing boats for a few years based in southern Louisiana. The boats were owned by the recent wave of Vietnamese refugees who flooded into the familiar tropical environment after the war. Floating in calm seas out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico, I would hear tearful songs and tales from ex-paratroopers about losing brothers, sisters, parents, children, lovers, and beautiful Vietnam itself to the communists.
.
In Bayou country I lived on boats and in doublewide trailers, and like the rest of the Vietnamese refugees, I shopped at Wal-Mart and ate a lot of rice. When they arrived in Louisiana the refugees had no money (the money that they had was used to bribe their way out of Vietnam and into refugee camps in Thailand), few friends, and a mostly unfriendly and suspicious local population. They did however have strong families, a strong work ethic, and the "Audacity of Hope." Within a generation, with little or no knowledge of English, the Vietnamese had achieved dominance in the fishing industry there and their children were already achieving the top SAT scores in the state.

While I had been fishing my new black friend had been working as a prison psychologist in Missouri, and he was pursuing a higher degree in psychology. He was interested in my story, and after about an hour getting to know each other I asked him point blank why these Vietnamese refugees, with no money, friends, or knowledge of the language could be, within a generation, so successful. I also asked him why it was so difficult to convince young black men to abandon the streets and take advantage of the same kinds of opportunities that the Vietnamese had recently embraced. His answer, only a few words, not only floored me but became sort of a razor that has allowed me ever since to slice through all of the rhetoric regarding race relations that Democrats shovel our way during election season:
.
"We're owed and they aren't."
.
In short, he concluded, "they're hungry and we think we're owed. It's crushing us, and as long as we think we're owed we're going nowhere."A good test case for this theory is Katrina. Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and assorted white apologists continue to express anger and outrage over the federal response to the Katrina disaster. But where were the Vietnamese "leaders" expressing their "anger?" The Vietnamese comprise a substantial part of the New Orleans population, and yet are absent was any report claiming that the Vietnamese were "owed" anything. This is not to say that the federal response was an adequate one, but we need to take this as a sign that maybe the problem has very little to do with racism and a lot to with a mindset.
.
The mindset that one is "owed" something in life has not only affected black mobility in business but black mobility in education as well. Remember Ward Churchill? About fifteen years ago he was my boss. After leaving the fishing boats, I attended graduate school at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I managed to get a job on campus teaching expository writing to minority students who had been accepted provisionally into the university on an affirmative action program. And although I never met him, Ward Churchill, in addition to teaching in the ethnic studies department, helped to develop and organize the minority writing program.
The job paid most of my bills, but what I witnessed there was absolutely horrifying. The students were encouraged to write essays attacking the white establishment from every conceivable angle and in addition to defend affirmative action and other government programs. Of the hundreds of papers that I read, there was not one original contribution to the problem of black mobility that strayed from the party line.
.
The irony of it all however is that the "white establishment" managed to get them into the college and pay their entire tuition. Instead of being encouraged to study international affairs, classical or modern languages, philosophy or art, most of these students became ethnic studies or sociology majors because it allowed them to remain in disciplines whose orientation justified their existence at the university. In short, it became a vicious cycle.
.
There was a student there I'll never forget. He was plucked out of the projects in Denver and given a free ride to the university. One day in my office he told me that his mother had said the following to him: "M.J., they owe you this. White people at that university owe you this." M.J.'s experience at the university was a glorious fulfillment of his mother's angst.
.
There were black student organizations and other clubs that "facilitated" the minority student's experience on the majority white and "racist" campus, in addition to a plethora of faculty members, both white and black, who encouraged the same animus toward the white establishment. While adding to their own bona fides as part of the trendy Left, these "facilitators" supplied M.J. with everything he needed to quench his and his mother's anger, but nothing in the way of advice about how to succeed in college. No one, in short, had told M.J. that he needed to study. But since he was "owed" everything, why put out any effort on his own?
.
In a fit of despair after failing most of his classes, M.J. wandered into my office one Friday afternoon in the middle of the semester and asked if I could help him out. I asked M.J. about his plans that evening, and he told me that he usually attended parties on Friday and Saturday nights. I told him that if he agreed to meet me in front of the university library at 6:00pm I would buy him dinner. At 6pm M.J. showed up, and for the next twenty minutes we wandered silently through the stacks, lounges, and study areas of the library. When we arrived back at the entrance I asked M.J. if he noticed anything interesting. As we headed up the hill to a popular burger joint, M.J. turned to me and said:
.
"They were all Asian. Everyone in there was Asian, and it was Friday night."
.
Nothing I could do, say, or show him, however, could match the fire power of his support system favoring anger. I was sad to hear of M.J. dropping out of school the following semester.During my time teaching in the writing program, I watched Asians get transformed via leftist doublespeak from "minorities" to "model minorities" to "they're not minorities" in precise rhythm to their fortunes in business and education. Asians were "minorities" when they were struggling in this country, but they became "model minorities" when they achieved success. Keep in mind "model minority" did not mean what most of us think it means, i.e., something to emulate. "Model minority" meant that Asians had certain cultural advantages, such as a strong family tradition and a culture of scholarship that the black community lacked. To suggest that intact families and a philosophy of self-reliance could be the ticket to success would have undermined the entire angst establishment. Because of this it was improper to use Asian success as a model. The contortions the left exercised in order to defend this ridiculous thesis helped to pave the way for the elimination of Asians altogether from the status of "minority."
.
This whole process took only a few years.
.
Eric Hoffer said:
"...you do not win the weak by sharing your wealth with them; it will but infect them with greed and resentment. You can win the weak only by sharing your pride, hope or hatred with them."
.
We now know that Barack Obama really has no interest in the "audacity of hope." With his race speech, Obama became a peddler of angst, resentment and despair. Too bad he doesn't direct that angst at the liberal establishment that has sold black people a bill of goods since the 1960s. What Obama seems angry about is America itself and what it stands for; the same America that has provided fabulous opportunities for what my black friend called "hungry" minorities. Strong families, self-reliance, and a spirit of entrepreneurship should be held up as ideals for all races to emulate.
.
In the end, we should be very suspicious about Obama's anger and the recent frothings of his close friend Reverend Wright. Says Eric Hoffer:
.
The fact seems to be that we are least open to precise knowledge concerning the things we are most vehement about. Vehemence is the expression of a blind effort to support and uphold something that can never stand on its own.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_anger.html at March 31, 2008 - 07:31:41 AM EDT

Folks, this is the kind of thing I've been talking about all along. People like Obama, the Punitive Liberals, are the kind of people who swear and curse at the United States and its citizenry, even though that includes them, because of some percieved injustice - and are often so busy decrying that percieved injustice that they fail to see their own opportunities.

I know people who came to this country with absolutely nothing, not even an understanding of the English language - and are now successful business people, just like the folks in Mr. Kaitz's article. Nevermind their race. They started with nothing, and they built successful lives - because they don't care about race. They don't care about minority status. They care about working hard, keeping their faith, and caring for their families.

The same opportunities exist for everyone in this country. Period. All you have to do is go out there and find them. But until you forget about race and learn to just live your life, none of this will ever happen for you.

How 'Bout This One...

Today's Cartoon

Now if that don't bother ya, nothin will...

Today's Cartoon

I have no idea who did this cartoon. If you know, please let me know so I can credit him or her on this site.

Why Not? Well, I'll Tell You...

Adoring Obama-bots suck up every word - I think I found Waldo! Evidently he's attending a liberal arts college in the Midwest.
.

