The recent terrorist (yes, I said terrorist...I'm looking at you Mr. President) attempt in Detroit and the governments' response to it just have me shaking my head in a rather morbid way.
Those in the government seem to think that if they are polite to the terrorists, smile at them, treat them with kid's gloves, turn a blind eye to their activities and generally leave them alone that somehow they will leave us alone. That is juvinile thinking at best and loony tunes at its worst.
They don't care if we allow Israel to be destroyed, they will try it anyhow. They don't care if we allow tens of millions of Muslims into this country, they will still hate us. Islam simply can not exist with any, and let me be clear with this...ANY other religion. I'll even go so far as to say that it can not coexist with any other philosophy or government model. Islam is all of that rolled into one belief system.
Am I clear on that? You are either one of them (take your pick of flavor) or you are an infidel. An infidel must submit (the very definition of the word Islam, I want to add) to one of two fates. 1) Convert, 2) accept second class status and pay taxes to the State. There is no 3rd choice with them (unless you choose death, then I guess you do have three choices). Got it, yet?
BHO decides to close Gitmo, why? Gives us a bad image and just creates more terrorists. What came first, Gitmo or 9/11 (don't get cute, I know we've had Gitmo since 1898)? How about the Munich Olympics, or that plane in Uganda? How about Jerusalem in 1944 (no, wait, those were Jews bombing Brits, never mind).
Anyhow, what I'm getting at here is that reality is reality, no matter what words you assign to them. Did the "War on Terror" end when Obama ordered that it be renamed, "Overseas Contingency Force"? This Christmas would tell us, NO. Unless you live at the Quantum level (physics geeks will get it) reality is what it is. Wishing it were different does not make it so. Islam hates us with every particle of its existence. It will not rest until the entire world is under its control. There can be no other reality.
No, I don't believe in a "moderate" Muslim. If you know where to look on the Internet, you can find hundreds of websites, sites located physically in the United States, where these terrorist actions are celebrated and applauded. On my own soil I have, "moderate" Muslims rooting for the other team. If you feel that way about America, GET OUT! If you don't like it here, leave. Make room for someone else who actually loves this country.
Sure, you have the right to free speech, but in a time of war, if your speech is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, they you have just bought yourself a one-way ticket back to your dusty, impoverished homeland. You won't go to prison, but you can't stay here.
I have said since at least the early 1980's that tension between Islam and the rest of the world will only be solved by a civilization busting war. A war that will be bloody beyond all previous measure as the enemy has been steadily building up its numbers in all of our cities for at least the last 100 years. Up until President Bush launched the War on Terror, their plans had been to quietly populate our cities (most successful in Europe after WWII), move into the machine of government and then dismantle the infidel civilization from within. Remember, there are no "moderate" Muslims. Push comes to shove and Muslims will fall in line with the radical elements of their belief system. This has proven very successful in France, Sweden and Norway (and Germany). The gloves are off and if the West can wake up from its Multi-cultural nightmare and deal with the enemy that is not just in the gates but among the defenders then we can still save ourselves.
Am I a racist? You decide. I really don't care what you call me. Think about this and let me know if I may be missing something here.
--Zavost
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Relentless Health Care Reform
Health care reform grinds forward with the remorseless march of a glacier. For months the media reported on its steady advance with one form of this or another: "proposal passes House sub-committee but faces certain failure in the larger committee"; "proposed bill passes committee but faces insurmountable hurdles in the larger House"; "5 version of the Senate bill exist and merging them will be impossible"; "bill passes in the House, Senate bill not a viable option"; and on and on and on.
Each time the bill is certain to fail, each time pressure is applied and Federal monies (my, money) are heaped on hold outs to literally and unashamedly buy their votes. I simply will not believe the media on anything any longer. My elected representatives are ignoring the will of those they represent and not in any little way, either.
The latest tragedy is watching the Senator from Nebraska rail and rant about the abortion provisions in the Senate bill. For days snippets of this guy was all over the networks; some supporting his stance, some threatening his stance. Even the great Obama was reported to say to this Senator, "Don't think we are not keeping score, brother."
Just as the pessimist, or realist in this case, in me knew would happen, the Senate version of the bill passed last night while I slept. I woke several times at night and I didn't know why, but it seems like it was the sound of the nails being driven into America's coffin.
My country is dying and it is difficult to find too many people who even seem aware of it. Our Constitution has survived since 1789. It has been repeatedly assaulted since the time of Theodore Roosevelt and now it looks like it will flat line under Obama.
Who knows why the Nebraska Senator changed his mind and voted for it. The abortion provisions remain untouched, despite what I heard on the news. It is all still in there. However, Nebraska got a sweet Medicare deal where his state will get funding well beyond what the other states are getting. His vote didn't even cost as much as the Louisiana Senator cost. She cost $300 million. Must be a prostitution world record, somewhere.
I stand on the frontier, trying to reach out to people and tell them that things are grim. Most don't want to believe. Those that do are frustrated and meek, not knowing what to do. Others see the system as being too big to move, that their voices are inconsequential. The Tea Party folks and the 9/12 folks are simply being ignored. Time magazine did not even recognize that they even existed this year. I came across something on the net last year and I'll place it in this blog below. I don't know where it comes from but it describes how I feel right now:
"The enemy is just beyond the perimeter and darkness is all around us."
--"Loose Horse" Steve, Semper Fidelis
--Zavost
Each time the bill is certain to fail, each time pressure is applied and Federal monies (my, money) are heaped on hold outs to literally and unashamedly buy their votes. I simply will not believe the media on anything any longer. My elected representatives are ignoring the will of those they represent and not in any little way, either.
The latest tragedy is watching the Senator from Nebraska rail and rant about the abortion provisions in the Senate bill. For days snippets of this guy was all over the networks; some supporting his stance, some threatening his stance. Even the great Obama was reported to say to this Senator, "Don't think we are not keeping score, brother."
Just as the pessimist, or realist in this case, in me knew would happen, the Senate version of the bill passed last night while I slept. I woke several times at night and I didn't know why, but it seems like it was the sound of the nails being driven into America's coffin.
My country is dying and it is difficult to find too many people who even seem aware of it. Our Constitution has survived since 1789. It has been repeatedly assaulted since the time of Theodore Roosevelt and now it looks like it will flat line under Obama.
Who knows why the Nebraska Senator changed his mind and voted for it. The abortion provisions remain untouched, despite what I heard on the news. It is all still in there. However, Nebraska got a sweet Medicare deal where his state will get funding well beyond what the other states are getting. His vote didn't even cost as much as the Louisiana Senator cost. She cost $300 million. Must be a prostitution world record, somewhere.
I stand on the frontier, trying to reach out to people and tell them that things are grim. Most don't want to believe. Those that do are frustrated and meek, not knowing what to do. Others see the system as being too big to move, that their voices are inconsequential. The Tea Party folks and the 9/12 folks are simply being ignored. Time magazine did not even recognize that they even existed this year. I came across something on the net last year and I'll place it in this blog below. I don't know where it comes from but it describes how I feel right now:
"The enemy is just beyond the perimeter and darkness is all around us."
--"Loose Horse" Steve, Semper Fidelis
--Zavost
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Failure can be a good thing.
I was watching a program the other night where an argument was made that more protection means more safety, essentially. Then a point was made about the NFL having the best helmets in sports around the world, yet hardly a week goes by where a player in the league is not hauled off the field with a head injury. It was noted that in the Australian Rugby league, they have far fewer head injuries depite not wearing any helmets at all.
I would like to think that the above scenario reflects the human tendency to be less cautious when they feel that there will be no consequences to their actions. The rugby player knows that they had better not lead with their head or else their hats and glasses may no longer sit straight on their faces. The NFL player thinks nothing of plowing head first into a 400 lb man at 8 miles per hour. The laws of physics and momentum are real.
Looking at the economic fiasco we are in today I keep telling myself the same thing I told myself back in August 2008. Let it burn. All those companies that over-extended credit (ACORN or no ACORN) deserve what they get. Innocent companies that bent to the will of the Fed via Freddie and Fannie should go under. The 7-10 million people that would lose their jobs will have my sympathies that they worked for companies that made poor decisions, but they should lose those jobs.
Heartless, mmmmm?
Not really, no. Remember, Conservatism can be counter-intuitive. In this scenario, all those business failures would have required extensive economic autopsies. The causes of their failures would have lead right back to Federal tampering like a blood trail in the woods. Those members of Congress responsible for being irresponsible would have been labeled as the politicking demagogues that they are. Companies that got into bed with the government to curry favors would have been exposed. Rules that had created the various bubbles that have popped would have been fingered and eliminated.
On the people side, the government may have learned what too much intervention and rules-tampering leads to. Those companies that got "Too Big to Fail" would have broken up into smaller companies or simply gone extinct. A dozen other mid-sized companies or several larger ones that played to the FUNDAMENTALS of business would have scooped up the work left rent open by the elimination of the bigger companies. Those that had been cut during the recession would have found new jobs with the smarter, more savvy companies and be back to work by now. The landmarks would be different, the names would be different but the world of business and finance would have continued. Lending would be back on track...responsibly. Those newer companies would need fresh capital to grow.
Let me be frank. The recession would have been worse than it was and more people would have been out of work. But I'd bet my job on it that is would have been shorter and rebounded rapidly. The new playing field would lead to more successful businesses and a more stable economic climb.
Instead the misery continues, the failed companies continue to limp on retaining talent that could be better employed in a recovery and not fetching BHO' Czars their morning coffee.
More to come...
--Zavost
I would like to think that the above scenario reflects the human tendency to be less cautious when they feel that there will be no consequences to their actions. The rugby player knows that they had better not lead with their head or else their hats and glasses may no longer sit straight on their faces. The NFL player thinks nothing of plowing head first into a 400 lb man at 8 miles per hour. The laws of physics and momentum are real.
Looking at the economic fiasco we are in today I keep telling myself the same thing I told myself back in August 2008. Let it burn. All those companies that over-extended credit (ACORN or no ACORN) deserve what they get. Innocent companies that bent to the will of the Fed via Freddie and Fannie should go under. The 7-10 million people that would lose their jobs will have my sympathies that they worked for companies that made poor decisions, but they should lose those jobs.
Heartless, mmmmm?
Not really, no. Remember, Conservatism can be counter-intuitive. In this scenario, all those business failures would have required extensive economic autopsies. The causes of their failures would have lead right back to Federal tampering like a blood trail in the woods. Those members of Congress responsible for being irresponsible would have been labeled as the politicking demagogues that they are. Companies that got into bed with the government to curry favors would have been exposed. Rules that had created the various bubbles that have popped would have been fingered and eliminated.
On the people side, the government may have learned what too much intervention and rules-tampering leads to. Those companies that got "Too Big to Fail" would have broken up into smaller companies or simply gone extinct. A dozen other mid-sized companies or several larger ones that played to the FUNDAMENTALS of business would have scooped up the work left rent open by the elimination of the bigger companies. Those that had been cut during the recession would have found new jobs with the smarter, more savvy companies and be back to work by now. The landmarks would be different, the names would be different but the world of business and finance would have continued. Lending would be back on track...responsibly. Those newer companies would need fresh capital to grow.
Let me be frank. The recession would have been worse than it was and more people would have been out of work. But I'd bet my job on it that is would have been shorter and rebounded rapidly. The new playing field would lead to more successful businesses and a more stable economic climb.
Instead the misery continues, the failed companies continue to limp on retaining talent that could be better employed in a recovery and not fetching BHO' Czars their morning coffee.
More to come...
--Zavost
Friday, December 11, 2009
And the Republican Party stands for...?
Ever since BHO's poll numbers began their slide the Left has wrung its hands, worried that the Republicans may come back to power while the Republicans salivate for a return to power.
Am I to understand that the Republicans should come back to power simply because the DNC has done its best to blow a huge hole through the heart of America and our culture?
Ever since my wife began to vote, I told her to vote for someone, not against someone. This is sometimes hard to do, especially with the last choice of characters. I can say that I voted for Palin and McCain just happened to also be on the ticket. Otherwise I really would have been holding my nose while I voted.
In my opinion, the RNC has not been the RNC of Reagan ever since Ron left office. The DNC may be killing off America with the speed and efficiency of a shotgun blast to the heart, but the RNC has been slowly poisoning its heart and soul.
I was in Slovakia in the fall of 1994 when the RNC swept to power in the wake of Clinton's disastrous assaults on our country. Newt came to the American people and drew up a contract that every Conservative could get behind. Democrats unhappy with what Clinton was doing crossed over and voted for the people they thought would get the job done right.
They drew up legislation that the President signed. They may have twisted his arm on more than one occasion, but things got done, the budget was actually balanced for the first time in decades, and the Republicans looked like the responsible people we like to have in office.
However, Washington D.C. seems to do terrible things to people. There seems to be a relationship between the amount of time you stay in Washington and their character being warped by Liberalism. Elected officials that spend more than one or two terms there grow to enjoy the trappings of power, the whispers of flattery, and the ego boosting of being in possession of so much money and influence. They grow to like it very much and then the desire to stay there overcomes their desire to serve those that elected them. Like the ring of power in the Lord of the Rings, the power corrupts your soul.
Being a conservative is hard. It is intellectual. Anything that makes you think feels a lot like work. Just try to pull out one of your old textbooks and try reading it for "fun". There is a reason why romance books have been pushing my Sci Fi books down the shelf at my local book store.
For a Conservative, what is right and wrong can sometimes feel counter intuitive. I'll use an example from the 1990's. One of the things Congress did was to force Clinton to begin moving people off of the welfare rolls. Not working has a way of destroying an otherwise promising intellect. It rots your soul. To borrow from Rush, a democrat thinks that compassion is measured by the number of people on welfare. A republican measures compassion by the number of people who don't need welfare. An important difference, there. As Benjamin Franklin once said, we should not make poverty too comfortable. Likewise, when the US government sends all this food aid and monetary aid to 3rd world countries that are dominated by dictators and thugs. All we are doing is enabling those in power to pocket and skim the cash and goods and tighten their grip on their people. Those people need to be hungry and ticked off at their condition in life. That is the only way meaningful change can be enacted. Does that mean that I don't care about the children starving in the streets of Haiti or Lebanon? Of course not. It just means that we must do everything in our power, as a nation, to see to it that those people free themselves from their condition as rapidly as possible. Anything else is cruel.
The RNC in the late 90's drifted away from their base. The more established republicans learned how to wield power and not just play defence (like they had for decades). The new members of congress learned what it was like to be powerful, and they liked it.
George Bush may be a good and honorable man, but he lost touch with is Conservative roots. His foreign policy was good, but his domestic policies were down right "progressive". He mirrored the slide of the party as a whole (he was the leader of the party after all). The whole concept of "Compassionate Conservatism" cedes ground to the Liberals. If Bush's "new" angle is "Compassionate Conservatism", then the old angle was cruel and heartless. I beg to disagree strongly.
Under his presidency, even as the Left called him Hitler and assaulted him day and night and on and on, he moved the country to the left in a steady and even march. He cut taxes, but raised spending. I'm not sure if there were many spending bills that he didn't sign off on. Medicare D, Stimulus 1, and on and on. He grew the size of government and increased spending (and the debt load of our children). He passed tax cuts, but could not make them permanent. He did not clean house when he took office and paid for it over and over again as he was sabotaged from within for 8 years.
So should anyone vote for the Republicans simply because they are not Democrats? Hell no. Should they vote for the Republicans because they stand for lower taxes and limited government? If I see that party again, I'll vote for it. Will I vote 3rd party? No, that will just split the ticket and rocket us towards Marxism (unless BHO gets us there before the next "election").
The Republicans of today are Democrat-lite. If you want a Coke, drink a Coke. Diet Coke stinks.
I'll speak more on this in the days to come. Maybe the RNC is getting a clue. Unfortunately, they can not block anything in Washington, despite what is in the news every day. The DNC can not agree within its own ranks, so rather than drag each other through the mud, they go and kick the sleeping Republican dog. The one that has been castrated and had its teeth filed down.
--Zavost
Am I to understand that the Republicans should come back to power simply because the DNC has done its best to blow a huge hole through the heart of America and our culture?
Ever since my wife began to vote, I told her to vote for someone, not against someone. This is sometimes hard to do, especially with the last choice of characters. I can say that I voted for Palin and McCain just happened to also be on the ticket. Otherwise I really would have been holding my nose while I voted.
In my opinion, the RNC has not been the RNC of Reagan ever since Ron left office. The DNC may be killing off America with the speed and efficiency of a shotgun blast to the heart, but the RNC has been slowly poisoning its heart and soul.
I was in Slovakia in the fall of 1994 when the RNC swept to power in the wake of Clinton's disastrous assaults on our country. Newt came to the American people and drew up a contract that every Conservative could get behind. Democrats unhappy with what Clinton was doing crossed over and voted for the people they thought would get the job done right.
They drew up legislation that the President signed. They may have twisted his arm on more than one occasion, but things got done, the budget was actually balanced for the first time in decades, and the Republicans looked like the responsible people we like to have in office.
However, Washington D.C. seems to do terrible things to people. There seems to be a relationship between the amount of time you stay in Washington and their character being warped by Liberalism. Elected officials that spend more than one or two terms there grow to enjoy the trappings of power, the whispers of flattery, and the ego boosting of being in possession of so much money and influence. They grow to like it very much and then the desire to stay there overcomes their desire to serve those that elected them. Like the ring of power in the Lord of the Rings, the power corrupts your soul.
Being a conservative is hard. It is intellectual. Anything that makes you think feels a lot like work. Just try to pull out one of your old textbooks and try reading it for "fun". There is a reason why romance books have been pushing my Sci Fi books down the shelf at my local book store.
For a Conservative, what is right and wrong can sometimes feel counter intuitive. I'll use an example from the 1990's. One of the things Congress did was to force Clinton to begin moving people off of the welfare rolls. Not working has a way of destroying an otherwise promising intellect. It rots your soul. To borrow from Rush, a democrat thinks that compassion is measured by the number of people on welfare. A republican measures compassion by the number of people who don't need welfare. An important difference, there. As Benjamin Franklin once said, we should not make poverty too comfortable. Likewise, when the US government sends all this food aid and monetary aid to 3rd world countries that are dominated by dictators and thugs. All we are doing is enabling those in power to pocket and skim the cash and goods and tighten their grip on their people. Those people need to be hungry and ticked off at their condition in life. That is the only way meaningful change can be enacted. Does that mean that I don't care about the children starving in the streets of Haiti or Lebanon? Of course not. It just means that we must do everything in our power, as a nation, to see to it that those people free themselves from their condition as rapidly as possible. Anything else is cruel.
The RNC in the late 90's drifted away from their base. The more established republicans learned how to wield power and not just play defence (like they had for decades). The new members of congress learned what it was like to be powerful, and they liked it.
George Bush may be a good and honorable man, but he lost touch with is Conservative roots. His foreign policy was good, but his domestic policies were down right "progressive". He mirrored the slide of the party as a whole (he was the leader of the party after all). The whole concept of "Compassionate Conservatism" cedes ground to the Liberals. If Bush's "new" angle is "Compassionate Conservatism", then the old angle was cruel and heartless. I beg to disagree strongly.
Under his presidency, even as the Left called him Hitler and assaulted him day and night and on and on, he moved the country to the left in a steady and even march. He cut taxes, but raised spending. I'm not sure if there were many spending bills that he didn't sign off on. Medicare D, Stimulus 1, and on and on. He grew the size of government and increased spending (and the debt load of our children). He passed tax cuts, but could not make them permanent. He did not clean house when he took office and paid for it over and over again as he was sabotaged from within for 8 years.
So should anyone vote for the Republicans simply because they are not Democrats? Hell no. Should they vote for the Republicans because they stand for lower taxes and limited government? If I see that party again, I'll vote for it. Will I vote 3rd party? No, that will just split the ticket and rocket us towards Marxism (unless BHO gets us there before the next "election").
The Republicans of today are Democrat-lite. If you want a Coke, drink a Coke. Diet Coke stinks.
I'll speak more on this in the days to come. Maybe the RNC is getting a clue. Unfortunately, they can not block anything in Washington, despite what is in the news every day. The DNC can not agree within its own ranks, so rather than drag each other through the mud, they go and kick the sleeping Republican dog. The one that has been castrated and had its teeth filed down.
--Zavost
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Affirmative Healthcare?
The other day my wife brought up a good point. If the government is going to control our health care, and government will be controlling the delivery of health care, is it not reasonable to assume that they will control (as they already control to some extent) the research and development of new equipment and medicines? I thought that was reasonable.
