Archive for the ‘Blogroll’ Category

Combat soldier in Iraq exposes Obama lies

September 30, 2010

Stolen, with permission, from Anthony at The Liberty Sphere;

Just a few weeks ago Barack Obama proclaimed to the nation that the U.S. ‘combat mission in Iraq is over.’

This gave the public the false impression that all U.S. combat forces in Iraq were being called back home and that there would be no futher U.S. involvement in fighting.  Our only continued role, accodring to Obama, would be to ‘advise and assist’ the Iraqis.
But one soldier who is still in Iraq, and is still engaged in combat for the foreseeable future, exposes the Obama pronouncement as a lie.
The following is an actual email from the soldier, which has been forwarded by scores of Americans via email:
“Hey, everybody I just wanted to send a quick update and give Yall the REAL story on what’s going on over here with the troop withdrawal…..The reason I’m sending this out is because I have had a few people ask if I left Iraq early because all of the combat troops are out of Iraq and I wanted to let everyone know the real deal.  It’s kind of ridiculous how the news is saying that the last of the “combat” troops are out of Iraq because of Pres Osama ( I mean Obama ).  He says that it was his campaign promise.  Take our Brigade for example.  We were originally called a HBCT ( Heavy Brigade Combat Team).  Well since Obama said he would pull all of the “combat” troops out by Aug all they did before we left was change our name from a HBCT to a AAB ( Advise and Assist Brigade ).  We have the same personnel/equipment layout as before and are doing the same missions.  The ONLY difference is that they changed our name from a HBCT to an AAB and that’s how he is getting away with saying that he has pulled all of the “combat” troops out.  It is really ridiculous what he’s doing and he has ticked alot of people off.  And it’s funny how the media is buying all of it, too.  So no the last combat troops are not out of Iraq we are still here.  There are other Brigades just like ours that are doing the same missions that are still over here.  Sorry for going on about it but we are just sitting over here watching it and are like “You’ve got to be kidding me!”  So anyway now you know the REAL story so that’s why I’m not coming back early.  You have to watch those liberals, their sneaky!  Anyways, I hope everyone is doing well and I’ll see you soon!”
This soldier’s courage in telling the real truth only further confirms the fact that Barack Obama has lied incessantly to the American people, as this column has stated on numerous occasions.  The only thing Obama has changed so far is the name of the brigade.  The name was changed so that Obama could claim all combat operations were drawn to a close.  But as the soldier relates, the mission remains.  The brigade is still involved in heavy combat for the foreseeable future despite the name change from ‘Heavy Brigade Combat Team’ to ‘Advise and Assist Brigade.’
Conservative Examiner has also learned that the White House has initiated a special ‘Honor Our Troops’ stunt in order to give Americans the impression that ‘our boys (and girls) are coming home from Iraq,’ when in fact nobody is coming home right now except for a few  The troops will stay in place until next year, and even after that 50,000 of our troops will be yet in harm’s way, involved in heavy combat in their new ‘advise and assist’ mission, at least until the end of 2011.
This deft sleight-of-hand maneuver in changing the wording and engaging in a campaign of distraction has become all too familiar with this White House.
Obama enlists scores of news outlets to tout his ‘victory’ in bringing home the troops, when in fact they are not coming home presently.  Thus, the campaign is one of propaganda.  And this is not even to mention that the mission in Afghanistan has been vastly expanded and intensified with no end in sight.
The mission in Iraq was a success under George W. Bush as a result of the troop surge.  But Obama wishes to take the credit, although he peristently opposed the Iraqi mission from day one.  He claims, however, that  he supported the Afghan mission, which again is a questionable claim, given that Bob Woodward in his latest book indicates that Obama refuses to use the word ‘victory’ in the mission, and the White House staff had severe misgivings about continuing the campaign–amid much infighting among the Obama team.
Thus, it is ever more apparent with each passing day that the current occupant of the White House cannot be trusted in any fashion.  Too many lies, too many misleading statements, and too many empty promises never fulfilled.
It’s time to get rid of the entire lot.
Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.

“The Rubber Band Syndrome vs. The Mental Depth Charge”

September 28, 2010

This piece from Downsizer is great!

Quote of the Day: “Man’s mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.” — Oliver Wendell Holmes

Surely you’ve had this experience . . .

* You marshal your evidence
* You deploy powerful arguments
* And you thereby convince a friend to drop his or her support of some government policy.

But then, you don’t see your friend for a while . . .

* He or she is left for weeks or months, swimming in the river of Statist propaganda that streams from every media outlet
* So that when you meet again you find that his or her mind has snapped back to where it was before

It’s as if the two of you had never talked. He or she has completely forgotten . . .