Although there haven’t been many comments on this site (no arguments?), I’ve been criticized elsewhere for my hard stance on Barack Obama. So, lest anyone think me a racist, I’m going to lay out once and for all the reasons why I dislike him as a candidate for president.

A) HIS RACIALLY-CHARGED RANTS, AND HIS UNDYING SUPPORT OF CLEARLY ANTI-AMERICAN AND RACIST FACTIONS: Rest assured that my opinion of Obama has nothing at all to do with his skin color, although I do strongly disagree with his views on race relations, and also with his poor handling of the comments of others, wherein he has repeatedly raised the issue of race, in order to show himself as the victim of racially-motivated unfairness. And he’s shown that he will immediately and publicly call for the sacking of anyone who suggests that he has taken advantage of his race (ala Geraldine Ferraro). I think that’s wrong because if you’re going to claim to be racially fair, then I think you shouldn’t criticize the stance of your opponents toward race. You can’t have it both ways.
.
Further, bringing up race in the first place is a deeply divisive thing to do. You may think that Senator Obama was only responding to the racial comments of his pastor when he brought race into the campaign, but that’s not accurate. It’s not accurate because Jeremiah Wright’s comments weren’t only anti-white, but they were also anti-American (“God damn America” is about as anti-American as a person can get, in my view).
.
While it is true that Obama shouldn’t be held accountable for the statements of his pastor (this is a common defense of his recent position), I feel that he should be held accountable for his support of that particular individual. The man who says “God damn America” and calls this country the “US of KKK America” isn’t just Obama’s pastor. Obama has called him “the man who is more responsible for shaping my political vision than anyone else”. That means that he agrees with the ‘reverend’, in a political way as opposed to merely in a religious way. I feel that it is imperative to hold him accountable for what are quite obviously wrong views, if that’s the case.
.
Senator Obama’s racially charged statements about his own grandmother, calling her “a typical white woman” because she was “afraid” of black people, is also an offensive statement. It is, at the very least, a further divisive and racially-charged comment. I would go so far as to use the word racist, even. Either way, I think this is hardly acceptable behavior from a man who routinely calls his political opponents “the forces of division in America.” You can't point your finger at me and cry 'Divisive!' when you're playing the race card, because playing the race card is probably the most divisive thing in America right now.
.
B) HIS INCREDIBLE SPENDING SPREE POLICIES: Senator Barack Obama is the very definition of a liberal Democrat. By this I mean that he is ideologically my opposite. While I do not consider myself a conservative Republican (conservative, yes; Republican, no), I believe that my business is my business, and my responsibilities are my responsibilities. I don’t turn to the government to secure for me my job, my income, my home, my insurance, or anything else. The exceptions to this are those few Jeffersonian duties of the federal government that cannot be delegated to the states, or to the family (or the individual, as in my case). Liberal Democrats believe that the government should provide as many of these things (job, income, home, insurance, etc) as possible. And to do that, the government must grow. In order to grow, it must increase taxes. In order to increase taxes, it must first convince you, the taxpayer, that enough is wrong with the country that you need more government.
.
Lest anyone suspect me of making all this up, I invite you have a look at the records of the Carter and Clinton administrations. Also, a quick read of the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama websites might be in order. Tally up the cost of the new government programs proposed by either of those liberal Democrat candidates.
I’ve taken the liberty of reading through them, and I have to admit that I like Hillary better. At least, hers would be the less expensive of the two programs. Her husband Bill (you know, Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend) enacted the single largest tax increase in American (in world, actually) history, increasing the US Federally-collected tax by $260 billion over five years. Senator Obama’s tax increase would beat that by at least $40 billion in the first year – and would top $3 trillion by the end of his first term. This means that the annual federal income tax for an income of $62,000 would increase by $5,300. That’s not $5,300 in taxes next year – that’s an increase of $5,300 next year over what you paid this year. All to pay for more unnecessary government bloat.

All that additional tax money would go toward funding exorbitant federal programs to provide health care insurance for people who don't work, "economic opportunities" for minorities only, and massive federal agencies designed to ensure that the unemployed have insurance they can't pay for (but you can) while your company's profits are closely regulated (you can only make so much).
.
C) DANGEROUSLY UNREALISTIC IDEAS ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY, FOREIGN POLICY, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND OTHER TOPICS: Senator Obama has put forward his plan for fixing what’s wrong with the world. Trouble is, as we might have expected, it’s one of the most deeply flawed, unrealistic and illogical policy plans ever put to paper (at least, the worst I’ve ever read; I’m sure Joseph Stalin’s was more drastic).
.
The Obama campaign has intentionally avoided policy questions from the beginning, preferring to run television ads espousing its principles – but light on substance. We’re left to glean what we can from the Obama campaign’s website, http://www.barackobama.com/.
.
Millions of people in this country are infatuated with the idea of change and hope. I am too, for that matter. It’s time for this country to take a real, substantial turn toward victory in the war, further economic prosperity, and personal freedom. Unfortunately, Senator Obama offers none of these things, in any real sense – but that doesn’t matter to his supporters. With that in mind, I’ve taken the liberty of debunking a few of his talking points, taken directly from his website on March 19th, 2008. Comments in blue are mine.
.
I’ve tried to be objective in my approach, and I must admit I’m wondering why the media haven’t picked up on any of these issues yet.
.
Iraq: End the war in Iraq, removing our troops at a pace of 1 to 2 combat brigades per month, with all combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months;
....1. One is left to wonder how the United States can expect to combat al-Qaeda in Iraq without combat troops on the ground. Does Senator Obama intend to withdraw “combat brigades” from Iraq while leaving support troops there? Does he intend to combat al-Qaeda with support troops only? Or, is it his intention to simply allow al-Qaeda to thrive in Iraq, without combating them at all? He has already made both vows: to withdraw ALL combat troops from Iraq, and to fight al-Qaeda if they're in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq, whether we like it or not - whether Senator Obama wants to accept it or not. And I for one believe that it is imperative for this nation that we fight them wherever they may be, as opposed to simply leaving Iraq for them to take over through their usual campaign of terror.
.....2. Further, America’s efforts in Iraq are finally paying off. Sectarian violence is down, and the people in cities like Baghdad are once again returning to their lives. The stranglehold that insurgent groups like al-Qaeda once imposed on the civilian populace, through intimidation and terror, is greatly diminished. The best time to pull our troops out of Iraq would be after this battle is finally won – not just when it starts to show promise. President Bush said when we first went into Iraq that this was going to be a long and difficult ordeal, and he asked the American people to be patient while things happen in Iraq.

