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.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
.
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment