Romney Blasts Obama’s Foreign Policy

President-pending Mitt Romney spoke at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Nevada this week, and he gave a rather devastating critique of Obama’s foreign policy. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar.

Romney began by laying out his standard for what our foreign policy should be, and he did this by ripping into Obama. Consider this the “Romney Doctrine”:

Has the American economy recovered?

Has our ability to shape world events been enhanced, or diminished?

Have we gained greater confidence among our allies, and greater respect from our adversaries?

And, perhaps most importantly, has the most severe security threat facing America and our friends, a nuclear-armed Iran, become more or less likely?

Bingo! That’s perfect foreign policy! That is exactly the test any President should apply to all foreign policy decision. Not coincidentally, this test also proves to be a devastating takedown of Obama’s failures because Obama cannot answer yes to any of these points.

Romney then got specific. He noted that Obama’s policies have strangled the recovery, which weakens America’s ability to project its power. He claimed Obama exposed the military to unjustifiable cuts which threaten the military. He attacked Obama for mishandling national secrets, which endangers our policies and our people. And he pointed out that Obama has “given trust where it is not earned, insult where it is not deserved, and apology where it is not due.” All true.

When our economy is weak, we stop being the shining beacon to the rest of the world. Our enemies see us as in decline and decide the opportunity to strike is at hand. Countries like China have used Obama’s term to bury us in debt, to push for the elimination of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, to become much more aggressive in Asia, to build up and modernize their military, to hoard resources, and to begin the unchecked economic colonization of Africa.

Our military has been stretched to the limit since 2001 and not only has Obama done little to help them, he used their budget as a bargaining chip. To get a budget deal, which the Democrats now refuse to perform, he proposed ripping a trillion dollars in cuts from the military. I don’t believe the military budget is inviolate, but that is obscene. Moreover, he’s politicized the military at all turns, from don’t ask don’t tell, to using the military as a campaign prop, to ignoring abuses by our frenemies like Karzai in Afghanistan while punishing and neglecting the Americans who risk their lives to prop up these failed policies. There is even a report out today that the Army stopped an investigation into a corrupt and horrific hospital in Afghanistan (the Dawood National Military Hospital) in 2010 because the report would have been issued too close to the election for Obama’s comfort.

This administration has been horrible about protecting secrets as well, which is ironic as they ruthlessly go after whistleblowers. They fed classified information to Hollywood so they could make films that are mere propaganda for Obama’s campaign. And now they’ve been leaking classified documents to the New York Times, e.g. documents about US cyber attacks against Iran and “kill lists” Obama has authorized. Even the Democrats admit these leaks are coming from the White House. Said Sen. Diane Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Monday, “I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks.” Democrat Pat Caddell has actually accused Obama National Security Adviser Tom Donilon of being the primary leaker.

Frankly, this has all been done to make Obama look tougher. And of this, Romney told the VFW: “[the administration] betrays our national interest [and] compromises our men and women in the field.” Again, all true.

Finally, Obama has been harsh to our friends and weak to our enemies. As Romney put it, he “abandoned our friends in Poland and the Czech Republic” and he kowtowed to Russia and China. And Romney said this about Israel:

The people of Israel deserve better than what they have received from the leader of the free world. And the chorus of accusations, threats, and insults at the United Nations should never again include the voice of the President of the United States.

And don’t forget, Obama tried to support a coup in Honduras against our friends in favor of a Chavez-like dictator wannabe. He’s been rude to Britain and India. He flooded Mexico with illegal guns. He stopped a needed Canadian pipeline. He’s been useless on the Euro crisis and useless in the Middle East. Heck, he didn’t even placate the world’s sensibilities by closing Gitmo. And he lost control over environmental issues to the BRICS and he managed to make pirating super profitable.

Obama’s record is a disaster. He’s made everything worse and achieved nothing. Is the US better off than it was four years ago? Hardly. But let’s let Romney sum this all up:

This is very simple: if you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your President. You have that President today.

Damn straight!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Guest Review: Act of Valor (2012)

A Film Review by Tennessee Jed
To my knowledge, this is the only movie ever to use active duty Navy SEALS in major roles, although they are not even individually identified in the credits. But, their participation permits a degree of realism not attainable with actors such as Charlie Sheen or Demi Moore. What the film may lack in budget, “name” actors, or production values is more than offset by authenticity. This alone makes Act of Valor virtually mandatory viewing for fans of the military film genre, and highly recommended for anyone who simply wants to better understand and appreciate the ethos of these rare and special people whose job it is to constantly risk their own lives to protect us.
Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Law of the Sea Treaty Dead Again

We’ve spoken before about Big Business not being conservative. Here’s more proof, along with some very good news. The Law of the Sea Treaty is dead. Good for America.

Why This Is A Dangerous Treaty

I first became aware of the Law of the Sea Treaty when it was conceived during the Reagan years in 1982, and it seemed like a horrible idea at the time. The idea was that the world’s oceans contain a vast amount of mineral wealth, but because only the rich world has the resources to exploit it, a treaty should be passed to divide this wealth equally among all countries.

The way the treaty works is it divides the ocean floor into zones. Internal waters (like a bay) and up to 12 miles from shore are considered territorial water and are treated as if they are dry land. A country’s sovereignty is complete within that zone (the old zone was three miles). The next 12 miles are considered a continuous zone. Within that zone, countries may impose laws related to customs, taxation, immigration and pollution, but cannot stop navigation. The next 200 miles are considered an exclusive economic zone. Here the state has some rights, but foreign countries may lay pipe or cable and navigate freely. Beyond that are international waters.

This may sound harmless, but that’s not all the treaty does. The treaty includes 320 articles and is over 200 pages long. It establishes a complex regulatory regime that applies to almost every commercial and government activity related to the oceans. This includes the regulation of shipping, the regulation of drug interdiction, and even the regulation of manufacturing conducted in coastal waterways. Moreover, it gives the U.N. unprecedented taxing and permitting authority over international waters. Essentially, this is a U.N. takeover of oceans.

Through these regulatory schemes, the U.N. could impose things like the Kyoto Protocol (on global warming) through the back door, could forced U.S. citizens to pay energy taxes to other nations, and the U.N. could claim the power to regulate U.S. military actions.

Ronald Reagan refused to sign this treaty for similar reasons. The extension of the territorial limit from 3 miles to 12 miles meant U.S. submarines and intelligence ships could be put in danger. He felt the regulatory scheme would stop undersea mining as permits to mine require an application fee of $250,000 ($500,000 at the time), plus the corporation must pay an annual fee of $1 millions to the U.N.’s International Seabed Authority, plus they would need to pay up to 7% of profits, plus they would need to share mining and navigational technology. Moreover, the decision on whether or not to grant such a license would belong to the Seabed Authority, which is controlled by Third World countries. This would give them veto power over all such activities. Reagan believed this was set up to discourage deep sea mining to protect the mining industries on land, which tend to operate in Third World countries. He also objected that the mandatory dispute resolution procedures bound Americans to the decisions of foreign judges and harmed American sovereignty.

Clinton tried to pass this treaty and essentially failed, as did Bush II and Obama. John Kerry has been pushing this in the Senate.

Why It’s Dead

Since two-thirds of the Senate must support a treaty before it can become law, it only takes 24 Senators to stop a treaty. Thirty-four Republicans have now come out in opposition to the Law of the Sea Treaty, which means it’s effectively dead. The charge was led by Tea Party conservative Jim DeMint, who was joined by GOP liberal Rob Portman of Ohio, conservative Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, cow-tipper Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, and 29 other Republicans. John “my friends” McCain was on the wrong side, as always. Since the treaty cannot get the two-thirds vote it needs, it’s dead, Jim. . . for now.

Who Supports It And Why

Naturally, only Democrats (and McCain) supported this thing, right? Actually, no. The American Petroleum Institute and the US Chamber of Commerce both supported it. API is Big Oil’s lobbying arm and the Chamber of Commerce is Big Business’s lobbying arm. How could they possibly support this, you ask? Doesn’t the loss of sovereignty, the risk to the US Military, the imposition of international taxes mean anything them?

Well. . . no. Their only concern is profit. And by getting all these minerals safely regulated by an international tribunal, they can then go about making money by extracting them. What about the taxes and fees? Well, that’s really your problem, not theirs, because corporations don’t pay taxes. . . their customers pay taxes.

If you ever needed a more clear example of how little the United States of America and you mean to these companies, this is it. They will happily sell you and your rights to a United Nations tribunal dominated by corrupt Third-World governments just so they can make sure they get the monopoly rights on these minerals. Think about that the next time some oil company or some mineral company or any other multinational company comes to you and says they need some law to help them.

These people are not our friends.


P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

From "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" To "Tell Everyone"

Barack Obama has recently told us that he has always been in favor of gay marriage, even though his past formal statements and campaign speeches said exactly the opposite. Pure political claptrap, but the gay marriage debate has a long way to go before it satisfies the majority of Americans. The other side of that coin is the reversal of the military policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Current events indicate that the former policy of keeping one’s sexual preferences out of one’s military commitments is going to change much more quickly than gay marriage. Just a short time back, our gay military personnel couldn’t tell anyone about the sex of the person they were sleeping with. Overnight they are free to announce it to the world. In many ways too numerous to mention here, that is probably a good thing.

As my favorite old grande dame in San Francisco said: “I don’t care what they do, as long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses.” As for the military, I don’t care what they do as long as they don’t do it in the barracks and upset military discipline. I say that recognizing there is not yet any proof that gay and lesbian military personnel would do that at a rate any higher than that of heterosexuals. What they do on their own time, off base, is their own business. What they do on base is the business of the particular unit to which they belong. Punishment for the goose is punishment for the gander.

But before anyone says, “I really don’t care about gays in the military” as if that disposes of all the related issues, I want to take a quick look at a couple of things we may be facing if the sexual orientation issue isn’t handled properly and efficiently. In the gay marriage issue, the relationship between the parties has always been regulated by the various states. Even if the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage is a right, it will probably still leave it to the states to determine how they wish to accomplish protection of that right.

But military discipline has always been the prerogative of the federal government. No state has the right to interfere with the conduct of the military during the performance of their duties on federal property. That means that without any intervening “cooling off period,” the federal government has done a 180 degree reversal of two centuries of military tradition. But even that might not be so bad if it weren’t for the gay lobby, political-correctness crowd getting into the act by influencing military decisions at the highest civilian level. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has decided to celebrate Gay Pride Month as if the Pentagon was City Hall in San Francisco.

The seeming injustice of don’t ask, don’t tell (DADT) is not going to be remedied overnight by a sudden embrace of the military’s gay side. DADT went the way of the dodo largely because of its clear discriminatory nature—gays versus straights. The treatment was indeed discriminatory, and based largely on moral beliefs with little legal or constitutional coherence. But Panetta wasn’t satisfied with ending discrimination. Nope. He unintentionally announced his support for rights exclusive to gays and lesbians by saying “at last we will have diversity in the military just as we do in the civilian world.”

“Diversity.” A word which has wreaked a certain amount of havoc in the civilian world. It is a word that stands against the word “unity.” But the civilian world’s needs and requirements are not the same as those of the military. A little chaos in civilian life stirs things up and gets people talking. Chaos in the military is a recipe for disaster. The very uniformity of action and obedience that we would consider stifling in civilian life is what makes a solid military work. Panetta has tipped his hand that a sexual life choice is going to become a great deal more than a simple personal choice having nothing to do with active military service.

As a lawyer and labor relations consultant, I have seen some pretty ridiculous discrimination complaints since the “normalization” of homosexuality. Vexatious litigation was and still is a big part of tying up courts over gay “rights” involving dress codes and public displays of affection, among others. Even what kind of “family” photograph can be placed on an employee’s desk has produced fireworks in Human Resources offices and courtrooms. It’s a major annoyance, but complete discipline and uniformity are rarely major goals of the business world. They are everything in the military.

Another facet of this overnight enthusiastic embrace of all things gay is the noxious parallels the left have made between gay rights and the civil rights movement (largely concerning race). Color of skin is a matter of human genetics. Being gay may be genetic as well, but it’s also a behavior which is related solely to sexual desire while skin color is essentially immutable and has little to do with behavior.

Think of it this way. Long before Brown v. Board of Education, President Harry Truman determined that racial segregation in the military was plainly unconstitutional, and issued an executive order ending it. It met some resistance, but military personnel adapted to it. Military discipline and acceptance of policy solved most of the problems rather quickly. The military became a model for what much of civilian America wasn’t yet ready to accept.

It took a lot of blood, sweat and tears before racial segregation was officially ended in America. The transition wasn’t peaceful, and it took decades to accomplish what Truman accomplished with the stroke of a pen. Of course, the reason it worked is that black, white, yellow, red and brown behavior wasn’t involved in the transition. A black soldier or a white sailor didn’t behave much differently after the executive order than before the order. They just shared barracks for the first time.

If Truman’s Secretary of Defense had decided that the Chief’s executive order meant it was time to announce “celebrate your skin color month” or “ethnic identity month,” he would have been considered nuts and sent packing. The best thing to do was to let the dust settle, work out the kinks, and move on to other improvements in the military. But Panetta has made it clear that being gay and not having to hide it isn’t good enough. You must celebrate your sexuality and expect others to approve.

Maybe I’m being overly pessimistic, but I see trouble coming. And if you think the left and the gay lobby don’t have an anti-military agenda, just consider that they have presented traitor Army Private Bradley Manning as a gay martyr, facing serious military discipline solely because he is a homosexual. Meanwhile Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama has said he will be doing a salute to gay troops. The wry jokes that could go with that announcement are legion. But I'll leave that to you.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Are We About To Bomb Iran? Yep.

I mentioned the other day that Obama seems to be getting ready to bomb Iran before the election. Not only do I stand by that, but I think the evidence for it is growing. If I’m reading the signs right, look for three weeks of bombing at the end of August.

Before we hit the evidence, let me dispel a few conservative myths. Contrary to what people with Obama Derangement Syndrome will tell you, Obama’s foreign policy is remarkably similar to Bush’s foreign policy. His rhetoric is weaker, but his actual policies are the same. Indeed, he’s almost been trigger-happy by comparison. He’s authorized thousands of drone strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and throughout Africa (things Bush was afraid to do), he’s authorized the bombing of Libya, and he’s sent US troops into a half-dozen conflicts. He’s authorized the killing of American citizens who are suspected terrorists, he hasn’t renounced “enhanced interrogation,” and he even tried to erase the legal existence of the people they are holding at Gitmo. All in all, he’s been more than willing to fight.

Moreover, his latest chest thumping about killing Osama bin Laden, tells us that he thinks it will be vital to his re-election to appear tough. What this means is that Obama is willing and able to strike and most likely sees it as being in his interests to strike before the election.

But how do we know he will strike Iran? Well, for starters, he’s been laying the groundwork for some time. For two years, Obama spoke incessantly about sanctions while promising carrot after carrot if Iran would just play nice. They didn’t. And he can now tell his supporters he tried. Then last year, things began to change. The IAEA issued a stinging report saying that not only was Iran cheating, but that they would soon have a bomb. Meanwhile, Obama’s people created this bizarre story of Iran working with Mexican narco-gangs to assassinate people in the US. That story didn’t wash (except Rick Santorum believed it) but it signified a rhetorical shift toward getting the public ready for a possible attack. And with each of the Republican candidates buying into the need for an attack (except Ron Paul), Obama now has a green light to act.

At the same time, Obama apparently authorized the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and authorized the use of sophisticated computer virus attacks against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. These are acts you take before an attack, not when you are just passing time.

Now we’re suddenly getting a slew of clues that something is imminent:

● A few weeks ago, Obama moved a second aircraft carrier into the region. American attacks in the modern era always use two carriers. And they are rarely together otherwise.

● The troops in Iraq, who would have been a major target for Iranian counter-attacks, have been removed to safer Arab countries.

● A few months ago, Obama approved the sale of a sophisticated anti-missile system to the United Arab Emirates for $3.6 billion. Why would something like that be needed? To make them less nervous about hosting US troops should hostilities break out and to protect US troops in the country.

● Then last week, we learned that the Air Force positioned F-22 Raptors (the latest generation stealth fighter/penetrator) in those very same UAE. The F-22 is the perfect plane to get through Iran’s defensive grid. The Air Force claims this is all just a normal deployment, except that’s not true. The Air Force does not send F-22 Raptors to just anywhere.

● Yesterday, Obama signed an Executive Order allowing the US to boycott anyone who still does business with Iran. Notice the lack of fanfare. That’s key here because when countries aren’t ready to fight, they bang the table and make threats. When they are preparing to fight, they go silent and don’t trumpet their actions. And my guess is this Order will allow the seizure of assets at a critical time.

● Also yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu for the first time mentioned moving elections up from November to August. Why? Because you can’t start an attack if you’re going to go before the voters right after it begins. This suggests the timeline is a late-August attack.

● And then this came out last night. The Pentagon has leaked that it is revising its defense strategy in accordance with current threats. Mentioned in the assessment is that U.S. Central Command is conducting “war planning” for Iran, with the belief that we can destroy Iran’s conventional armed forces in about three weeks “using air and sea strikes.” Further, the Pentagon is “now conducting a step-by-step surge of forces in the Gulf.” Specifically mentioned were “maintaining two aircraft carriers in the region and increasing the number of mine-detection ships and helicopters” as well as the deployment of the F-22. In other words, everything I mentioned above.

All this tells me that the Pentagon is getting ready to strike. It’s building the military capability and it has already assured the neighbors, who no doubt already gave a green light or we would be hearing screaming. Politically, Obama has clearly coordinated with Israel and is factoring this attack into his election plan. He’s also set the Treasury up to seize Iranian assets once the shooting starts.

Based on Israel and how unlikely it is that the Air Force would leave the F-22’s sitting over there too long or the Navy would leave two carriers floating in the gulf longer than necessary, I would expect an attack no later than the end of August, with the current plan being three weeks of bombing.

So the next question is will this help Obama's re-election chances? I doubt it. Weak- appearing leaders tend to get hurt when they start wars because people see it as a desperate attempt to look tough. Libya gave Obama his standard three point bounce which faded almost before it was recorded. I would expect this will give him a 10% bounce, which will fade in week two of the bombing and go negative if bombing goes on beyond three weeks. . . which it will. Plus, as he's shown with his Afghanistan garbage, he will quickly try to politicize it, and that will truly anger average Americans.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

Battle: Los Angeles looked like a big blockbuster film designed to attract an audience for two weeks and then be forgotten. Imagine my surprise to find a truly inspired film. And do you know what makes this film stand out? An utter lack of cynicism and a strong sense of patriotism. This IS a conservative film!

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama's 21st Century Navy

Ever-vigilant about America's military power and the ecology, President Obama has rolled out his plans for the new energy-efficient Navy. Pictured is the brilliant innovation for battle cruisers and destroyers. Instead of using ecology-destroying fossil fuels, the new Navy has found a way to harness the wind.

They haven't quite figured out how to configure the wind-utilizer engines (aka "sails") on aircraft carriers, but just give them time and a few hundred billion taxpayer dollars. And if you think those wind-driven warships are brilliant, wait until you see the solar-powered versions. But until those ships are built, we'll have to make do with our present surface Navy. Still, this administration is not letting any grass grow under its feet in the area of green technology.

This past August, Obama announced his biofuel initiative for the military. It is budgeted at about $510 million over the next three years. He calls it an investment in the future. Of course, that's what he called Solyndra and LightSquared too. But let's not kick a dead horse. Congress has not yet funded this "investment" (read: taxpayer dollars thrown down another rathole). It's unlikely that it ever will. But that won't stop Obama.

Obama recently compared himself to Teddy Roosevelt, a fellow progressive. In 1907, Congress refused to fund a world tour of America's Great White Fleet. TR announced that he would send the fleet anyway--he had enough in his presidential contingency fund to get the fleet halfway around the world, and it would be up to Congress to get it home. Obama now wants to conduct the Navy's 2012 summer war exercises using the "Great Green Fleet" carrier strike force. Following in TR's footsteps, he has already made a deal with the Navy using $12 million in Defense Department procurement authority to purchase 450,000 gallons of biofuel.

Unlike those impure and un-green traditional fossil fuels, this fuel costs about $15 per gallon. It is the largest biofuel purchase in history, so you can imagine where most of the proposed $510 million will go if that "investment" is ever funded by Congress. Now this is an important military development. So who better than Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to make the first big public statement? Combining green-energy (?) with Obama's hurry-up play on the economy, Vilsack said: "This is not work we can afford to put off for another day."

The administration's idea of supporting the military during belt-tightening time is to spend $15 per gallon for biofuel that is questionably "green" in order not to spend $4 per gallon for the current JP-5 fuel. If Obama truly intends for the military to cut $1 trillion from their budgets over the next ten years, this is not an auspicious start. Paying nearly four times as much for fuel which may ultimately prove to be inefficient and more damaging to the environment than the old fuel is bad strategy. On top of that, the high cost of that fuel, in the midst of cutbacks, means less money for genuine military upgrades.

Now that I think of it, that is probably exactly what Obama intends.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

God Allowed Back At Military Funerals

After facing multiple lawsuits, the Obama Department of Veterans Affairs has entered into a consent decree whereby it must abandon its ban on prayers and references to God at funerals conducted at national cemeteries. God and His servants are now allowed back at military funerals.

The atheists and secularists in the Obama administration had drafted an entire funeral manual which specifically took all religious expression out of military funerals, even from a non-military pastor or the fallen warrior's family. Though there had been some confrontations at several national cemeteries nationwide, the real battle to bring back tradition as old as the United States itself took place not a a funeral but at a privately-hosted Memorial Day ceremony on military property. Houston National Cemetery Director Arleen Ocasio told Pastor Scott Rainey that all references to God or Jesus must be stricken from his invocation. Without those, exactly whom or what did Ocasio think Rainey was invoking?

For Rainey, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Ocasio had redesignated the cemetery chapel as a "meeting facility" which she closed to anything but official [secular] business. Since the chapel had first been built, the chapel bells had rung out twice every day, and more often for special occasions. After silencing the bells, Ocasio also removed the Bibles and cross from the chapel. The seating space for congregants, celebrants and mourners was cut drastically as Ocasio filled the back pews with old storage boxes.

Military-related organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion were told that if they provided honor guards at funerals, they must not include prayer or religious speech in the burial rites. The only possible exception was if the family itself submitted the proposed prayer to Ocasio, in advance, for her approval or disapproval. Sounds a lot like freedom of religion in China.

A solemn tradition among those having VFW ceremonies was the gathering of the brass casings from the military salute, placing them in a pouch, and handing the pouch to a family member with the words "I present you with these shell cases from the shots that were fired to honor our departed comrade. We ask that God grant you and your family grace, mercy and peace." Way too much for Ocasio. Banned! As were the place cards from the National Memorial Ladies which read "God bless you." How dare they?

Ocasio and her fellow-travelers claimed that their purpose was not to ban religion but rather to guarantee that the funeral services would be "inclusive." How lame is that? The only people who would be "excluded" would be those who didn't know the fallen warrior or those who had no respect for the deceased's beliefs and family. But even at that, there would be no formal exclusion. It would be self-exclusion. In reality, Jewish people often attend Christian funerals and vice-versa. Catholics attend Protestant funerals, Protestants attend Catholic funerals, and atheists of the non-militant kind attend them all. Somehow, nobody feels "excluded" by the mention of God or Jesus.

So several supporters of religion and ancient tradition filed suit against Ocasio and the Department of Veteran Affairs for interference with freedom of religion and freedom of expression. They also had the support of Texas Republican House Member John Culberson. Earlier, he had attended a veteran's funeral anonymously and quietly, and personally witnessed Ocasio hectoring VFW volunteers, demanding that they comply with her secularist orders or leave. The court granted Pastor Rainey a temporary restraining order, but prior to the court granting a permanent injunction against Ocasio's interference with religious ceremonies, the Department entered into the consent decree.

The Obama administration reluctantly gave up its attack on Christianity (and to a certain extent, Judaism). The chapel has been reopened, the cross has been returned to its rightful place, the bells ring again, and the trash in the back pews has been removed. Memos have gone out to other military districts to cool the censorship. Ocasio is still on the job, but is keeping a low profile. Aside from having her metaphorical teeth handed to her, the arrogant woman has something else to worry about. Rep. Culberson is working behind the scenes to see if he can find a way to reduce her salary to zero.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Our Overseas Military Presence

To give you a quick update on the 2012 election, Perry now claims he wants a flat tax at some unknown rate. Perry's supporters seem really blind to how poorly he’s coming across. Cain says he will go on the attack in the next debate because the other candidates “are getting on my last nerve.” Palin thinks Newt won the other night. And Politico wants to convince us that the race is between Perry and Romney. But the guy I want to talk about today is Paul.

In the last two debates, Paul has said the US has 900 military bases overseas in 130 countries. This struck me as likely true, but also highly misleading, as I will explain.

Looking this up, I found the US actually has military personnel in 148 different countries. That doesn’t surprise me. We also have 662 installations outside the country. That doesn’t surprise me either. And I’m not going to quibble about 900 versus 662: either number is huge and within the same order of magnitude.

So Paul is correct, right? Sort of. He is technically correct about the numbers. But I think he is implying something much bigger than the reality. When Paul says the military has bases in these countries, it sounds a lot like we have an active military presence sitting on self-contained “bases” in almost every country. In effect, it sounds like we have occupied every country in the world.

But that’s not really what is going on. The truth is that only 13 countries host more than 1,000 troops: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Japan, Bahrain, Djibouti, South Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. Most of the rest have only a handful of troops, typically in single digits.

So what are they doing? That’s impossible to determine for sure, but most likely they are guarding embassies. There are about 30 Marines at the embassy in Moscow, plus some other officers from the other services. So let’s exclude any country with fewer than 40 military personnel from this list on the assumption they are just embassy staff.

Suddenly we are only in 19 countries, 13 of which are in Europe. . . where we are part of NATO.

The 662 bases is misleading too. All but 32 of those bases are either small sites or owned on paper only. For example, some of these sites are apparently nothing more than unmanned radio towers. One site listed in Canada is only 144 square feet -- a 12x12 room, just like our “base” in North Korea is just a room with two guards assigned.

Thus, when Paul says we have 900 military bases overseas in 130 countries, he is technically correct (give or take). But what he’s really should be saying to not be misleading is: we have 32 military bases overseas in 19 countries. That doesn’t quite have the same punch.

I don’t subscribe to isolationism at all. Isolationism is a horrible policy because it eliminates your ability to control your destiny and it turns you into a victim of circumstance. And ignoring a bully never works.

But I do agree with Paul to this extent -- I would like to see a stronger analysis on why we are in each region. I get Asia, for example. If we pulled out of Asia, China would dominate the region, Japan would re-arm and go nuclear, and war would probably break out in the Koreas, between China and Taiwan, and between China and Vietnam. That would be very bad for the US. And I understand we’re in Europe mainly to keep bases needed to transport troops. But why are we in Africa, South America or throughout the Middle East?

I think those are valid questions.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Chaplains For Atheists--Huh?

Leave it to the New York Times to find an absolutely ridiculous concept and treat it as a legitimate news story. This time it's the ultra-serious issue of whether atheists and secular humanists should have their own military chaplains. Now stop that giggling immediately. Everybody needs a place to get together and not pray while being led by somebody who knows the right way not to pray.

There are atheists in foxholes after all. And they need non-religious leaders to teach them, well, what? I suppose they'll have hymns such as All, Or Nothing At All. They'll read from the writings of the great non-theologians such as Madalyn Murray O'Hair. They will reminisce about how O'Hair, her son and granddaughter were murdered by a member of her organization, American Atheists. Then they can rejoice in the sure and certain hope that she will not be resurrected to eternal life, or any other kind of life.

The chaplain will lead recitations of "ashes to ashes, dust to dust, if the bomb don't getcha, then the fallout must." Instead of a cross or a star of David, the chaplains will sport big Zeros. There's nothing more comforting to a soldier than learning that his sacrifice is meaningless and that as soon as he's dispatched by someone on the other side who actually does believe in a god, he will become part of the great earth mother and nothing else. "We're food for worms, and we're loving it."

The nascent atheist chaplains will first have to get over the hurdle of being approved by senior religious chaplains. You know, the guys who believe in a god or two. That won't be easy, since chaplains must minister to a faith group. How do you minister to a group that goes out of its way to have no faith? In addition, in a non-sectarian way, military chaplains must be able to minister to the religious needs of those of a different religion or denomination. That's hard enough for a Protestant chaplain comforting a Catholic soldier. What's an atheist chaplain going to say? "Don't worry about it, it's all over for you after you're dead anyway." I don't think that would calm my worries about facing impending mortal death.

I'm picturing the Catholic chaplain saying to the wounded and dying Protestant soldier "Fear not but be of good faith. For Jesus said 'I am with you always." The atheist chaplain would say "Fear not, and be of no faith. For you are about to exit this world entirely alone."

Jason Torpy, President of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (I didn't make that up) told the Times: "Humanist chaplains would do everything religious chaplains do, including counsel troops and help them follow their faith." I'm leaving that statement to our readers to explain to me. I'm just too simple-minded to follow that logic. Perhaps former Captain Torpy doesn't know that there is a diametric difference between secular humanists and Christian humanists.

The former group carries "man is the measure of all things" to its logical extreme--there is no God, and you can't have faith in something that doesn't exist. Christian humanists took that phrase to mean that man is the measure of all things on earth and can only be found wanting when measured against the Lord and Father of us all. Christian humanism played a major part in the development of the Protestant Reformation as well as subsequent reform within the Catholic Church itself. But one thing remained constant--a deep belief in the divinity of Christ.

After being approached by soldiers at Ft. Bragg to appoint an atheist lay leader for the members of Military Atheists and Secular Humanists (yes, MASH), one senior chaplain replied: "You're not a faith group, you're a lack-of-faith group." The chaplains had no objection to assisting in the formation of an atheist group and appointing a leader, but balked at the idea of going so far as to admit them to the Chaplain Corps. Atheists have problems too, and I applaud the chaplains' Christian charity. But if faith in God is not part of the solution, then it doesn't belong in the religious realm. They could simply attend the local state college. No God there, I assure you.

The Times spent a lot of ink on discussing how MASH leaders feel that religious chaplains give more comfort to believers than to atheists. Well, duh. "God loves you" is a lot more comforting than an atheist singing "somebody loves me, I wonder who." Atheists have chosen not to believe in God, so they'll have to make do with being comforted by others who share their non-belief. A traditional chaplain who tells an atheist soldier that everything will be better in the next world or in heaven is very likely to get into a lot of trouble.

The Times turned what could have been a decent discussion of how atheists and secular humanists in the military might gain strength from each other and turned it into a very unserious discussion and unintentionally funny article about atheist chaplains. Group therapy is for psychologists and other charlatans, not for chaplains.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

"The (Stupid) People's Budget"

Obama loves channeling the past. He does a particularly good Nixon. Now other Democrats are getting into the act. In this case, a group of weirdoes known as the Congressional Progressive Caucus are channeling East Germany as they release “The People’s Budget.” This budget is a response to Ryan’s budget and the budget Obama is expected to release, and like all things “People’s” this one is a disaster.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus is a collection of weirdoes who spend their time sniffing each other’s seats and feeling smug about their desires to enslave the human race. This group of pathetics includes male-prostitute enthusiast Barney Frank, crooks like Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, and Sheila Jackson Leigh, socialist Bernie Sanders, misogynistic anti-Semite Pete Stark, extra-terrestrial anal-probing enthusiast Dennis Kucinich, Hitlerian-lunatic Nancy Pelosi, and 68 more assorted creeps and freaks.

These fools claim their budget would eliminate the deficit in 10 years, even as they waste massive amounts of money. Of course, their numbers are fake and their budget would destroy the economy, millions of jobs, and the country, but reality does not deter them.

First, they propose tax increases. . . lots of them. Their budget:

● Raises the social security tax to cover 90% of income, no matter how high.
● Raises the social security tax on employers.
● Creates three new tax brackets, with the highest at 47%.
● Raises the capital gains tax.
● Raises the estate tax.
● Raises corporate taxes.
● Creates a “financial speculation tax.”
● Imposes a “financial crisis responsibility” fee.
● Repeals the Bush tax cuts.

This is guaranteed to slash employment and investment to levels not seen since the Great Depression. Ah... nostalgia!

Of course, this alone won’t eliminate the deficit or destroy the country, so they also propose all-but eliminating the military. Indeed, the plan calls for “reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces, procurement and research and development.” In other words, they want to stop military spending almost entirely. Thus, should we decide to defend ourselves in the future, it will be BOYB on hardware.

And what kind of progressive budget would be complete without wasting an obscene amount of money? In that regard, they are planning a $1.45 trillion splurge on "stimulus" (i.e. K-12 education, special education, broadband infrastructure, and housing). Of course, none of that is actual stimulus unless special ed kids are better at creating jobs than I realize. Also, let's not forget that you can't be a true progressive unless your plan includes enslaving the public. Hence, they also plan to turn the health care system into a government run single-payer plan, which will quickly devolve into a government-run non-payer, health indifference system. Krankheit macht frei! (Sickness brings freedom.)