.....3. Anyone can see how setting such a timeline as “within 16 months” emboldens our enemy. In World War Two, if, just when the Allied forces were beginning to make progress against the Germans in Europe, the US government said, “We’re going to pull out of Europe within 16 months, leaving only support troops there to defend the locals who don’t have an effective military in place yet,” all the Germans would have done is to wait it out. Then, once we were gone…well, we know what would have happened. This is a very good way to define the term “foreign policy failure”. The United States needs to remain in place in Iraq, at least until such time as the Iraqi military is ready to stand on its own and to defeat terrorists and extremists within Iraq. Period. It’s not pretty, but it is the only serious, realistic option at this time.
.
Afghanistan: Finally finish the fight against the Taliban, root out al Qaeda and invest in the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, while making aid to the Pakistani government conditional;
I think “finally finish[ing] the fight against the Taliban” is going to prove much more difficult than the Senator understands at this time. He makes it sound as if he’s the only candidate in this race who wants to defeat the Taliban once and for all, but he’s not showing us that he has the ability to do it, any more than anyone else would.
What does “invest in” mean? The United States has troops on the ground in Afghanistan, as well as thousands of civilian support workers, aid workers and government contractors. We’ve spent BILLIONS in an ongoing effort to improve the lives of the Afghan people through education, medical aid, disaster relief, poverty relief, vocational training, and security. If that’s not investing, then I don’t understand the meaning of the word.
The Pakistani government is in turmoil right now, with the recent murder of Bhutto and the difficulties faced by Musharaf’s party. I agree that tough diplomacy is needed. But making aid conditional is hardly the answer. It may be time to step up our military intervention in the country, in an effort to break the links between the Pakistani military and the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists who are being protected by the military in the five federally-administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border, to the immediate southwest of Peshawar, including North and South Waziristan.
.
Nuclear Proliferation: Act aggressively to stop nuclear proliferation and to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world;
This may simply be the voice of inexperience talking. How exactly does Obama intend to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world? Especially since he has expressed already that he would rule out the use of military action against Iran… You can’t fight nuclear proliferation without addressing the issue of the rogue states that already possess, or are actively trying to develop, nuclear weapons.
I agree that it’s too early to seriously consider military action against Iran. There are still more avenues to explore before things get truly nasty there. But diplomacy for the sake of diplomacy doesn’t always work. The Iranian government has already announced that there will be no talks with the United States, period – no matter who is president. If forcing talks is the goal, then the party who is most willing to walk away from those talks will hold all the cards. And that puts the United States at a marked disadvantage, before those talks even begin. Talking to our enemies just for the sake of showing the world that we’re willing to talk to our enemies – such policy is the mark of a painfully inexperienced politician, and would be a complete foreign relations fiasco within Obama's first hundred days in office.
.
Foreign Aid: Double our foreign assistance (to $50 billion) to cut extreme poverty in half;
Traditional liberal dogma holds that the answer to the problem – whatever that problem may be – is to raise taxes, thus increasing the size and power of the government; then the government can put some social program in place that will fix the problem, frequently accompanied by a new government agency to oversee that program, which in turn requires more funding, thus further increasing taxes. The reason it doesn’t work is that the government is a collection of bloated beaurocracies already, and is thus naturally the least efficient source of prosperity in the country.
The reason it’s still tried again and again is that the liberal mindset causes people to believe that the reason it didn’t work last time is that the right people haven’t tried it yet. This time it’ll work. No, well, this time...
When this bloated, inefficient and illogical approach is applied to foreign policy, the first concept it produces is that increasing foreign aid will decrease foreign poverty. That’s simply not how it works. If a man has no money and you give him a hundred dollars, he can simply spend the hundred dollars and still have no money. And the analogy is especially stunning when you realize that the "you" in question had to steal the hundred dollars in the first place.

.

But the reality on the ground is seldom a good enough reason for the bloated federal government not to do something stupid.
.

If none of this is getting through, then ask yourself this: If the United States were to double our foreign ad, who would pay for that additional $25 billion? Do you think the government has that kind of money lying around, waiting for Senator Obama to earmark it for foreign assistance? Or do you understand that this is tax money, and that it will come directly out of your pocket?
Keep reading. This is only one of about a dozen government excesses proposed in this plan. I can only outline a few of them, though (there are only so many hours in the day).
.
Foreign Aid: Increase non-military aid to Afghanistan by $1 billion
Another billion to add to that $25 billion? Same issue. The United States is already spending billions of dollars in non-military aid in places like Afghanistan. I’m not opposed to it, but if you’re going to vote for more, you need to know where that money is coming from. And any time a Democrat administration proposes more spending, that money comes from increased taxes, according to their tax-and-spend ideology.
.
Foreign Aid: 100% debt cancellation for indebted poor countries
In general, I’m not opposed to debt forgiveness – especially in regard to developing nations. I supported the Bush Administration’s complete forgiveness of all outstanding debts to Liberia, for example (it should be noted here that the Bush administration has cancelled far more foreign debt than did its predecessor). However, even using blanket statements such as “100% debt cancellation” are yet another mark of either inexperience and naïveté, or of the kind of hubris that assumes that you and I will never know the difference. Such policies as debt forgiveness and the release of loan guarantees should be addressed on an individual basis.
.
Energy Policy: Invest in a clean energy future to wean the U.S. off of foreign oil and to lead the world against the threat of global climate change;
How? By pursuing economically destructive policies like the Kyoto Accord? Why is this talking point left so vague?
Because vagarities like this are all that’s needed when you’re preaching about the New Liberal Religion, global warming. Show me something substantial on this subject, and I’ll show you an international scientific community that’s been told to shut up in the face of increasing (and unfounded) concern over the non-existent and nonsensical global warming scare.
.
National Defense: Rebuild our military capability by increasing the number of soldiers, Marines, and special forces troops, and insist on adequate training and time off between deployments;
Again, simply promising to increase the military shows a lack of understanding of how the military works. And we’re left to wonder what Senator Obama means by “insist” on adequate time off, etc…
.
National Defense: Obama will rebuild trust with those who serve by ensuring that soldiers and Marines have sufficient training time before they are sent into battle.
This makes it sound like the military under the Bush Administration is sending troops “into battle” without the proper training. But the reality is this: The military has certain standards that must be met by all members. These include a period of basic training (called “boot camp” by the Marines and Navy, and “basic training” by the Army and Air Force). After basic, personnel must attend (and pass, of course) a school for their assigned specialty. NO ONE in today’s United States military is “sent into battle” without the proper training. No one. Period. And to suggest otherwise is again divisive and offensive to the military, in the finest tradition of Bill Clinton.
.
Foreign Policy: Renew American diplomacy by talking to our adversaries as well as our friends; increasing the size of the Foreign Service and the Peace Corps; and creating an America's Voice Corps.
Diplomacy for the sake of diplomacy – talking to our enemies just to talk to our enemies – doesn’t necessarily work, and is sometimes a terrible idea. Increasing the size of the Foreign Service (that’s the embassy staff, for example) and Peace Corps is a great idea, if you want to pay for it – and I wonder who’s going to pay for it. But “increasing the size of the Peace Corps” is another way of saying “increasing foreign aid”, so we’re again left to wonder whether this increase is included in the original $25 billion, or if it’s additional to that.
Creating an America’s Voice Corps – which is strangely left vague on the senator’s website – means creating yet another government agency, the purpose of which is left to the voter’s imagination - as is its cost.
.
Climate Change: Provide more assistance to developing countries to help them fuel their growth with greener energy
Without more details, we’re left to wonder exactly how much of what kind of assistance the senator is proposing. Also, what exactly is meant by “fuel their growth with greener energy”? Is there some measure by which the United States can tell if these efforts are successful in the future, or are we simply pouring money into these countries in the hope that they’ll eventually adopt more efficient energy solutions? What countries are we talking about, and what exactly is meant by "greener energy"? Are we going to regulate what kind of light bulbs can be used in - -oh, say, Laos?
.
Climate Change: Creation of a new Global Energy Forum…will call on the Global Energy Forum to launch the GEE (Global Energy and Environment Initiative)
This is where we see the New Liberal Religion – global warming – take on a political life of its own. Senator Obama is proposing not one but two new government projects here: the Global Energy Forum (a new social program that would force “our” crazy global warming politics on our neighbors), and the GEE (a brand-new government agency to oversee it).
Again, I have to ask: Who’s going to pay for all this? How much, do you think, your taxes are going to rise to cover all of this?
.
Climate Change: Will also create an Emerging Market Energy Fund to expand the developing world’s renewable energy portfolio
The amount this senator is willing to tax and spend is incredible. No one – not even Carter – could accomplish all of this economic destruction in one or even two terms. This talking point introduces yet another brand-new government agency to watchdog how the developing world handles its energy issues.
.
National Defense: Increase the size of the Army by 65,000 troops and the Marines by 27,000 troops.
The only way I can see to increase the size of the military by 92,000 people would be to institute a draft. And isn’t that what so many Americans were so afraid Bush was going to do?
.
D) COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE NATIONAL DEFENSE STRUCTURE WORKS, AND A CLINTONESQUE DISTAIN FOR THE MILITARY: Given the statements made in Senator Obama’s recent campaign speeches and on his website, I’ve come to the conclusion that he has no idea how the US military works – nor does he wish to find out. In true liberal Democrat fashion, Obama wants to use the military as a campaign tool instead of as a tool for securing our continued freedom for tyranny and oppression. Below is an excerpt from his talking points. Again, my comments are in blue:
.
“Rebuild the military for 21st century tasks: As we rebuild our armed forces, we must meet the full-spectrum needs of the new century, not simply recreate the military of the Cold War era. The US Military must: build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, engineers, foreign area officers, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets; and create a specialized military advisors corps, which will enable us to better build up local allies’ capacities to take on mutual threats.”
See folks, this is where I have to just stop and take a breath. This is so obviously written by people who just plain don’t understand the military and don’t get the real challenges that are facing this country right now, out here in the real word. Let’s break it down:
.
"As we rebuild our armed forces, we must meet the full-spectrum needs of the new century, not simply recreate the military of the Cold War era." Sounds good, right? But the reality is that US military is doing a great deal more than just re-creating the Cold-War era military, and to suggest otherwise is simply divisive and offensive to our military.
.
"The US Military must: build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, engineers, foreign area officers, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply"; Simply promising to increase these capabilities and bolster Special Operations units isn’t going to prepare this nation for the military challenges ahead. And promising is all you can do, until you can somehow promise to increase recruiting. And NO Democratic candidate would ever promise that, because military recruiting flies in the face of some of their staunchest supporters (see Code Pink’s website: http://www.codepink4peace.org/).
.
"invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets"; Once again, we’re making the assumption that these things aren’t already being done. I wonder if the Senator is aware that the United States Army currently operates the single finest foreign language training school in the world (Defense Language Institute - website: http://www.dliflc.edu/). The ability of the Unites States Military to adapt and operate in a foreign environment is well-documented. Almost immediately after al-Qaeda’s attack on the US in September 2001, American Special Forces and other military and civilian personnel used their “foreign language training, cultural awareness and human intelligence” to organize, equip, train and lead the forces of the Northern Alliance into battle against the forces of the Taliban throughout Afghanistan. Let’s not pretend that the American military is just waiting for Barack Obama to come and provide them with these things.
.