* The evidence you marshaled
* The arguments you used
* The fact that he or she ended up agreeing with the case you made

Jim Babka calls this the “The Rubber Band Syndrome.”

* Visualize yourself stretching a cartoon brain to a larger size
* Visualize the brain snapping back to it’s former shape as soon as you walk away

This Rubber Band Syndrome makes a mockery of our persuasion efforts. It causes us to waste time, energy, and money. But here at Downsize DC we consider it part of our mission to prevent wasted effort, to make difficult things easy, and to constantly accomplish more with less. That’s why . . .

We want to find a cure for The Rubber Band Syndrome.

Is there a cure? We think there is. In fact, we think there may be two cures . . .

Cure #1:

It seems clear to us that we have to equal the river of Statist propaganda that streams from every media outlet every day. One way to do that is something we talk about constantly . . .

Operation Everywhere.

For those who are new to this list, Operation Everywhere is our plan to reach a size that will enable us to make our ideas seen and heard by everyone, everywhere, every day. In other words . . .

We can solve the problem of minds that snap back to their previous dimensions as soon as our arguments are no longer being heard, by creating conditions under which our arguments are ALWAYS HEARD. This is clearly a full-proof solution to the problem, BUT . . .

It’s not an easy solution. Operation Everywhere will be hard to execute. It will take time to get there. So, this particular cure doesn’t meet one of our most important criteria . . . making difficult things easy. Which brings us to . . .

Cure #2:

This Oliver Wendell Holmes quote is very famous: “Man’s mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.” But the experience we’ve all had with The Rubber Band Syndrome tells us that it’s actually very difficult to stretch a mind in such a way that it REMAINS EXPANDED. So what we need for Cure #2 is obvious . . .

* We need ideas that are so large and powerful that they do not allow the mind to shrink back to its former dimensions.
* We need ideas that EXPLODE the dimensions of the human mind to vast new boundaries.
* I call this kind of idea . . .

The Mental Depth Charge

You’ve probably had this experience too . . .

* You say something powerful to someone, but it seems to have no immediate effect
* Days, or months, or sometimes years pass, until . . .
* Eventually the person you said the powerful thing to comes to you and says . . . “I’ve only just now understood what you said way back when, and . . .

Understanding it changes everything.”

You see, your idea needed time to sink-in, just like a “depth charge.”

But for this to happen the idea has to be something that will actually stay in your friend’s mind for the time required, and not be popped out by The Rubber Band Syndrome.

We’ve all had these experiences. We’ve all laid mental depth charges in the minds of others, and had them placed in our minds too. Often these explosive ideas come about by accident, in the flow of conversation, but the trick we want to master is to create Mental Depth Charges by design!

This means we need a laboratory to conduct experiments, and a factory for production.

I have good news! If financing permits, we’re days away from unveiling our new factory/laboratory for creating Mental Depth Charges. This is the first of the 43 new tools we’ve promised to create, each of which is aimed at helping us to add at least 1 new net recruit per day to the Downsize DC Army. As you can see . . .

Our aims are modest. We believe this new tool can accomplish even more, but we don’t want to over-sell it. After all, it’s an experiment — a laboratory. Fortunately, it’s also something that can be funded with TAX-DEDUCTIBLE donations, because the new tool we’re about to unveil is also . . .

A new home for our non-profit educational organization, The Downsize DC Foundation!

To be clear, most days, the Downsizer-Dispatch comes from DownsizeDC.org, Inc. But this new project is part of the educational mission for the Downsize DC Foundation.

We’ve put our staff and vendors to work so that we can deliver this exiting new tool, quickly. Thus, part of the team needed to complete this project is is already hard at work. Now, we need to activate the rest of the team — and that’s YOU.

Organizational forward progress and timely delivery of this new tool requires about $6,400 in new income. Look . . .

That amounts to just twenty one cents per member of the Downsize DC Army. Or, just one person could pay it off in one big bite by contributing $6,400. More likely, we will need something like the following . . .

* 2 people to give $1,000 = $2,000
* 4 to give $500 each = $2,000, bringing us to $4,000 total
* 4 to give $250 each = $1,000, bringing us $5,000
* 10 to give $100 each = $1,000, bringing us to $6,000
* And a few dozen 10s, 20s, and 50s to round us out at $6,400

Thanks to monthly pledgers, we’re able to get started. But to keep growing, we really need 21 new pledgers. Please consider making or increasing a monthly pledge.

Can you be one of the people who make this happen?

If so, we will publicly say “Thank you,” by publishing your name in an upcoming Downsizer-Dispatch, as well as on the new website. Of course, if you wish to remain private, you can indicate so on the secure contribution form.