Clearly, this budget is a joke. And what makes it all the more laughable are people like Jeffrey Sachs, a drooling idiot from Huffpo who licks his socks clean at night, who claims this is actually a “centrist budget.” Jeff. . . man. . . stay off the drugs.

In any event, we should remember this budget and remind people that this is what the Democratic Party has become, a collection of weirdoes who want to destroy the economy and the military. A vote for any Democrat is a vote for despair.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Ask And Tell, Fine, But Don't Misbehave

The Senate voted 65-31 on Saturday to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. In and of itself, this change in policy doesn’t give me a lot of heartburn. But I do think the timing is atrocious and a real indictment on the Democrats’ willingness to put politics ahead of the safety of American soldiers. I also think the real questions remain to be answered. Here are some things to consider.

1. This policy was put into place 17 years ago by the Clinton Administration to bail themselves out of one of their many huge mistakes at the beginning of Clinton’s presidency. To satisfy his gay supporters, Clinton declared the military open to gays. But he failed to get any support for such a change before announcing it. This blew up on him. Afraid to offend either side, Team Clinton (including now-Justice Elana Kagan) came up with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as a way to pretend they changed things, when they really didn’t.

2. If gays think Democrats are their friends, recall first that Clinton fooled you, then that Obama promised to repeal this but made no effort to do so, and that the Democrats did nothing until a lame duck session after they lost the Congress. With friends like those....

3. Eight Republicans joined the Democrats in repealing this policy. John McCain (who has surprisingly become a conservative firebrand since the election) led the opposition. Joe Manchin (D-WV) skipped the vote, something he’s already showing a penchant for doing with votes that will be unpopular in West Virginia.

4. The timing of this change is horrible. Despite seventeen years of arguing over this issue, there has been almost no honest study of how letting gay soldiers serve openly will affect the military. Instead, the debate has been dominated by half-studies using loaded questions and the personal opinions of general officers. Thus, we honestly don’t know how this policy will affect the military. It is therefore rather asinine to change this policy at the stroke of a pen while the military is in the field fighting a war. Indeed, if there was ever a moment for a roll-out of a policy, this would be it.

5. Whether this change turns out to be effective, ineffective or disastrous, will depend on how it is enforced. To the extent the military simply changes the rules to allow gays to serve openly, and it requires them to follow the identical rules of conduct that heterosexual soldiers currently follow, there probably will be few problems.

But to the extent they start demanding changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to accommodate conduct of the type that is associated with “the gay lifestyle,” there will be problems. For example, thousands of years of military experience have shown that fraternization is corrosive of military discipline. If rules like the prohibition on fraternization are eliminated or are not enforced when the conduct is between homosexuals, then military discipline will suffer.

Similarly, the military will need to strictly apply anti-sexual harassment rules against gays just as it does between heterosexual soldiers of the opposite sex. In other words, if the military takes a politically correct stance and decides that only heterosexuals can be harassers or that gays need only comply with a lesser standard of harassment, then expect serious problems.

6. Don’t expect the court challenges to stop. Repealing this policy will kill the current court cases challenging the policy. BUT those who have been discharged will probably seek reinstatement and back pay. To solve those cases, the Supreme Court will be asked to rule on the validity of the policy to decide whether the government acted properly in tossing them out under the old policy. It’s unlikely the Court will make such a ruling (it will instead rule on the basis of "sovereign immunity"), but expect the effort nevertheless.

Moreover, expect a slew of challenges to the UCMJ alleging that rules like the prohibition on fraternization and other “conduct unbecoming” rules are unconstitutional.

7. For those gays suggesting this change represents a civil rights victory of some sort, you are wrong. At best, this is an acknowledgment that gays are more accepted in society. But to call this a cornerstone of some change in the civil rights laws is incorrect. Indeed, this vote has no effect at all on the legality of gay rights laws or the classification of homosexuality as a protected class. This is simply a change in military rules that now allow certain conduct, just as if they said soldiers may openly gamble or own Priuses.

8. Finally, the effects of this policy change need to be watched closely and studied intensely. If this policy leads to a decline in military discipline or the endangerment of soldiers (gay or straight), then it must be changed. AND, most importantly, these studies need to be conducted honestly and without pressure to reach the politically correct conclusion desired by the politicians (on either side). American lives are too precious to let Nancy Pelosi play games with them just to satisfy her supporters.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

WikiWrap-Up On WikiLeaks

Over the past couple of months, WikiLeaks has been dripping out classified US government documents by the hundreds of thousands. Now that we have a good idea of what they reveal, let’s address the issues.

Point 1: What the heck was the government thinking?

Lost in this whole affair is the first question we should all be asking: how did a nobody Army Specialist, Bradley Manning, download several hundred thousand sensitive documents about two separate wars and 250,000 diplomatic cables (11,000 of which were marked secret or “nofo” meaning they could not be shared with foreign government) to a personal computer so he could hand them over to WikiLeaks? Who designs a system for storing classified documents that allows such wide-ranging access? Moreover, they apparently only caught Manning because he went online and bragged about being the source. How can that be?

This is the real issue that needs to be solved and the total focus on WikiLeaks' founder is a distraction from the real scandal.

Point 2: What revelations?

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this affair has been the utter lack of revelations. The media claims to have found some, but not a single piece of information produced wasn’t already widely known. Consider these:

● Many governments are run by sexual predators, incompetents or criminals.

● Putin and Berlusconi like to party, as does Gaddafi, who also likes to pout.

● Medvedev is a puppet of Putin, and Russia’s bureaucracy really runs the country.

● Yemen let US troops kill al Qaeda terrorists within their border and tried to pass this sophisticated attack off as having been done by its own primitive security forces with a few US advisors involved.

● Obama used promises and threats to win support for his Copenhagen non-deal deal.

● Mexico’s drug war is not well-focused and is not going well.

● Various Arab states hate and fear Iran, and a couple pleaded with the US to bomb Iran to keep it from getting an atomic bomb.

● Venezuela is not well-liked in the region.

● Iran heavily supported the insurgency in Iraq.

● China is slowly turning against North Korea.

● China authorized cyber attacks against American companies, including Google, and the US Embassy.

● The British royals are inbred idiots who say stupid things.

● Karzai is an erratic jerk who believes in conspiracies and plots but knows little about governing, and his brother is a drug lord.

Anything shocking there? Anything you didn’t already know? I thought not. In fact, the only real revelation of which I am aware is that North Korea managed to send a number of sophisticated missiles to Iran, missiles that are capable of carrying a nuclear payload.

So why is the lack of revelations so interesting? Because it shows us that our government actually is very good at being open and honest with us. And since that is a necessary cornerstone of democracy, this bodes well for our system.

Point 3: Is this disclosure good for democracy?

WikiLeaks founder Julia Assange claims that he leaked this information because secrecy is anathema to good government. To a degree, I agree with that. I am a firm believer in requiring “full disclosure” by government because our government acts in our names and we can only judge our government if we know what it is doing. But the key word there is “doing.”

“Doing” does not include advice given to leaders by their advisors. When you make such advice public, the advisors stop providing complete and honest advice and instead become concerned with how they will appear to the public when their advice is disclosed. That cripples the government because it can no longer get a full picture of its options or the likely consequences of its actions.

“Doing” also does not include information that was provided to the government in a confidential manner. Whether this is corporations sharing trade secrets with the government or individuals turning in neighbors who may be terrorists, allowing the disclosure of such information will prevent people from coming forward with similar information in the future. That prevents the government from getting the information it needs to do its job.

WikiLeaks failed to protect either of these types of information. By turning over private assessments of foreign leaders, WikiLeaks makes it harder for future diplomats to share their private opinions about foreign leaders, which makes it that much harder to spot the potential Hitlers or Ahmadinejads -- which means the US is more likely to work with budding dictators in the future. Likewise, soldiers will now censor their reports, which means the likelihood of casualties (civilian and military) goes up.

WikiLeaks also turned over information that has endangered individual informants. Said a former British military intelligence officer: “Assange has seriously endangered the lives of Afghan civilians. . . the logs contain detailed personal information regarding Afghan civilians who have approached NATO soldiers with information.” This release will prevent future informants from coming forward, and will thereby help terrorists and dictators suppress their people.