"And create a specialized military advisors corps, which will enable us to better build up local allies’ capacities to take on mutual threats." We have this also. It’s called the Special Forces. See for yourself: http://www.goarmy.com/special_forces/index.jsp?iom=9448-ITBP-ACSF-01012008-29-07021-TEXTAD. It has been the mission of the US Army Special Forces to advise foreign militaries, especially those of our local allies, since its inception in the 1950s. Again, written by people who have not the foggiest idea how the military works – perhaps a little experience would have prevented this error.
.
.
Folks, this information is readily available on Barack Obama’s own campaign website. No one can accuse me of making it up, or of embellishing it in any way. It’s a simple, step-by-step analysis of what the man is saying when he speaks beyond focus-group-tested buzz words like “hope” and “change”. And there’s a lot more out there. In this message, I haven’t even touched on the impossibilities hidden in his healthcare plan, or his proposal to limit – by federal law, mind you – the amount of profit a corporation can make.
Supporters of Obama will not engage you in discussions about his policies – I’ve tried to draw them out, and they won’t even talk about it. The few that I’ve met so far don’t even know about his policies anyway. Their argument is that we need a change and he’s it. Period.
But folks, we need more than a change. We need the right change. We need change that will benefit us, not hurt us. Change that won’t reduce our paychecks to pocket change.

Barack Obama has let me down in a huge way. I like the idea of someone running this country who's not another old, rich, white man. But the things he's proposing are so outlandish as to be laughable - except that he's dead serious. When politicians start talking about taking things away from you for the common good, they're espousing ideologies that fly in the face of American enterprise and stand counter to the natural will of all people to exercise their own freedom according to the desires of their heart. The things Obama says he wants - economic opportunity, racial unity, hope and change - are born of freedom itself, not handed out through government programs at the cost of the unwilling. And while he's trying to win votes by calling his own grandmother a "typical white woman," the rest of us are going about our business. We're getting up in the morning and going to jobs that wouldn't give us enough time off to run for president, so that we can afford our own health insurance, without government assistance. That, my friends, is how Americans do it.

.

And that's why not Obama. Any questions?

My Response to Obama's Race-Baiting Speech

Senator Obama has graced us with yet another racially-charged, finger-pointing speech this morning. He says that race has only just now become an issue in his campaign, because of the recent media attention given to Reverend Wright.
Well I have to raise the BS flag. Obama has made race an issue throughout his campaign, from the earliest speeches until now - and I'm sure he will continue to do so.

Portions in black are from Obama's speech this morning in Philadelphia. The parts in blue are my reaction.

.
.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. This man pretends that this is the first time he’s mentioned his racially mixed background, when in fact his entire campaign is built on it.
.
I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners -- an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. Huh? The blood of slaves and slaveowners?
.
I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible. The first positive thing I’ve heard a liberal say about the United States in a long time – maybe years. But wait - he'll refute it. Because his "story" is one of dengrating this country and everything it stands for. Keep reading.
.
Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African-Americans and white Americans. I think this shows us that either Senator Obama doesn’t know much about South Carolina, or is intentionally using the imagery of the Confederate Battle Flag to incite racial division. Because while the flag may still fly over the state, the population of South Carolina is overwhelmingly black. Either he knows this and is misleading people, or he should know this.
.
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn. Actually, his earliest speeches were all about race. The first speech I heard him deliver on this campaign was all about how amazing it was that a black man, with a black name, could get this far in tlife, in such a racist country. It's also funny he should use the word divisive here. When he said, “We have CEOs who make more in ten minutes than the average worker makes in a year,” he was drawing racial lines. Because he pointed an accusing finger at corporate CEOs, who are predominately white, but he never mentioned professional athletes – who also make more in ten minutes than the average worker makes in a year – but are predominately black.

Very few people noticed this. No one in the Obama camp noticed it. They don’t want to hear it – all they want to show you is their own blind allegiance to the “movement.”.
.
On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation -- that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Actually, I think we’re beyond questions. Twenty years beyond questions, in fact. You don’t stay with a church or with any other organization for twenty years unless you agree implicitly with its message, PERIOD. And you don’t, now that you’ve been caught, suddenly denounce those horrible statements in front of the cameras. Either you believe it, or you don’t – and if you stick with it for twenty years, you believe it. Don’t insult my intelligence now.
.
And let's stop pretending that Wright is his former pastor. He is still an active religous and spiritual mentor to the Obama family.
.
Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. Yeah. I’ve heard my pastor (and a priest and a rabbi) scream “God damn America!” over and over again, while the folks in the church shout “Yes Lawd!” Yup, that’s happened lots of times.