Death Panels? Though there will not likely be a sign on a hallway wall directing you to the "Death Panel Conference Room", there are provisions aplenty that create them in everything but name only. So given all that, what is to keep the government from pushing its obvious "Social Justice" program (or should I say pogrom) on the American people? What is to keep them from deciding who gets medical care, any medical care, if you are of the 'wrong' party affiliation?
In Czechoslovakia, the party bosses got the best health care the country could offer (poor by our standards, but outstanding compared to what the other people got). If they needed to go to Berlin or Moscow for care, then they were sent for that care. Some even went to the West for their care.
The President has already stated that they will not be hiring anyone else in the government machinery that are affiliated with the Republican Party. He has already demonstrated, through his distribution of TARP funds and other Federal monies, that Democrat controlled States, and Democrat controlled Counties will get the lion share of money (85-15%). It is not a long logical leap to having them withhold health care dollars from RNC States and Counties. Not a stretch at all for him to dole out the largess to his supporters (followers?).
I want to be wrong, but he is already doing much of this stuff. The other part of what my wife brought up, really her main theme, was that the government would have to please all of its minority constituents at the cost of the majority. To bring in votes from the Hispanic (he already gets 97% of the Black vote) he will fund programs designed to help just them (business groups and coalitions included). Funds that need to go for one type of research, based on the benefit to the largest number of people, like Cancer, will go towards AIDS research or Hispanic outreach programs.
To think that health care will be doled out based only on your ability to vote Democrat and/or be a useful tool or idiot for their policies is absolutely abhorrent to me.
A point I made to my daughter the other week helps to explain my point (so put down the "he is a racist" sign) was about how much money is enough? People feel that if you throw piles of money at problems then you can make them go away. This just is not so. You can not simply decide to find a cure for Cancer by a specific date. Throwing money at the problem only helps to a point. There needs to be enough scientists to do the research, hospitals to do the clinical trials, and time to discover and develop the medicines and techniques to treat the disease. A saturation point will be reached where the amount of money no longer helps move the process along.
My wife feels that the money will find a home in the pockets of everyone along the way. Sort of like pouring the money down a funnel that has thousands of people pulling from the funnel regardless of how much enters it. At the bottom, not so much as a single penny will fall out as long as the government is dumping unaccounted dollars down it.
Affirmative healthcare? Yep, I can believe that.
Death Panels? Though there will not likely be a sign on a hallway wall directing you to the "Death Panel Conference Room", there are provisions aplenty that create them in everything but name only. So given all that, what is to keep the government from pushing its obvious "Social Justice" program (or should I say pogrom) on the American people? What is to keep them from deciding who gets medical care, any medical care, if you are of the 'wrong' party affiliation?
In Czechoslovakia, the party bosses got the best health care the country could offer (poor by our standards, but outstanding compared to what the other people got). If they needed to go to Berlin or Moscow for care, then they were sent for that care. Some even went to the West for their care.
The President has already stated that they will not be hiring anyone else in the government machinery that are affiliated with the Republican Party. He has already demonstrated, through his distribution of TARP funds and other Federal monies, that Democrat controlled States, and Democrat controlled Counties will get the lion share of money (85-15%). It is not a long logical leap to having them withhold health care dollars from RNC States and Counties. Not a stretch at all for him to dole out the largess to his supporters (followers?).
I want to be wrong, but he is already doing much of this stuff. The other part of what my wife brought up, really her main theme, was that the government would have to please all of its minority constituents at the cost of the majority. To bring in votes from the Hispanic (he already gets 97% of the Black vote) he will fund programs designed to help just them (business groups and coalitions included). Funds that need to go for one type of research, based on the benefit to the largest number of people, like Cancer, will go towards AIDS research or Hispanic outreach programs.
To think that health care will be doled out based only on your ability to vote Democrat and/or be a useful tool or idiot for their policies is absolutely abhorrent to me.
A point I made to my daughter the other week helps to explain my point (so put down the "he is a racist" sign) was about how much money is enough? People feel that if you throw piles of money at problems then you can make them go away. This just is not so. You can not simply decide to find a cure for Cancer by a specific date. Throwing money at the problem only helps to a point. There needs to be enough scientists to do the research, hospitals to do the clinical trials, and time to discover and develop the medicines and techniques to treat the disease. A saturation point will be reached where the amount of money no longer helps move the process along.
My wife feels that the money will find a home in the pockets of everyone along the way. Sort of like pouring the money down a funnel that has thousands of people pulling from the funnel regardless of how much enters it. At the bottom, not so much as a single penny will fall out as long as the government is dumping unaccounted dollars down it.
Affirmative healthcare? Yep, I can believe that.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
3 Choices in Afghanistan
There is a time and a place for politics. There is also a time and a place for leadership. Unfortunately, President B.H. Obama is locked in eternal campaign mode. He has only one pair of glasses and those glasses see absolutely everything in terms politics. Whether it is choosing what type of beer to drink with a Harvard professor and a policeman, to his economic policies, clear through to his macro-strategy for winning the war in Afghanistan, his glasses are political and his mind-set is that of a third world Marxist.
In 2007, he actually began running for President in February of 2006, outlined his plans for the war in Afghanistan. He would put however many boots on the ground to win it, up to and including the overthrow of the Pakistani government. Now, that is dedication to the cause...tearing down our allies in a blind effort to grapple with an implacable enemy.
In February 2009, BHO appoints General McChrystal to head up the operations in the Afghan theater of operation. One must understand that the top layer of our military is very much 'in-tune' with the politics of the civilian administration. They know that getting a star, or the next star on their shoulders comes from a recommendation of the President and approval of the Congress, so military appointments by a sitting president tend to reflect the politics of the current administration. So, that being said, General McChrystal is Obama's man. He is sent over to the Theater of Operations and told to evaluate current operations and to formulate a military solution that will allow the US to declare victory and come home. From February to August, General McChrystal met with his field commanders, the political and military powers in the theater and determined that in order to stabilize the nation, train the local police and military members to fight the war themselves. He then put a very comprehensive report together and told the president that to carry out his orders, orders given to him by the President himself, he would ideally need 80,000 additional soldiers deployed in a 'surge' strategy reminiscent of the Iraqi operations. At a minimum, he would need between 50,000 and 60,000 troops, though the operation would have a narrower margin for success.
So then, while the report sat on the president's desk, he was out playing golf, meeting with SEIU, meeting with hundreds of community organizers, playing basketball, going out on dates with his wife, taking a vacation every other week, and shaking his pom poms at Congress cheering for Cap and Tax, Nationalized Health Care, Net Equality, and a host of other Marxist legislation.
Weeks and months pass and finally, BHO meets with the General on the runway in Denmark (he found the time to run an errand for the Mayor of Chicago) for 20 minutes and then sends him off without making a decision. Weeks and months go by until finally BHO says that the General's strategy is, essentially, incorrect and that he has worked on a better plan.
During this time, American soldiers have been fighting and dying with no clear goal in sight. Does the president's new plan include a plan for victory or is he just trying to triangulate on this like Clinton triangulated on everything? Is he trying to keep his far left base happy while minimizing the outrage of the right? Who knows, but for right now it looks like his plan is not making anyone happy on either side. The only people who are happy right now are the insurgents in Afghanistan. If for no other reason other than he has given a time table for our withdrawal.
The insurgents can just melt into the background for the next 18 months, give the illusion of peace and stability, all the while infiltrating the civil and military infrastructure of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Things look fine and dandy, BHO declares victory and pulls out. Then the two countries melt down in the next year and all the blood we have spilled has been for nothing.
BHO seems to think that he can do anything. If I had his press coverage, and actually listened to it, I'd think I could fly to the moon under my own power simply by declaring that I will. He has decided that he can run the banking system, the financial sector, Wall Street, the automotive sector, and control the very weather itself (not to mention the ocean levels).
President Obama has essentially said that General McChrystal is wrong in his assessment of the situation on the ground (from his office in Washington). The President has determined that 80,000 is unnecessary and that 30,000 (dribbled in piecemeal) is more in line with his personal assessment.
The arrogance. Whatever General McChrystal's politics, he is practitioner of the Art of War first and foremost. He has dedicated his entire life to practice of waging war. He comes from a military family, his father was a general, his siblings wore the uniform as well. He graduated from West Point in 1976. It is safe to say that he has been learning the art of war since at least 1972. I think he knows what he is saying when he feels that he needs 80,000 men, surged, not dribbled, into the theater of operations.
In his time, I'm sure he saw what the Vietnam War did the officer corp and the elisted ranks. He lived through the mental and material rebuilding of our military in the 1980's. He was among the deployed officer core in 1991 when the soldiers of my generation tore through the 5th largest army in the world in under 100 hours of ground combat. President George HW Bush let his generals carry out their orders without interference from Washington. Well, up until he put the leash and muzzle back on our men short of total victory, but that is another blog. He served all through the 1990's and was deployed to Iraq again where he is credited with killing one of the worst dirtbags in that country. Now he finds himself in charge of the entire theater with instructions to write a report for his new civilian Commander-in-Chief.
I have to wonder what General McChrystal was thinking or feeling when he found his report going largly unread by his Congressional overseers? I wonder what he was thinking when he realized that the orders he was given in February needed to be rewritten? I wonder what he thought, months and months later, when President Obama notified him (largely through the media) the number of troops he felt were needed to secure victory.
While General McChrystal was honing his skills in the Art of War, young Barry Obama was getting high on dope and drunk in college dorms. He actively sought out known Marxist professors so he could take their classes. While Obama tried to look like he knew what he was doing as the Editor for the Harvard Law Review (though there are no documents with his name on it...so I don't know what he actually "Edited"), General McChrystal was living and breathing the Art of War. While Obama was teaching ACORN activists to circumvent the law and taught the organizing techniques of Saul Alinsky, General McChrystal was learning the Art of War.
President Obama is not fit to shine the shoes of General McChrystal let alone come to the decision that his assessment of material needs on the ground is incorrect.
I have to remind myself that, essentially, President Obama is not really disagreeing with General McChrystal's assessment. It all politics. Its always about the politics. Obama voted against every bill funding or expanding the war when he was in the House and then Candidate Obama ripped President Bush repeatedly for not being agressive enough in Afghanistan (focusing mainly on Iraq at the time), he finds that he must support the effort in Afghanistan. His Marxist base is howling in his ear that we need to leave now, while the right is telling him to win or get out. So he did what a politician always does. He has tried to make everyone happy while really making no one happy. He split the difference and told the Left that he didn't give the warmonger what he wanted while telling the Right that sending troops is proof that he wants to win the war. Plus, he even gave a date for withdrawl. Meanwhile, the general that had asked for a tool box full of tools gets a tool belt with a hammer and a screwdriver. Insufficient to do anything other than bleed out our troops and keep the war going forever. This must have General McChrystal having visions of Vietnam push forward in his brain. God help him and the men under his command.
In the end, there really are three choices. Only one of which is correct, I feel.
Choice number 1: pull out. No matter the amount of money spent and blood spilled, just pull out. The Left wants this because they feel we should not have been there in the first place. The Right sees this as a way of protecting the lives of our soldiers who are fighting and dying without victory as their stated goal. The dead will be mourned and the waste of there future potential to society will long be remembered.
Choice number 2: compromise. Send just enough men to chop the visible weeds down (which of course just grow right back unless you kill the roots), prune the influence of the insurgents back into the caves and back alleys of the big cities. Stand around for a few months while enemy activity is visibly absent, call it a win and come home. Then watch the place burn and crumble with more loss of life then what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia when we pulled out of there.
Choice number 3: win. Go in there with everything we can spare. Raise the internal temperature of every hiding spot for the insurgents to an average of 2,000 degrees (F or C does not really matter here). If they go to ground, give them no ground to go to. When they are in the open, destroy them. If they hide in villages, cordon it off and sort out the population...ditto for the cities (do you remember Faluja). Those that don't belong become POWs (not criminals, stupid). If they are in a mosque, give a single warning and then destroy it. Contrary to popular belief, the local population does not want the Taliban or Al-Qaeda there and will quietly turn them in if given the chance. It will be over in less than a year. Get the job done and get our boys and girls HOME.
We don't conquer, we liberate. We don't occupy, we turn over. Our people have families and lives to come home to. We have no interest in staying there forever. It's just not what we do.
Our military has only two jobs: kill people and break things. They don't deliver food and they don't know how to build a nation. It is not what they are trained to do. That is the job of civilian population.
In reality there are really only two choices. Most things in life seem to boil down to two choices. Win or don't win. As with all choices there are consequences. The US winning in Afghanistan and by extension Pakistan has more positive consequennces than pulling out. Not winning in Afghanistan will prolong the agony and allow radical Islam to spread like a malignant cancer. It will continue in its stated purpose. Convert the world by the sword. They will not stop and you can not reason with them. They must be destroyed root and branch.
--Zavost
In 2007, he actually began running for President in February of 2006, outlined his plans for the war in Afghanistan. He would put however many boots on the ground to win it, up to and including the overthrow of the Pakistani government. Now, that is dedication to the cause...tearing down our allies in a blind effort to grapple with an implacable enemy.
In February 2009, BHO appoints General McChrystal to head up the operations in the Afghan theater of operation. One must understand that the top layer of our military is very much 'in-tune' with the politics of the civilian administration. They know that getting a star, or the next star on their shoulders comes from a recommendation of the President and approval of the Congress, so military appointments by a sitting president tend to reflect the politics of the current administration. So, that being said, General McChrystal is Obama's man. He is sent over to the Theater of Operations and told to evaluate current operations and to formulate a military solution that will allow the US to declare victory and come home. From February to August, General McChrystal met with his field commanders, the political and military powers in the theater and determined that in order to stabilize the nation, train the local police and military members to fight the war themselves. He then put a very comprehensive report together and told the president that to carry out his orders, orders given to him by the President himself, he would ideally need 80,000 additional soldiers deployed in a 'surge' strategy reminiscent of the Iraqi operations. At a minimum, he would need between 50,000 and 60,000 troops, though the operation would have a narrower margin for success.
So then, while the report sat on the president's desk, he was out playing golf, meeting with SEIU, meeting with hundreds of community organizers, playing basketball, going out on dates with his wife, taking a vacation every other week, and shaking his pom poms at Congress cheering for Cap and Tax, Nationalized Health Care, Net Equality, and a host of other Marxist legislation.
Weeks and months pass and finally, BHO meets with the General on the runway in Denmark (he found the time to run an errand for the Mayor of Chicago) for 20 minutes and then sends him off without making a decision. Weeks and months go by until finally BHO says that the General's strategy is, essentially, incorrect and that he has worked on a better plan.
During this time, American soldiers have been fighting and dying with no clear goal in sight. Does the president's new plan include a plan for victory or is he just trying to triangulate on this like Clinton triangulated on everything? Is he trying to keep his far left base happy while minimizing the outrage of the right? Who knows, but for right now it looks like his plan is not making anyone happy on either side. The only people who are happy right now are the insurgents in Afghanistan. If for no other reason other than he has given a time table for our withdrawal.
The insurgents can just melt into the background for the next 18 months, give the illusion of peace and stability, all the while infiltrating the civil and military infrastructure of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Things look fine and dandy, BHO declares victory and pulls out. Then the two countries melt down in the next year and all the blood we have spilled has been for nothing.
BHO seems to think that he can do anything. If I had his press coverage, and actually listened to it, I'd think I could fly to the moon under my own power simply by declaring that I will. He has decided that he can run the banking system, the financial sector, Wall Street, the automotive sector, and control the very weather itself (not to mention the ocean levels).