Even some of the leading opponents of government censorship have strongly denounced WikiLeaks. Steven Aftergood, editor of Secrecy News, says: “WikiLeaks routinely tramples on the privacy of non-governmental, non-corporate groups for no valid public policy reason. . . this is not whistleblowing and it is not journalism. It is a kind of information vandalism.” Aftergood notes, for example, that WikiLeaks has also published the “secret rituals” of a women’s sorority, “the private rites of Masons, Mormons and other groups that cultivate confidential relations among their members.”

So how can it be good for democracy to have a group of information peeping Toms releasing information that (1) prevents government advisors, diplomats and soldiers from being honest with their bosses, (2) prevents non-government people from sharing information with the government, (3) gets people killed for getting involved with the government, and (4) will make the government much more obsessed with hiding information in the future? If WikiLeaks’ purpose was to open government and make it more responsive, then this is called a “backfire.”

Point 4: What if this had been Bush?

Finally, it is amazing to see the difference between how these leaks are being treated now that they are affecting Obama, rather than Bush. Under Bush, the left was demanding that Bush release the very type of information just released -- they even sued him to get some of it. And they poo-poo’d the Bush Administration’s claims that the release of this type of information would be dangerous.

So they should be happy that this information is finally coming out, right? Wrong. They are treating Assange like a war criminal. They want him hunted down, they don’t even object when people talk about putting him on the terrorist “kill on sight” list. They are happy to believe the rather ridiculous rape charges as true and include that in every mention of his name. They raise no complaints about various governments (possibly including our own) using cyber attacks to keep WikiLeaks offline, nor do they complain when the government leans on and threatens ISPs that host him. It’s amazing how right and wrong changes for the left depending on who is getting hurt.

And let me add another interesting piece to this puzzle. Remember how Obama promised to run the most open government in history and how the left relentlessly pounded Bush for his supposed secrecy? Well get this: last year, the Obama administration marked 54.7 million documents as secret, that’s 10 times the number marked “secret” in 1996 and more than double the maximum amount marked “secret” in any year under Bush. Yet the left says nothing.

I guess “open government” only matter when it’s a Republican president?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

California Elected The Senator It Deserves

Shown is California's re-elected Senator Barbara Boxer. Post-election, she felt she could let her hair down. Unfortunately, that seems to be the only thing that was holding the rest of her face up. Either that or they ran out of prune juice at the Senate commissary. In any event, Babs is getting back up to speed very quickly. Her high and mighty majesty's latest pronouncement proves it.

Wishing to bring a bit of San Francisco to our military, Boxer has compared Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military with the policies of a gang of totalitarian regimes. Speaking to her good buddy Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut: "We now stand with this rule with countries like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan in banning gays and lesbians from military service. Now our brave young men and women fight alongside allies like Australia, the United Kingdom and others who allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. Let's not stand with Pakistan, and with North Korea and Iran. It's just wrong."

Well, I don't have a quarrel with not standing with Pakistan, North Korea and Iran on much of anything. But I get a little lost on exactly how our treatment of gays in the military is anything like theirs. Muslim Iran and Pakistan have some rather draconian methods of dealing with gays--in or out of the military. And loony tunes Kim Jong Il said of America that it is part of the "popular gay culture in the West, which many perceive to embrace consumerism, classism and promiscuity." But he only kills gays when they don't laugh at his great sense of humor.

I'm not persuaded either way about gays and lesbians serving in the military, though I lean towards allowing them to live their own lives outside of military facilities and battlegrounds and keep their equipment in their pants while on duty (which is the same attitude I have towards straights in the military). Don't ask, don't tell seems a bit silly to me anyway, since any military personnel who exhibit the traditionally stereotypical caricature of homosexuals aren't going to have to tell anyway. Still, in the long run, I would accept the decision of the non-political officers and enlisted personnel before I would impose any drastic policy on our entire military.

As it stands now, our military simply doesn't prohibit gays and lesbians from serving in the military. Behave like a good soldier and nobody's going to rat you out. On the other hand, if you are so incapable of controlling your sexual impulses that you have the need to define yourself by whom you sleep with, perhaps the military is not a good career choice. Don't ask, don't tell was not instigated to keep gays out of the military. It was a compromise reached when Clinton overstepped his bounds (as Obama and Boxer wish to do now) by replacing prevailing opinion among the military (and probably a moderate majority of non-military civilians) with campaign promises, electoral pandering, and political-correctness. In other words, its express purpose was to allow gays into the service so long as they didn't make a big deal of being gay.

Furthermore, after nearly two decades of don't ask, don't tell, many enlisted men and commissioned officers are gay (just as they likely always were), and anyone who believes that their fellow service men and women don't know or care is being very naive. Every special favor done for gays in the civilian sector has resulted in at least an increase in flamboyantly sexual demonstrativeness that would otherwise have been moderated. Now if we're talking about a sales clerk at Macy's, it simply isn't that much of a problem. In fact, it might be a plus. But we're talking about the military where uniformity of behavior and absence of constant sexual innuendo is a necessity.

Still, wherever you stand on gays in the military, Boxer has just raised the stakes. She left Saudi Arabia out of her false parallels, thereby not mentioning that the punishment for homosexuality is a quick beheading. Even the New York Times made note of that distinction between Muslim and Western nations (including even the backwards old United States). Boxer seems to have a need for extreme rhetoric to avoid awakening America to the fact that her stand on the matter is nothing more than more forced social experimentation in the worst possible place. The current system works for both gays and straights, so why mess with success?

There are those who suggest that Boxer should think before opening her big mouth. They have apparently not seen the picture of what Boxer looks like when she tries that. Her personal petty self-image problem, her hysterical pronouncements, and her need to force her ultra-liberal personal beliefs on an unwilling military are all signs that both Boxer and more than 50% of California voters are at least a little psychotic.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Powell Receives A Revelation

I haven't believed anything Colin Powell has said since he played the general greeting the Martian ambassador in Mars Attacks. Later, I found out he didn't even play that part, so I'll have to go back even farther to find something believable coming out of his mouth. But I will admit that I did believe him when he endorsed Barack Obama for president even if I didn't believe a single word of his stated reasons for doing so.

I've always referred to the former general as Bowel Powell, but only in part because of the way his first name is pronounced. For some reason known only to Powell and a few of his confidantes, Powell claims to be a Republican. At least one reason for his continuing to appear publicly as a Republican was the fact that he was granted far more honor from Republican presidents than was his due, and far better treatment from the right than from the left.

Over the political course of his life (which I contend includes all his military service above the rank of colonel), Powell has followed orders while stabbing his superiors in the back, supported abortion at all stages prior to actual birth, promoted affirmative action, and endorsed whatever wild spending the government wanted in its zest for control of nearly everything. With Republicans like that, who needs Democrats? So needless to say, it came as no surprise to me when this fine Republican endorsed socialist nonentity and Democratic nominee Barack Hussein Obama for president.

Somehow, through almost everything up to his endorsement of the messiah, Powell managed to maintain an image of integrity and honesty as well as wise thinking among almost everyone who wasn't on either the far left or far right. Even after his endorsement, about the worst criticism one could find on conservative sites was "ingrate." One can only hope that the same people who stubbornly refused to own up to the fact that Powell is a facile manipulator with no agenda but his own will now listen to him in his latest reincarnation.

Good ol' General/Secretary of State Powell has indicated that he is shocked-shocked-to find out that Obama is not the moderate that Powell claimed to believe he was. This is supposedly an honest, principled stand he's taking, but I suspect it's more likely that he put his wet finger to the wind and discovered the American people really don't like Obama or his supporters very much.

Powell hasn't exactly come out of the closet to make any stinging denouncement of Obama, but his criticisms fit nicely into the mainstream without actually saying anything truly ground-shaking. Says Powell: "The President needs to change his approach in the White House because voters are feeling overwhelmed by sweeping new laws that expand the scope of government." Note the hesitation. Powell isn't saying that Obama is wrong, but knowing the sense of the country, he is criticizing Obama's approach.

Powell goes on to say on Meet The Press: "The President also has to shift the way in which he has been doing things. The American people feel that too many programs have come down. There are so many rocks in our knapsack now that we're having trouble carrying it." Again, not a genuine criticism of Obama's policies but rather the speed at which they are being thrown at the American people. It should not surprise anyone that Powell would think this way. He almost single-handedly convinced the elder president Bush that the American armed forces were moving too fast and too successfully during the first Gulf War. He was instrumental in turning a clear victory into a stalemate in order not to offend Muslims by winning. Right and wrong were unimportant to him. Only perception mattered.