In all seriousness, I did hear a pastor use the N word a long time ago. This was in South Carolina, when I was about sixteen years old. I never went back to that church, and I advised everyone I could not to go there, either. See, here’s the difference: I denounced that crap back then, as opposed to sticking with the church for twenty years and only just now – now that the pressure is on – denouncing the bad parts of the message.
.
Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions -- the good and the bad -- of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. Of course. He’s never said anything negative about anyone. He’s a wonderful man. He’s a pillar of the community. Oh, and, uh, GOD DAMN AMERICA.
.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. So, even Obama’s own grandmother was a racist, even though he can’t point to her without pointing out her race (she’s not “my grandmother,” she’s “my white grandmother.”
.
We can dismiss Rev. Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias. He’s comparing Wright’s statements (“God damn America”) to Ferraro’s statements (that Obama wouldn’t be where he is today if he were white)? Uh huh, those are the same. Yup.
.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through -- a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. Typical liberal issue-clouding. The comments that have been made and the issues that have been raised in recent weeks reflect Barack Obama’s ongoing relationship with known racists and anti-semites. Not the “complexities of race in this country.”
.
Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we never miss an opportunity to bring it up, do we?
.
But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.
Legalized discrimination -- where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments -- meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations.
That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families -- a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.
And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods -- parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement -- all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
Typical punitive liberal race-baiting. More and more and more – any excuse to remind us of what’s wrong with (and what’s always been wrong with) the United States. No wonder his wife isn’t proud of the USA. But I remember that all of the schools I attended were integrated.
.
And it means taking full responsibility for own lives -- by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny. Yup, taking full responsibility – as long as the government pays for our health care. Right? And since when does ‘”taking full responsibility” mean demanding (the government demanding, that is) more from other people? The government telling us what (or how) to teach our children?
.
We also see the use here of one of Senator Obama’s favorite words: DESPAIR. See, these people would have you believe that this country is in a state of despair, and that only HE has the moral fortitude to offer hope in the face of that despair.
.
We as a nation – as a PEOPLE, regardless of race, regardless of the color of our grandmother, and regardless of our own individual economic standing, MUST REJECT this pessimistic world view. We must realize that this is the GREATEST nation on the face of the earth. Far from being something to be ashamed of, far from being something that needs to be FIXED at its foundations, this country has given each of us far more than each of us has given her.
.
We as a nation need to realize, once and for all, that in this country all people are given the same opportunities. If this is not true, then I challenge anyone out there to show me definitively where a BLACK MAN doesn’t have the exact same opportunities that I (as a white man) have.
.
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. So everything that’s wrong with this country is all about the black community? What about what’s wrong elsewhere? What about what’s not wrong with the black community? Is it up to the rest of us to fix your poverty? Once again, we see the punitive liberal world view at work. These are people who believe that it’s not my place to ensure that I have a job – it’s the government’s place to ensure that. It’s not my place to see to it that I have insurance, if I need it – it’s the government’s. And it’s not my sole responsibility to put food on my table – it’s the government’s responsibility.
.
Every time you walk into a Subway or a Quizno’s or any other retail establishment, you check the prices of the goods offered. If they’re too high, then you have too choices. You can either walk out, or pay the too-high prices. The liberal world view holds that these prices are too high because of some intentional, evil plot to segregate society into the haves (the whites) and the have-nots (everyone else, with a few enlightened whites thrown in to tell the rest of us how wrong we are). Invariably, those who cling to this world view fall into the have-nots. It’s a way of justifying failure.
.
What would happen if those same have-nots suddenly came to the painful realization that their own failure is just that? What if they suddenly woke up and saw that they have the exact same opportunities in this country as I have, but that, by buying into this whole us-versus-them mentality, they’ve let those opportunities pass them by?
.
It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper. If you want to raise my taxes (according to one estimate I’ve seen in the past two weeks, by something like $800 BILLION) in order to pay for the health insurance of millions of people who won’t go out and get jobs to feed their own families, then you shouldn’t talk about one person’s dreams coming at the expense of someone else.
.
Folks, this is the most egregious example of race-baiting, of racially-biased pandering to the lowest common denominator I’ve ever seen. It’s exactly this kind of divisive, wedge-driving, hate-inducing speech that turned me away from the Democratic Party in high school.
What we need in this country is NOT more race crap. We do NOT need to be told YET AGAIN how bad white people are and how downtrodden black people are. What we need is more individual responsibility. We need stronger families. We need the government to get the hell out of our lives and out of our pockets.
.
We need to act like a country again, and not like a bunch of whining babies, crying about how the big kids took our toys. You have all the same opportunities I have. Can a black man not vote, same as me? Can a black man not get hired, same as me (qualifications assumed)? Take responsibility for your own goddamn life, and quit blaming Whitey. Because I don’t give a shit about your race; I don’t give a shit if you’re white or black, yellow, brown, green, whatever. I don’t care if you’re gay, straight or other, and I don’t care where you came from. It’s not my fault if you don’t have whatever you want or need in life. It’s yours.

Anti-American Sheehan Raises Her Ugly Head Again

Chickens of Our Own Making
Sat, 2008-03-15
By Cindy Sheehan

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” Reverend Jeremiah Wright; Sept. 16th 2001

.

White America refuses to study, reflect, and learn a lesson from history…
Malcom X in “Chickens Coming Home to Roost”

Malcolm X’s story is familiar to many people here in America. Denzel Washington played him brilliantly in the eponymous movie. Malcolm X never backed down from a challenge or from the truth. In his speech after the horrible assassination of Pres. John Kennedy, he rightly said that, “White America refuses to study, reflect and learn lessons from history.” Apparently, some people in black America aren’t so good at learning from the past, either.

.

Senator Barack Obama is being credited by many with being the candidate of “change and hope.” For the life of me, I would love to believe this. I would love to believe that anyone who is still involved in the race for the White House (that is rarely won by the most honest, sharpest, or best candidate) will bring hope and healing to our broken nation that desperately needs it. After almost eight years of ruinous BushCo, and really since April 30, 1789 when George Washington took his first oath of office, our country has been ruled by white men who have been several cuts above our third president named George, but who more often than not have been disastrous, also.

.

Barack Obama has denounced the above remarks of his mentor and pastor, Rev. Wright saying: “I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies.” Let’s parse the Rev’s statement.

.

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”

.

Yes, on December 7th, 1941 (another day that will live in infamy), a US Naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was attacked by Japan. On that day, 2338 American service personnel were tragically killed, but there was little of what our Pentagon calls “collateral damage,” civilians killed. As a matter of fact, during WWII, Japan killed very few American civilians. However, the US military command in the Pacific killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in aerial bombings and with the use of the new WMD; H-bombs. General Curtis LeMay informed future Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara (who was under LeMay during WWII), that if the US had lost they would have been tried as “war criminals.” The loss of innocent life in Japan was numbered in the hundred of thousands and I don’t hear Senator Obama denouncing those acts of cowardice.

.

We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans,

.

I think there is little dispute that Israel (which I assume is what Obama refers to when he says “allies”) receives approximately three billion dollars in aid from the U.S. each year and have brutally oppressed and occupied Palestinian lands for decades. In a one week’s period this month, Israel killed over 300 Palestinians and was “shocked” when 8 Jewish seminary students were killed in return. I hate and reject all loss of innocent life no matter what is the color, religion or nation of origin. I think Senator Obama may buy into the neocon lie that somehow Israeli or American lives are more precious than Arab lives or black lives. Not only has the US supported state-sanctioned terrorism in such places as Palestine and South Africa, but we are committing some more of our own in Iraq and Afghanistan.

.

…and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

.

Yes, with arrogant American exceptionalism, we were indignant when almost 3000 of our brothers and sisters were killed on 9-11. We were indignant and we were stunned, shocked and sorrowed. But instead of searching our collective souls and reflecting about why they “hate us” so much, our insane president (backed by a bloodthirsty gang of racist opportunists) set off on a mission to send more chickens out into the world that will be a helluva bitch when they come home to roost.

.

Senator Obama also denounced any remarks that “disparaged our great country.” Hmm…does he denounce remarks that his own wife made about being proud to be an American for the first time in her “adult life?” I wish I could be proud of a nation that tortures people and imprisons them without basic legal rights. I wish I could be proud of a nation that has a sitting president that has been responsible for killing almost a million innocent Iraqi people in a misadventure that was based on lies and is for profit. I wish I could be proud of a nation that rapes its poor people to feed the already rich in a demented reverse Robin Hood affect. I wish I could be proud of a country where over a million children are homeless and hungry every night. I wish I could be proud of a nation that left our black brothers and sisters hanging off of their roofs after Katrina. The list can go on and on. Senator Obama needs to denounce me, because the policies of our government do not make me proud and oftentimes endlessly disgust me.

.

As a nation, we need to pull together and denounce the policies of our government, which were the cause of 9/11. We need to apologize for the gory excesses of BushCo and we must learn how to conserve and cut-back on our own consumeristic orgies to give the rest of the world some creature comforts that are basic human rights. We need to call our “chickens” back home to peacefully roost before they roost again in violence.

.

I sit here behind my computer screen in solidarity with Rev. Wright. Not only do I not denounce him, but I support him in telling the truth. I wish Senator Obama would recall how he once stood for truth. A desk in the oval office that has been corrupted by years of calumny is not worth selling ones soul for.

.

We need to “study, reflect and learn” from our history that has been violent, but where elected officials mostly fed the carnage for imperial conquest and corporate profit. The next step is “change.” True change; not more of nationalistic “same old, same old.” with a different name.

.

.

Thanks to sweetness&light for bringing this one into the light of day. It's a beautiful example of just how anti-American these people are - these punitive liberals, who quite simply hate the United States, although they gladly accept all the suburban benefits that this country has to offer.

.

The United States deployed the atomic bomb (not an H-bomb, Cindy) on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end a horrific war between the United States and Japan. Japan had already killed thousands of American civilians, whether you choose to believe that or not. The United States could have chosen Tokyo, Japan's capital and her most heavily-populated city, as the target, but chose instead the less heavily-populated centers of her industrial and military production, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was done in order to force a Japanese surrender and avoid what would have been the costliest and deadliest amphibious invasion in history.

.

You can easily see, dear reader, how these people distort history for their own advantage. They twist the truth in order to make baseless accusations against their own country. It's fascinating to me that after bashing this country in whatever forum will listen to them, they still get all upset if you call them anti-American. This little tirade by Sheehan, this little, poorly-written, rambling whimper by a used-up nobody who should be sitting on her front porch right now, knitting a gag for herself, was written in defense of a so-called pastor like Jeremiah Wright...

.

So, here we have it. Distorting history in order to blame World War Two on the country that ended it - in an attempt to defend a hate-mongering preacher who says things like "God damn America"...Folks, ya can't get much more anti-American than that.

Who Cares Who Pays For It, Right?

A twenty-minute wandering through Barack Obama's website this morning got me to wondering who's going to pay for all these grand schemes he's promising.

Look what he's offering you, the American taxpayer. Mind you, this is just from one or two issues on his "On The Issues" page. There are about thirty issues listed. Comments in blue are mine.


reverse the politicization that has occurred in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice. What the heck does that mean? Does the senator wish to inform the American people at this time that "politicization" doesn't occur within the Democratic Party?

put an end to the ideological litmus tests used to fill positions within the Civil Rights Division So, Obama is saying that he won't fill appointee positions by ideology? What will he use, eeny-meeny-miny-moe?

overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination I guess I'm out of touch - but I didn't know the President could overturn Supreme Court rulings. Did you?

pass the Fair Pay Act Here's where we get into the nitty-gritty of the liveral Democrat playbook. Watch how many of these points are designed to (a) first, convince you that there's something inherently wrong with this country, with the world, and witht he way everything is sooo skewed against you that you need our (the government's) help, in order to live; (b) convince you that the unfair nature of the world is due to race, gender, and whatever other class you can identify people with; and then (c) sell you a bloated, big-government "solution" designed to keep those who are oppressing you in their place. In this case, look how unfair pay is. Look how you don't stand a chance without our (the government's) help. Good thing we're ready with a solution, huh?

strengthen federal hate crimes legislation See? Not, "strengthen all criminal justice related legislation", as the majority of crimes are committed by minorities - but specifically legislation concerned with hate crimes, meaning crimes committed against minorities. This is not only pandering, but it's part of a typically liberal platform that seeks to play on the minority mindset that everything wrong is life is the fault of those not in the minority.

sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud It's not exactly legal right now, is it?


ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement Again with race. How about banning race-baiting by federal politicians?

provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders I wonder if it wouldn't be more fruitful to offer it to those who deserve it, rather than to criminals? Just a thought...

create a prison-to-work incentive program I could've sworn that such a program existed already. But who cares, as long as we can promise yet another federal program. And is there a new federal beaurocracy to go along with it?

give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior. Nevermind the punishment. Send 'em to Club Med. What the heck - the taxpayer'll pick up the tab!

Fully funding the Individuals with Disabilites Education Act "Funding" seems to be this guy's favorite word. Mine's "freedom." What's yours?

Early Intervention for Children with Disabilities He also likes the word "intervention" a lot, doesn't he? How about you leave our children alone, and let them live their lives? Too difficult a concept for ya?

Universal Screening Never heard of individual choice, I guess. Screening of all kinds is universally available now. You don't have to be Dick Cheney to recieve medical care, including all manner of screening. HOWEVER, it's still up to the individual to actually take advantage of it. That little truth would never get an arch-liberal elected, would it?

Vocational Rehabilitation Programs You mean a government version of the vocat5ional rehabilitation programs that are available now? So, the difference is what? (other than who pays for it - because I don't wanna pay for your vocational rehabilitation, and I don't see any reason why I should have to)

American Opportunity Tax Credit: universal credit ensures that the first $4,000 of college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds of the cost of tuition REALLY? You mean every American goes through at least a week of college on the taxpayers' dime? WOW! What a friggin GENIUS! I can't believe anyone wants to elect this guy president

Community College Partnership Program: providing grants to (a) conduct more thorough analysis of the types of skills and technical education that are in high demand from students and local industry; (b) implement new associate of arts degree programs that cater to emerging industry and technical career demands; and (c) reward those institutions that graduate more students and also increase their number of transfer students to four-year institutions. Okay, you see a pattern developing here? YOU PAY MORE so that the GOVERNMENT can FORCE more UNNECESSARY CRAP on PEOPLE who DON'T NEED more UNNECESSARY CRAP.