Thanks in advance for your confidence and support.

Perry Willis
Vice President
The Downsize DC Foundation

The brief essay contained in this message is copyrighted by Perry Willis — (c) 2010. Permission to re-distribute or reprint this message for non-profit educational purposes is granted and encouraged, as long as proper attribution is given, and you provide a link to the original source. Permission to use this message for commercial purposes is denied.

What does immigration amnesty have to do with defense spending?‏

September 21, 2010

Some years ago we, as in Colorado Libertarians, succeeded in getting a “Single Subject” law passed. After the idea was co-opted by the Republicans. The same thing needs to be done on a Federal level. Read on…

This week the Senate will debate a defense spending bill that will cost your family over $7,000.

The Senators ought to debate how much of this money is really needed to keep you safe, but they will instead focus on distracting and divisive issues like gays in the military and abortions in military hospitals. Even worse . . .

Majority Leader Reid shows signs of wanting to attach an unrelated immigration amnesty bill to the defense measure. This immigration bill is called the DREAM Act, and it has us DREAMing of our proposal for a One Subject at a Time Act.

DREAM’s primary purpose seems good. Undocumented youths who were raised in the United States, and graduated high school, would be eligible for a 6-year path to legal citizenship that requires completion of a college degree, or two years of military service. Other provisions are more controversial, but . . .

Whether you like this bill or not, there is NO PLACE for DREAM in a Defense bill. Reid knows he doesn’t have the votes to pass this as a stand-alone bill, and that’s why he wants it attached to the Defense measure.

This is one reason government keeps growing at such a cancerous rate. Congress constantly inserts unwanted and unneeded legislation into “must-pass” bills. DownsizeDC.org has created The One Subject At A Time Act (OSTA) to end this practice.

OSTA would require each bill to address only one subject. If you support this idea, tell Congress!

Our letter to Congress says, “Please introduce DownsizeDC.org’s “One Subject at a Time Act” (OSTA). You can find the text of the legislation here: http://www.downsizedc.org/osta-legislation.”

Please also add personal comments pointing to the DREAM Act and the defense spending bill as an example of why we need OSTA. You may borrow from or copy the following sample letter . . .

Majority Leader Reid’s attempt to attach the DREAM amnesty bill to the Defense bill shows why we need OSTA:

* DREAM is ten years old, but never won the votes to pass as a stand-alone bill
* Senate debate over DREAM means less time will be spent reviewing the 1000-page, bloated, $700 billion Defense bill

No responsible legislator should ever support the corrupt practice of attaching unrelated bills together. The only CONSTRUCTIVE and PRINCIPLED way to oppose tactics like Reid’s is to introduce OSTA.

END LETTER

You can send your letter to Congress using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

I’m sure you have friends who would like One Subject At A Time Act, or oppose the DREAM amendment. Forward this to them, and retweet this message!

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

SUPPORT the “Educate the Powerful System”.

Political incorrectness: must be Conservative or Libertarian

September 1, 2010

“Are you opposed to Obamacare or illegal immigration? You’re a racist. Are you opposed to gay marriage? You’re a homophobe. Did you oppose Elena Kagan’s appointment to the Supreme Court? You’re a sexist. After less than two years of complete Democrat control of government, there aren’t many Americas progressives haven’t accused of some sort of bigotry for simply having an opinion different from theirs. The politics of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ have devolved into exactly what those espousing them claimed they would end. Is this really Democrat’s plan to win votes in November?” –writer Derek Hunter

“The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama overread his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.” –columnist Charles Krauthammer

“Those who mocked George W. Bush for openly declaring his faith in God and sharing that he prays to God for strength squawked about the horrors in Bush’s allowing his beliefs to influence his governance. Apart from the mockers’ misunderstanding of the proper intersection of faith and governance, let me pose another question. Are you more comfortable with a chief executive who, along with the overwhelming majority of Americans, humbly admits to reliance on God or one who projects the impression that he himself is messianic?” –columnist David Limbaugh

“Alan Simpson violated a taboo last week when he likened Social Security to ‘a milk cow with 310 million tits.’ But contrary to the dictionary-deprived critics who accused him of sexist vulgarity, the former Wyoming senator’s transgression had nothing to do with his use of a perfectly acceptable synonym for teat. Simpson’s real sin was ‘belittling a bedrock program,’ as the AARP put it — i.e., showing insufficient reverence for a sacred cow.” –columnist Jacob Sullum

“To those who say ‘I paid into Social Security for years and all I want is what I’m entitled to,’ I reply, ‘You’ve been robbed — get over it.’ If you want to know who robbed you, it’s called Congress. If you’re angry about that then go into the voting booth and throw them out. Meanwhile some poor young fry cook at McDonald’s is having his wages garnished to support the lifestyle of tennis playing Botox dowagers in Palm Springs. Is this right?” –venture capitalist Bill Frezza

SOURCE

Well, at least I think that I am in good company! 🙂

Matt Mead: A clone of John McCain..?