So for Powell to criticize Obama in any way is a major landmark. In the first place, he didn't have to do it at all. Second, considering his inability to take a truly principled and clear stand on anything, any criticism of Obama by Powell is an event. Third, the action required Powell to admit, horrors, that he might just have been wrong about the snake-oil salesman from Illinois. The latter is not as earth-shattering as his incorrect assessment of Saddam Hussein, but uttering a discouraging word about this Hussein is news when it comes from a great statesman like Powell.

Making sure that everybody fully understands what a great intellect and political analyst he is, Powell was quick to add: "Republicans shouldn't cater to fringe elements who question the president's religion or whether he was born in the U.S. Let's attack him on policy and not nonsense." Clearly, Powell has forgotten that he originally endorsed Obama based on nonsense. Then Powell went the extra step of once again claiming to be a Republican, though he's unhappy with the rightward drift of the party.

Powell either doesn't realize or is being disingenuous about the fact that the MSM have blown up the religion and nationality issues precisely for the purpose of drawing attention away from Obama's failing and failed policies. And I can claim to be the King of Siam, but it doesn't mean I actually am the King of Siam. Finally, if he considers his mildly-critical words "an attack" on Obama's policies, he's even more foolish than I had previously thought.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Risk Your Lives--But Don't Think Of Voting

Attorney General Eric Holder, with the concurrence of his boss, wants to make sure you won't be seeing pictures like this more than absolutely necessary. Holder's Justice Department is taking time out of its busy schedule of dismissing Black Panther voter-intimidation cases and fighting Arizona's attempts to stop illegals from crossing the borders to make sure our armed forces cast as few absentee votes as possible.

The Military and Overseas Voting Empowerment Act ("MOVE") was passed to protect the rights of Americans overseas to receive their absentee ballots in sufficient time to fill them out and return them to their home precincts in time to comply with the law. It was specifically designed to protect the voting rights of our men and women in the armed forces in strange and dangerous lands. But just like the unimportant voters in Philadelphia, the Obamists consider soldiers to be fine gun fodder but not good voters.

After several hits from the public about their nefarious actions in direct contravention of the will of the majority, the lawyers at DOJ struck a secret deal with the State of Wisconsin to do a backroom end run around the act. There had been several complaints from the military and memos from the Department of Defense regarding Wisconsin's foot-dragging in preparing absentee ballots for military personnel serving outside the United States. Wisconsin officials spent considerably more time making excuses than they did in making any serious attempt to comply with the act.

The act requires that all absentee ballots for the military be mailed no less than 45 days prior to the election. Only a federal waiver can reduce that time period. Wisconsin dithered around until the last minute, then applied to the Pentagon for a waiver reducing the period to 32 days. The Pentagon pointedly denied the waiver. Instead of acting promptly and in good faith to comply, the Wisconsin officials then tried again, this time asking for only 29 days. In the scheme of domestic civilian voting, 13 or 16 days may not sound like much. But it will make a major difference in the ability of military personnel overseas to receive, review, and return the ballots in time. This is particularly true if they are stationed in war zones, or are on lengthy maneuvers in the field.

In upholding the two denials by the Pentagon, the director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program said that though some of the other states offered thorough and comprehensive plans to protect the voting opportunities for military voters overseas along with their waiver requests, "Wisconsin's waiver application didn't even come close to compliance with the MOVE act." He further said that "the folks at the Pentagon rightfully denied the waiver request."

It was a clear and decisive victory for the military and a strong endorsement of the letter and intent of the MOVE act. Wisconsin, though, continued to act as if the waiver was a mere detail and made no plans to expedite the absentee ballot procedures. In an honest, patriotic and competent Justice Department, a suit would have been filed against Wisconsin demanding injunctions, expedited legal proceedings ("time of the essence") and where applicable, administrative punishment for the offenders.

But this is the Holder Justice Department. No suits were filed, no injunctions requested, no punitive action was taken against the foot-dragging Wisconsin officials. The sneaky, slimy legal team set up by Holder instead entered into secret negotiations with the offending Wisconsin officials. During the negotiations, the time for DOJ to file an equitable action against Wisconsin expired. The brilliant DOJ lawyers actually had the nerve to proclaim a victory by getting Wisconsin to go back to its original request for a shortened 32 day period instead of 29 days. But during the negotiations, Wisconsin produced no more valid legal reasoning for requesting a waiver than it did when the requests were denied by the Pentagon.

The three day difference between the 29 and 32 days will generously be added to the time allowed for counting the absentee ballots after their receipt. Another dirty, sneaky DOJ trick to make Wisconsin seem reasonable. But even the dolts in Congess who enacted MOVE know that all the critical time required comes before the election date, not after. In fact, Congress specifically rejected post-election add-on time as a substitute for compliance with the time allowed for voting.

The extra time before the election was enacted in order to give the military time to receive the ballots, fill them out, and mail them back at least seven days before the election so that they arrive in time to be counted. If they arrive late, it doesn't matter how much extra time is allotted after the election for counting absentee ballots. Late ballots simply will not be counted at all, which is exactly what Wisconsin and Holder's DOJ lawyers wanted. The consent decree validating this evisceration of the MOVE act was published last Friday. No MSM coverage, of course.

The Obamists, socialists and various other Democrats are accomplished election-thieves. Fooling with the mechanics of how votes are received, cast and counted has resulted in multiple recent examples of Democrats being in big trouble and suddenly snatching "victory" from the jaws of defeat. It's always very mysterious. Al Franken's election to the Senate in Wisconsin's neighbor Minnesota was a perfect example of Democrat-controlled election commissions and courts implementing the plan: "Keep counting until the Democrat wins."

If you can keep the voters from voting in the first place, you don't have to bother with all those other legal pretenses. And so it is with Wisconsin, the DOJ, and the circumvention of the MOVE act. This is going to be a bad year for Democrats, and a few thousand, or even a few hundred ballots could make all the difference. Even liberal Wisconsin is not happy with the party in power.

The Democrats know that the military tends to be conservative and patriotic, something Democrats rarely are, and even in good times that means Republicans usually fare better. Obama was a temporary aberration, but he's not running this time. So every possible Republican ballot has to be fended off. Better to disenfranchise a minority of Democrats than to allow Republicans and Independents to vote the leftists out.

Each time I think that the thoroughly rotten Holder can't sink any lower, he proves me to be much too generous. Letting Black Panther thugs go free to intimidate voters and suing states for daring to protect their borders is bad enough. But now this stumblebum and his patriotism-deprived boss ask young men and women to risk their lives to protect the fundamental right of a free people--the right to vote. But the dirty duo wants to make sure that those very same young men and women can't themselves vote. It's far more important for them to protect the right of Muslims to vote for sharia, stoning for adultery, the demeaning of women, and leaders who threaten the destruction of Western civilization than to protect the right of Americans to vote the Democrats out.

So when the next Democrat indignantly asks me if I'm questioning his loyalty and patriotism, my answer will be "you're damned right I am!"
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Am I Seriously Defending Obama? Yep.

As I’ve said before, when Obama does something right, I will point that out. Well, it’s happened. According to a New York Times article this weekend, the US has been fighting a “shadow war against al Qaeda and its allies.” And the Times doesn’t like this one bit. But Obama deserves praise for this decision.

This shadow war began under Bush and has been intensified under Obama. At this point, this shadow war has taken place in a dozen countries, from North Africa to Pakistan to former Soviet republics, and has involved the use of robotic drones, commando teams, missile and air strikes, and the hiring of “local contractors” to find and kill these terrorists. Also, this war is apparently being shifted to the CIA from the military.

This is absolutely the right way to fight terrorism and Obama deserves credit for his decision.

History has proven time and time again (without exception), and is proving once more in Afghanistan, that you just can’t fight terrorism with traditional military action. Terrorists disappear too easily into civilian populations and don’t require the types of infrastructure that ground forces are designed to combat. Indeed, trying to fight terrorists with large scale military operations merely results in getting soldiers killed and driving civilians to the terrorists’ cause; the only way to fight terrorists is exactly what is apparently being done as part of this shadow war.

Good for Obama, good for our country.