Authorize a comprehensive study of students with disabilities and transition to work and higher education WHAT?! I don't even understand that one.

Increasing funding for EEOC Of course. I'm surprised he's not proposing a whole new version of the EEOC. Maybe call it the NEE&EOCFAATD (the New Equal Employment & Economic Opportunity Comission for African American Taxi Drivers), complete with a ten-year, twenty-billion-dollar international study commissioned by the United Nations and overseen by the newly-created Office of the State of Race Relations in America, to study the migratory patterns of the African American Democratic Super-Delegate. Add another 2% to your taxes, folks.

I think you see where this is going. Look, folks. Happiness doesn't flow from the hand of some all-powerful, over-taxing government. It flows from your own hard work and a personal determination to find your happiness. As long as you depend on some cradle-to-grave handout system, you'll never achieve anything worth arguing about. It's an ideological struggle, and it's one that we can't simply let go. You have to work for everything you have, because finding your own happiness is your job.
Not the president's. And you shouldn't listen to a politician when he (or she) promises to find it and issue it to you in the form of another federally-funded (meaning tax-funded) program.

Nevermind 9/11: Someone Called Hillary a Monster!!!!

So, an Obama campaign staffer calls Hillary Rodham Clinton a monster and has to resign from the campaign. A conservative radio talk-show host calls Obama a hack (and - egad - mentions Obama's middle name) and gets rebuked by McCain himself. "Senator McCain did the right thing," says Obama.

What the hell are these people going to do when they get into the Oval Office (and one of them is going to get there, unfortunately) and some petty dictator like Ahmadenejad calls him or her a mean name? What then? Demand Ahmadenejad's resignation?

For crying out loud, doesn't anybody else feel like we need a little less sensitivity in this country, and a lot more backbone?

Well, I'll go out on a limb here, and say what needs to be said. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a monster. She's the worst kind of monster, and I still can't believe anyone actually wants her in the the White House. Barack Hussein Obama is a hack, has always been a hack, and always will be a hack. It is my estimation that anyone who wants Obama in the White House isn't paying attention to reality.

It is also my sincere hope that, as this country moves closer to the general election in November, more and more people will begin to realize what's at stake. This country is at war. Period. I don't care if George Bush was right in invading Iraq (of course he was, but that's not my point). I don't care in "Al Qaeda in Iraq" existed prior to the invasion. And I don't care what anyone else thinks about it. This country is at war. What you do when you're at war is: YOU WIN IT. And we can win it. Don't let the pundits and talking heads convince you that this, the most powerful country in the history of the world, can't defeat a ragtag band of fifteenth-century terrorists like Al Qaeda. Don't let Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy tell you that the war in Iraq is a "quagmire" (we got out of the Kennedy quagmire in 1975, thank you very much).

In 2008, we need to elect a president who will win the war and get our troops home. Period.

Hillary is busy calling for the resignations of people who insult her, probably as a distraction from the fact that she doesn't have ten percent of the foreign policy experience she's claiming. Obama is busy calling for apologies from people who use his full name, probably to distract potential voters from his complete lack of a realistic world view (let alone a realistic plan for this country's future).

This kind of nonsense is exactly why the United States Congress is too busy investigating baseball players to allocate the necessary funds to properly execute the Global War on Terror. It's exactly this attitude that effectively destroyed the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program (thank you very much, Nancy Pelosi, for further endangering this country for your own political advantage).

Never mind what's good for America - you insulted me, and that's what's important here. You called me an unflattering name. You referred to me by my middle name. You bad person, you.

Maybe a liberal Democrat president will demand apologies from our enemies around the world. Maybe he or she will demand the immediate resignations of those who oppose us. How dare you kill our troops - Now say you're sorry!

But a conservative Republican president will actually fight this war. And John McCain is as close to a conservative Republican as we've got.

The Audacity of Nothing At All

Since allegations have been made by some Obama campaign staffers that certain media outlets have intentionally darkened Senator Obama's image, I took a look at the cover of one of the good senator's books.

Now, is it just me, or is his skin tone lightened in that picture? OR, has every other image I've seen of the man been darkened?

Just wondering. I couldn't care less what the man's skin color is. But if his campaign of swooning sycophants and mumbling myrmidons is going to make skin color an issue, then I say this is a good opportunity to point out the dirty tricks in their own mirror.

I guess it was only a matter of time before his people started race-baiting. This is what you can expect of an Obama presidency, and here's why I say that:

1. The candidate himself isn't telling us anything substantial, but making grandiose speeches about restoring diplomacy with our enemies.

2. What he is promising is either so insane or so far outside of the president's sphere of influence that it's never going to happen. Laws aren't made by the executive branch, but by the legislative branch - which is where Obama has been for the last two or three (or is it four?) years.

3. His supporters, between swooning and fainting at his rallies, will not, under any circumstances, engage you in discussion about his policies. I have yet to meet an actual Obama supporter who has even the foggiest clue what he actually stands for, beyond political catch words like 'change' and 'hope'.

4. According to a Washington Post article by Michael Gerson, Obama's First 100 Days, an Obama administration would make a quick mess of what's left of American foreign policy, largely because there is no real foreign-policy understanding in place within the Obama camp. It's all buzz-words and PR spin, followed closely by regionalism and largely empty promises.

See, all too often in politics, what gets done isn't what would be best for the country or its people, but rather what produces the best PR, the most feel-good media buzz. When Rick Perry (current governor of Texas) promised to do something about illegal immigration, what he ended up doing was pledging $100 million to cities like Houston to take care of the problem. Looks good, sounds good - but accomplishes nothing. Cities like Houston and San Antonio are left to fend for themselves, in a political climate wherein Border Patrol agents are routinely prosecuted for defending the border and trying to stop illegal immigrants. $100 million is a lot of money, but without meaningful policy reform, it's completely pointless - and could have been better used elsewhere.

The same thing is happening with the Obama campaign. Millions are being spent on huge rallies and TV spots (leading up to the Texas primary, Obama campaign ads were running every eight minutes from 6PM until midnight on every goddamn channel) - but there's nothing substantial, not one single sensible word, being said.

The above-linked article is a great example. I forwarded it to a friend of mine who volunteers in the local Obama campaign headquarters, and asked for her opinion. She read the first two or three lines and misunderstood them, thinking the article was about Hillary Clinton. Once it was explained to her that the article is about Obama, she summarily declared it "crap" and closed the link. She wouldn't even read it.

Who needs an understanding of the real issues, when you have people fainting at your rallies? Right? Who needs the technicality of an actual ability to get things done, when you have millions of people all over the country who will defend bitterly your campaign, without even trying to understand what they're defending?

Much easier to debate whether or not Obama has purple lips, or whether or not this moonbat or that moonbat has the right ideas about Obama being good-looking enough to be president - you should hear some of the conversations that go on around here. But there's little conversation about his actual platform, because there's no actual platform to discuss.

So they make it about race. About exclusion. About class struggle. And they accuse others of making it about race, exclusion and class struggle.

Which brings us back to color. A foreign friend of mine asked me last week if this country is really ready to elect a Black man as president. I said yes - but that I don't think Obama is actually Black. I think he's see-through, invisible, like clear plastic. Because after all is said and done, it's not the color of your skin that defines you in this life - it's the color of your actions.

And Obama's actions, so far, have been nothing at all.

Hillary Hears a Who?

Will it never end...