President Obama has essentially said that General McChrystal is wrong in his assessment of the situation on the ground (from his office in Washington). The President has determined that 80,000 is unnecessary and that 30,000 (dribbled in piecemeal) is more in line with his personal assessment.
The arrogance. Whatever General McChrystal's politics, he is practitioner of the Art of War first and foremost. He has dedicated his entire life to practice of waging war. He comes from a military family, his father was a general, his siblings wore the uniform as well. He graduated from West Point in 1976. It is safe to say that he has been learning the art of war since at least 1972. I think he knows what he is saying when he feels that he needs 80,000 men, surged, not dribbled, into the theater of operations.
In his time, I'm sure he saw what the Vietnam War did the officer corp and the elisted ranks. He lived through the mental and material rebuilding of our military in the 1980's. He was among the deployed officer core in 1991 when the soldiers of my generation tore through the 5th largest army in the world in under 100 hours of ground combat. President George HW Bush let his generals carry out their orders without interference from Washington. Well, up until he put the leash and muzzle back on our men short of total victory, but that is another blog. He served all through the 1990's and was deployed to Iraq again where he is credited with killing one of the worst dirtbags in that country. Now he finds himself in charge of the entire theater with instructions to write a report for his new civilian Commander-in-Chief.
I have to wonder what General McChrystal was thinking or feeling when he found his report going largly unread by his Congressional overseers? I wonder what he was thinking when he realized that the orders he was given in February needed to be rewritten? I wonder what he thought, months and months later, when President Obama notified him (largely through the media) the number of troops he felt were needed to secure victory.
While General McChrystal was honing his skills in the Art of War, young Barry Obama was getting high on dope and drunk in college dorms. He actively sought out known Marxist professors so he could take their classes. While Obama tried to look like he knew what he was doing as the Editor for the Harvard Law Review (though there are no documents with his name on it...so I don't know what he actually "Edited"), General McChrystal was living and breathing the Art of War. While Obama was teaching ACORN activists to circumvent the law and taught the organizing techniques of Saul Alinsky, General McChrystal was learning the Art of War.
President Obama is not fit to shine the shoes of General McChrystal let alone come to the decision that his assessment of material needs on the ground is incorrect.
I have to remind myself that, essentially, President Obama is not really disagreeing with General McChrystal's assessment. It all politics. Its always about the politics. Obama voted against every bill funding or expanding the war when he was in the House and then Candidate Obama ripped President Bush repeatedly for not being agressive enough in Afghanistan (focusing mainly on Iraq at the time), he finds that he must support the effort in Afghanistan. His Marxist base is howling in his ear that we need to leave now, while the right is telling him to win or get out. So he did what a politician always does. He has tried to make everyone happy while really making no one happy. He split the difference and told the Left that he didn't give the warmonger what he wanted while telling the Right that sending troops is proof that he wants to win the war. Plus, he even gave a date for withdrawl. Meanwhile, the general that had asked for a tool box full of tools gets a tool belt with a hammer and a screwdriver. Insufficient to do anything other than bleed out our troops and keep the war going forever. This must have General McChrystal having visions of Vietnam push forward in his brain. God help him and the men under his command.
In the end, there really are three choices. Only one of which is correct, I feel.
Choice number 1: pull out. No matter the amount of money spent and blood spilled, just pull out. The Left wants this because they feel we should not have been there in the first place. The Right sees this as a way of protecting the lives of our soldiers who are fighting and dying without victory as their stated goal. The dead will be mourned and the waste of there future potential to society will long be remembered.
Choice number 2: compromise. Send just enough men to chop the visible weeds down (which of course just grow right back unless you kill the roots), prune the influence of the insurgents back into the caves and back alleys of the big cities. Stand around for a few months while enemy activity is visibly absent, call it a win and come home. Then watch the place burn and crumble with more loss of life then what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia when we pulled out of there.
Choice number 3: win. Go in there with everything we can spare. Raise the internal temperature of every hiding spot for the insurgents to an average of 2,000 degrees (F or C does not really matter here). If they go to ground, give them no ground to go to. When they are in the open, destroy them. If they hide in villages, cordon it off and sort out the population...ditto for the cities (do you remember Faluja). Those that don't belong become POWs (not criminals, stupid). If they are in a mosque, give a single warning and then destroy it. Contrary to popular belief, the local population does not want the Taliban or Al-Qaeda there and will quietly turn them in if given the chance. It will be over in less than a year. Get the job done and get our boys and girls HOME.
We don't conquer, we liberate. We don't occupy, we turn over. Our people have families and lives to come home to. We have no interest in staying there forever. It's just not what we do.
Our military has only two jobs: kill people and break things. They don't deliver food and they don't know how to build a nation. It is not what they are trained to do. That is the job of civilian population.
In reality there are really only two choices. Most things in life seem to boil down to two choices. Win or don't win. As with all choices there are consequences. The US winning in Afghanistan and by extension Pakistan has more positive consequennces than pulling out. Not winning in Afghanistan will prolong the agony and allow radical Islam to spread like a malignant cancer. It will continue in its stated purpose. Convert the world by the sword. They will not stop and you can not reason with them. They must be destroyed root and branch.
--Zavost
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