But of course, that’s not the end of this issue. Indeed, Obama’s left flank is upset to learn about this shadow war. Here are their arguments and why they are garbage:

1. These efforts are intended to kill the terrorists, not arrest them.

Yes, and that’s the point. When someone declares war against the United States and sets out to kill American civilians, they have lost any right to demand that they be arrested and treated according to criminal law. They have made themselves into military targets, just as if they were a battleship parked off an American port, and we are within our rights under any reading of law or international law to kill them. Indeed, even under the Geneva Convention, terrorists deserve less protection than even enemy soldiers. Thus, this argument is simply wrong on all counts.

2. The potential for botched operations might fuel anti-American rage.

This is a sucker argument because it applies to any action by the US. Even if we sent in unarmed police with warrants and provided trial attorneys on the spot to hand out teddy bears, there is still the potential for botched operations. What you need to look at are the alternatives. Under this policy, the worst that happens is that the US hits the wrong target and kills a few innocent civilians. That’s regrettable and will outrage people in those countries, but the outrage will be nothing compared to the outrage caused by the United States Army occupying the country and going house to house trying to find the proverbial terrorist needle in the stack of needles.

3. Blurring the line between soldiers and spies “could put troops at risk of being denied Geneva Convention protections.”

This is the most disingenuous argument on the list because al Qaeda does not act in accordance with the Geneva Convention and does not extend such protections to US soldiers or civilians.

4. Reliance on authoritarian foreign leaders could lead to murky loyalties.

The world is an ugly place full of bad people. Some can be helpful and others harmful. The idea that we should only deal with good people is a utopian delusion that limits our allies to a handful of useless countries. And if the left really believed this argument, then why do they advocate the US dealing with Hamas, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, China and a dozen more.

5. The use of “private contractors” worries the left that the US “has outsourced some of its most important missions to a sometimes unaccountable private army.”

This is more utopian doublespeak. It’s also bad policy. In many instances, there is simply no way for Americans to get intelligence on what is going on in remote places unless they deal with these “private contractors.” Moreover, why should we risk the lives of American men and women when we can hire local mercenaries to do the job for us? Now, to the extent this complaint is about effectiveness, I would agree that we need to be careful not to waste valuable opportunities on bad bets. But the military is unlikely to use “contractors” who are not effective. Finally, this idea of unaccountability is simply wrong. The “contractors” may not be subject to US law or Congressional oversight, but the American officers who hire them would be.

6. This is leading to weakened Congressional oversight, which is undoing “safeguards introduced after Congressional investigations into clandestine wars of the past.”

As you may recall from way back, I am a firm believer in Congressional oversight of everything the military or intelligence communities do in our name. But I don’t see how the waging of such a war, which will be overseen by Congressional intelligence committees, will weaken that oversight. And if it does, then we should strengthen the oversight, not stop the operation.


This policy makes a world of sense. It is, in fact, one of the first things we’ve done about terrorism that actually has a chance to stop terrorism. Compared with Afghanistan, where we’re fighting on the losing side of a civil war, or Somalia, where we’re playing catch and release with modern-day pirates, or Europe, where we’re playing legalistic footsie with people who want to kill us, this is finally a policy that should lead to the eventual destruction of these terrorist organizations. And the phony arguments of the left to keep us from undertaking this policy should be treated with the contempt they deserve. Thus, I must say quite firmly, that in this, I do support Obama.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

What Passes For "Conservative" At HuffPo

Leftists are interesting creatures. They are immune to reality. Logic and truth are foreign concepts to them. They are seething with hate. They love to put their ignorance on display. And sometimes, they pretend to be conservatives. Take, for example, Eric Margolis, who rants at Huffpo on occasion. Eric claims to be moderately conservative, defining himself as an “Eisenhower Republican.” You can tell me in the comments if you buy into that laugher.

To properly get a sense of who Eric is, let’s look at two pieces that he ran over at Huffpo about Afghanistan and Iraq. But first, some background: Eric is a fool with no understanding of history, no grasp on reality and an indifference to facts. He believes that “America has become addicted to debt and war,” and he seems to despise the American military, which he describes derisively as “professional soldiers” (in the Roman context) and “mercenaries.” He also thinks that using modern weapons in a place like Afghanistan is “cowardly”:

“In my view, as an old soldier and war correspondent, using heavy bombers to attack tribal levies or employing gunships and drones against tribal compounds is cowardly.”

Note the assertion that “America’s professional soldiers” are waging a war against civilians.

You may also note that Eric mentions that he is a former solider. In fact, he reminds us of this over and over because he thinks this means something. Perhaps he’s forgetting that Lee Harvey Oswald, Hitler and Alan Alda also were soldiers, and they were all less paranoid than Eric.

And speaking of soldiers, Eric has no love for “fire-breathing Gen. Stanley McChrystal” or our “Special Forces ‘mafia’.” He also hates Fox News, Republicans and the American people, as he was just sure that those morons would make McChrystal into a hero, and thereby the Republicans would “again sadly demonstrate they have become the party of America's dim and ignorant.” He also hates the Tea Party because it appeals to the “fears and prejudices” of its followers, and he rejects the Republican Party because it is influenced by the evil Tea Party.

Oh, and speaking of evil, in a 2009 essay titled “Don’t Blame Hitler Alone for World War II,” Eric claims that it was wrong to give Hitler full blame for World War II, because this was a “preventive war” forced on Hitler by the Soviets.

Ok, so that’s conservative Eric. Now let’s take a quick look at what he just wrote about Iraq and Afghanistan. Here are some highlights.

The Taliban are resisting “western occupation” of Afghanistan. . . forget that the Taliban were there long before the West arrived.

And why would we occupy Afghanistan you ask? Well, first he rants something about the US wanting to control the biggest exporter of heroin. But then he changes his mind mid-rant to alert us that the US wants Afghanistan to control its “oil”. . . which doesn’t exist.

But his real hatred is aimed at our being in Iraq. See if you can follow this:

He starts by saying that we only went into Iraq because the “Seven Sisters” have been squeezed out of their oil fields in places like Iran, and they needed Iraq’s oil wealth to get back into the game. The “Seven Sisters,” by the way, was the name given to the big seven American oil firms in the 1950s. Only four still exist and only two remain American.

But then he suddenly realizes that people might not buy the idea that we need Iraq’s oil because. . . well, we don’t. So he says that the real reason we wanted their oil fields was to gain influence over people like Japan who need the oil. Apparently, occupying Japan doesn’t give us enough influence. His proof? Well, “as the old saying goes, America’s trinity is ‘God, guns and gasoline.’” Wow, now that’s definitive!

Then he gets a little crazy. . . er:

1. He notes that “American ‘liberation’ left Iraq politically, economically and socially shattered, ‘killed’ in the words of former foreign minister, Tariq Aziz.” To back this up, he claims that “reputable studies estimate Iraq’s death toll at mid-hundreds of thousands to one million, not counting claims by UN observers that 500,000 Iraqi children died of disease as a result of the US-led embargo before 2003.” Of course, there are no reputable studies that say this, there are only a couple of far left guesses. Even the AP only puts the death toll at 100,000.

2. He goes on: “four million Sunni Iraqis remain refugees.” FYI, that’s more Sunnis than exist.

3. He says the “surge” only worked because Iran ordered the Shia Mahdi Army militia “to temporarily end resistance” and because of “deft bribery” by the Americans who spent “untold millions bribing Sunni fighters.”

4. Then he takes a quick side trip to warn us that Washington is building new “fortified embassies” in Kabul, Islamabad and Baghdad? These “may hold 1,000 ‘diplomats.’ Osama bin Laden calls them, ‘Crusader Fortresses.’” You see people. . . it’s all there in black and white!

5. And what about the “50,000 US troops left until 2011 . . . to ‘advise and assist”? Well, “to this old war correspondent and military historian, that sounds an awful lot like the British Empires employment of native troops under white officers.” Military historian? Yeah, sure.

6. Of course, he couldn’t leave the Jews out of this because no paranoid rant is complete without a little anti-Semitism. So, did you know that “Large numbers of Iraqis doctors and scientists have been murdered”? And guess who did it? Well, Eric doesn’t want to say definitively because there’s no “hard evidence,” but he lets us know that a lot of people are saying they were killed “by Israel’s Mossad.”

That’s probably enough for you to get the point. Eric is an anti-Semitic, anti-American nutjob with paranoid delusions of American schemes to conquer the world. He fits right in at Huffpo. And he is anything but a “conservative.”

I guess it’s become the vogue thing for leftists to masquerade as “conservatives.”


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...