Hillary, perhaps better known as Lady MacBeth, has a television ad out right now, in which a wounded soldier limps along a (I presume) hospital corridor, looking all alone and forlorn, while a grave-sounding voice-over announces, "For every soldier who served so bravely over there, but was ignored over here, she hears you."

Well, well, well. Senator Clinton hears the soldiers. I hope the good senator will hear this veteran. I served over there, over here and elsewhere. I served while our day care facilites, libraries and shopping centers were being shut down to clear up money for more federal welfare programs. My children went hungry at times, while monies that had once been in the family support budget went bye-bye. Federal funding for the military was at an all-time low, after adjustment. They were shutting down our childrens' schools, releasing our civilian employees, and letting our facilities fall to rot. Much needed dollars were being taken away from men who jumped out of airplanes in the Arctic in order to secure our way of life, and given to welfare recipients who'd never sacrificed a thing for someone else in their lives.

The year was 1993, and Hillary's husband was President. This was the height of the "We are the President" era. Before it was over, one-third of the United States military was gone, including entire divisions like the 7th Infantry Division (Light) at Ft. Ord, California (the division was disbanded and the base was shut down) - and whole communities were decimated. What remained was a US military operating at one-half to two-thirds strength, depending on location, while the Clinton Administration sent us into harm's way numerous times, only to withdraw us whenever there were any casualties. Morale, like funding, was at an all-time low for the all-volunteer force.

I'm guilty of a lot of silliness on this blog. Generally speaking, that's because this is, at its core, an exercise in entertainment - my entertainment. I bash politicians with whom I disagree because it's fun. The fact that they suck is really a secondary thing for me.

Except in this case.

Because I was in the Army the first time Hillary Clinton lived in the White House, and it was an absolute, unmitigated disaster for the military. If she gets elected to the Presidency in 2008, AND if she goes back to the old Clinton anti-military 'loathing letter' attitude, we won't have to withdraw prematurely from Iraq. We will lose Iraq completely. And while we're at it, we'll lose a lot of our military as well.

FISA Fact Check: Setting the Record Straight on Speaker Pelosi

From the White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/):

Despite Speaker Pelosi's Misleading Claims, FISA Is No Substitute ForThe Bipartisan Senate Bill; Speaker Pelosi's Continued Refusal ToPermit A Vote On The Senate Bill Is Weakening Our Ability To ProtectThe Country From Terrorist Attack

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that "under FISA, the Attorney General can approve surveillance in minutes. Surveillance can begin immediately and approval of the FISA Court can be obtained within three days." (Nancy Pelosi, "Statement On FISA Negotiations," 2/22/08)

Contrary to Speaker Pelosi's misleading statement, FISA's requirements, unlike those of the Protect America Act and the bipartisan Senate bill, impair our ability to collect information on foreign intelligence targets located overseas. In their letter to the House Permanent Select Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Mike McConnell explained, "FISA was designed to govern foreign intelligence surveillance of persons in the United States and therefore requires a showing of 'probable cause' before such surveillance can begin. … The process of compiling the facts necessary for such a determination and preparing applications for emergency authorizations [approved by the Attorney General] takes time and results in delays." (Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director Of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Letter To Chairman Of The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, 2/22/08)

Attorney General Mukasey and DNI McConnell also explained that "our intelligence professionals need to be able to obtain foreign intelligence from foreign targets with speed and agility." "If we revert to a legal framework in which the Intelligence Community needs to make probable cause showings for foreign terrorists and other national security threats located overseas, we are certain to experience more intelligence gaps and miss collecting information."

Attorney General Mukasey and DNI McConnell further explained that "because of the hurdles under FISA's emergency authorization provisions and the requirement to go to the FISA Court within 72 hours, our resource constraints limit our use of emergency authorizations to certain high-priority circumstances and cannot simply be employed for every foreign intelligence target."

Speaker Pelosi also misleadingly states that "the FISA Court can approve surveillance orders quickly." (Nancy Pelosi, "Statement On FISA Negotiations," 2/22/08)

Attorney General Mukasey and DNI McConnell have made clear that the FISA Court requires a showing of probable cause before it will authorize surveillance and satisfying the probable cause requirement will result in unacceptable gaps and delays in monitoring communications of foreign terrorists overseas. "Imposing this requirement in the context of surveillance of foreign targets located overseas results in the loss of potentially vital intelligence by, for example, delaying intelligence collection and thereby losing some intelligence forever." (Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director Of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Letter To Chairman Of The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, 2/22/08)

Attorney General Mukasey and DNI McConnell also stated that "it makes no sense to require a showing of probable cause for surveillance of overseas foreign targets who are not entitled to the Fourth Amendment protections guaranteed by our Constitution." "[Probable cause] makes sense in the context of targeting persons in the United States for surveillance, where the Fourth Amendment itself often requires probable cause and where the civil liberties of Americans are most implicated."

Speaker Pelosi misleadingly asserts that "there is no backlog of cases to slow down getting surveillance approvals from the FISA court." (Nancy Pelosi, "Statement On FISA Negotiations," 2/22/08)

Attorney General Mukasey and DNI Mike McConnell reported, "we have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act." (Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director Of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Letter To Chairman Of The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, 2/22/08)

The Intelligence Community and Department of Justice have worked over the past week with our private partners – whose assistance is essential to our intelligence collection efforts – to mitigate this problem caused by Congress' failure to act, but we have nonetheless missed intelligence information that we could have been collecting to protect the country. "We appreciate the willingness of our private partners to cooperate despite the uncertainty [caused by Congress' failure to pass long-term FISA modernization]. Unfortunately, the delay resulting from [efforts to gain the cooperation of the private sector after Congress failed to act] impaired our ability to cover foreign intelligence targets, which resulted in missed intelligence information." (Department of Justice and Office of The Director Of National Intelligence, Statement Regarding Cooperation With Private Partners, 2/23/08)

Speaker Pelosi also misleadingly claims "under FISA, telecommunications companies can be compelled by the FISA court to help with surveillance and have legal protection for compliance." (Nancy Pelosi, "Statement On FISA Negotiations," 2/22/08)

The Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence explained that, "[e]ven prior to the expiration of the Protect America Act, we experienced significant difficulties in working with the private sector because of the continued failure to provide liability protection for such companies." "These difficulties have only grown since expiration of the Act without passage of the bipartisan Senate bill, which would provide fair and just liability protection. Exposing the private sector to the continued risk of billion-dollar class action suits for assisting in efforts to defend the country understandably makes the private sector much more reluctant to cooperate. Without their cooperation, our efforts to protect the country cannot succeed." (Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director Of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Letter To Chairman Of The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, 2/22/08)

According to a statement from the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: "[A]lthough our private partners are cooperating for the time being, they have expressed understandable misgivings about doing so in light of the on-going uncertainty and have indicated that they may well discontinue cooperation if the uncertainty persists." "Even with the cooperation of these private partners under existing directives, our ability to gather information concerning the intentions and planning of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets will continue to degrade because we have lost tools provided by the Protect America Act that enable us to adjust to changing circumstances." (Department of Justice and Office of The Director Of National Intelligence, Statement Regarding Cooperation With Private Partners, 2/23/08)

As our Nation's intelligence professionals have explained, "other intelligence tools [like FISA] simply cannot replace these Protect America Act authorities. The bipartisan Senate bill contains these authorities, as well as liability protection for those companies who answered their country’s call in the aftermath of September 11." (Department of Justice and Office of the Director Of National Intelligence, Statement Regarding Cooperation With Private Partners, 2/23/08)