August 31, 2010

The Republican nominee for Governor in Wyoming appears to be just another Republican in Name only. What the hell do we need that for?

CHEYENNE — Sen. John McCain says he is a supporter of the second amendment and proudly wears his endorsement by the NRA, even though he clearly joined gun grabber and Brady poster boy Mayor Bloomberg. You see, McCain was involved in a multi-state campaign against gun shows in an attempt to pass legislation he couldn’t get passed in his own state of Arizona.

Sadly and similarly Mead advertised he was a lifetime NRA member and gun collector and when questioned about fighting on the side of the feds in “BATF vs. Wyoming”, Mead shrugged it off as questionable information by “some blogger that refused to speak with him”. The truth is this is the first documented lie in his campaign.

As the Director of Wyoming Gun Owners I spoke with him not just once but two times. And so you know, Mead told me “he was just doing his job”. Certainly Mead wanted this withheld from the campaign trail and said anything but the truth to cover it up, so much for “integrity”.

When it comes to spending, Senator John McCain has out spent his rival spending more than $20 Million, that’s six times more than his opponent.

Again, similarly here in Wyoming Matt Mead spent a record amount of his money, a whopping 81% (that’s about $900,000) of his reported campaign finance came out of his own pocket. How do you spell D.C. style politics?

There are other similarities between Mead and McCain including statements that are designed to communicate to a more conservative base, even though past history reveals they were personally committed to a more liberal base.

Although widely unreported this moderate stance of Matt Mead is even more evident in how he was elected to office. There was an estimated “switch-voting” of up to nine thousand votes. In case you don’t know what this is, it is where Democrats changed their party affiliation at the polls so they could vote for the most liberal Republican candidate, in this case Matt Mead was the beneficiary. A Liberal state employee blogger mentions it here in – At the polls, Democrats are switching over in large numbers.

Another fact, the newspaper that endorsed Barack Obama went out of their way to stump for Matt Mead and after the elections many Democrat voters echoed the Casper Star Tribune endorsement saying, Mead would be most like Freudenthal.

Did I mention Obama-Care is now even closer?

I’m going to end with this, if the people of Wyoming want so much to keep Freudenthal and his policy of licking the boots of the federal government, why didn’t they suggest removing his term limits? I’m just saying….

Related Articles:

Matt Mead for governor, plagued by anti-gun past

Matt Mead for governor, the next liberal champion to be adored by the media

The NRA endorses anti-gun McCain

SOURCE

Be sure to check the comments at the sourced page folks!

Uniting in Wyoming..?

August 22, 2010

Already we are hearing about Republicans uniting behind Matt Mead for the Governorship in November. While he most certainly is better than his Democrat opponent Wyomingites need to remember that Matt Mead has some pretty serious flaws.

Mister Mead is anything but a supporter of limited government, or states rights. Those are two very big issues here in the Cowboy State. His positions regarding gun control are abominable, and no, his NRA membership and rating mean very little.

I have to wonder what Matt Mead’s positions, as a former U. S. Attorney are on things like Ex Post Facto Law, and unfunded mandates from the Federal Government? On economic sustainability as opposed to federal handouts? On taxation in general?

Hat tip to

Anthony Bouchard

Socialist Bourgeoisie

August 19, 2010

Obama and the Socialist Bourgeoisie

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” –Benjamin Franklin

If there is one generalization that can be accurately asserted about Barack Hussein Obama and generations of Marxists before him, it is that they are and always have been, universally, hypocrites. They preach classist sermons to the masses, the foundational fodder upon which their failed socialist regimes are constructed, all while living lavish lifestyles characterized by elitism and overly conspicuous consumption.

This generalization holds not just for Western socialists, but also for their Soviet-era mentors, of which I am a first-hand witness.

In 1987, I stepped off an Aeroflot Tu-124 at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport, grateful that the “aircraft” had made it all the way to our destination. My moment of gratitude was abruptly interrupted at the bottom of the aircraft steps by two pallid gents in off-the-rack suits who were accompanied by two humorless uniformed Militsiya regulars.

Apparently, my reputation had preceded me.

The suited fellows, representatives of the Soviet Committee for State Security, offered not so much as a simple “welcome.” Rather, they insisted that I turn over my credentials and possessions, and accompany them for an “interview.” We left the airport and drove to an aging gray building in central Moscow directly across from the Kremlin.

Once inside the building, my hosts informed me that I was a “guest” of the state, and would remain so until such time they determined I could leave. I was taken to a third-floor room, rather sparse in its furnishings, where I remained for three days. Though the accommodations were not up to Bedouin tent standards, the room did have a window with a splendid view of two entrances into the Kremlin.

Through that window by night shined the ominous Red Star atop Spasskaya Tower. By day, I could observe all the movement into and out of the Kremlin.

There was a sea of ubiquitous Soviet state-made autos making their way through the plaza in front of the Kremlin — Volgas, Ladas and Moskvichs, most of which were as old as (and in no better operating condition) than the Tu-124 on which I had arrived. What I recall most was how that sea of decrepit autos parted with regularity to allow unhindered passage of shiny ZIL-117 curtained limousines carting members of the Soviet Politicheskoye Byuro on their way to elegant meals in stylish places that no common Soviet citizen could enter.

Surely the great vision of human liberation from capitalism envisioned by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels did not include limousine liberals?

Shortly after the Demo’s 2008 “October Surprise,” that politically fortuitous collapse of the U.S. securities markets that Obama rode into office, I recall one of his earliest condemnations of corporate execs “flying around the nation on private jets” while their companies were sinking into bankruptcy.

At the time, Obama had just stepped off the most expensive luxury jet in the world, Air Force One, which costs far more to operate and maintain for every minute of flight than the largest of corporate jets cost for hours, or even days, of flight. Just like his socialist mentors, Obama acknowledged not even a hint of the hypocrisy.

Since then, he has logged many, many more hours on Air Force One, in transit to more luxurious vacation destinations and elite political confabs than any nouveau riche lucky lottery winner has in first class seats to Vegas — and all while our nation is sinking into bankruptcy.

Obama is just the latest of the Socialist Bourgeoisie political aristocracy to occupy the White House, the first being Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who did more to undermine liberty and free enterprise than any president — until Obama. (I suspect Rahm Emanuel plagiarized Obama’s rule number one, “Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” from FDR.)

According to Marxist doctrine, manifest in Obama’s classist rhetoric, the bourgeoisie are defined as the dominant ruling-class who control the means of production in a capitalist economy and abuse the proletariat to produce their wealth.

However, what Marx didn’t have was the benefit of observing a mature free enterprise system in operation under a constitutional democratic republic from which strong and healthy middle class economies arise. So strong is the middle class in the U.S. and other industrialized nations, that modern Socialists now use the term “bourgeoisie” to pejoratively depict middle class consumerism.

What Marx unwittingly defined is the nature of Socialist government barons like Obama and his czars, where the dominant ruling class are those in political power who regulate the means of economic production through regulation and taxation in order to reduce the ranks of the middle class and thereby increase the proletariat masses, those to whom the ruling political class can discriminately transfer wealth in return for re-election … until the wealth runs out.

Unfortunately for the proletariat, this transfer of wealth is not sustainable, and the only equality achieved is impoverishment of everyone except the Socialist Bourgeoisie — trickle-up poverty.

That was precisely the result of socialism in the USSR and every other nation where politburos have centralized control over the economy leading to bankrupted nations, all the while, living themselves like the tyrant kings and potentates they ostensibly decry.

And so it is with the Obamas who, along with their Kobe beef-eating entourage, are preparing for their eighth vacation this year — this one to exclusive Martha’s Vineyard for the next 10 days. Maybe this time the family dog Bo will be able to travel on the same plane as his masters and not have to settle for a separate taxpayer-provided Gulfstream 3, as was the case when the Obama’s vacationed in fashionable Bar Harbor, Maine, in July.

As free enterprise bends to the point of breaking under the weight of ever more oppressive taxation and regulation, and statism proceeds to bankrupt the nation, Obama and his Socialist Bourgeoisie are hobnobbing around with the rich and famous. According to his deputy press secretary, “There will be hiking, time at the beach, time at the ice cream store — all the sort of things you do when you’re at Martha’s Vineyard. You enjoy the people and the good food.” And of course, there will be golf at Mink Meadows in Vineyard Haven.

As millions of parents struggle to provide the most basic needs for their children, Barack is eating cake.

While I don’t know what October Surprise the Demos have up their collective sleeve for this fall’s election cycle, I am gravely concerned that, given Obama’s arrogant vacation schedule, it will be more devastating than the mischief they arranged in 2008. However, I remain altogether confident that American Patriots, like our forebears, will defend our Essential Liberty and persevere through whatever trials and foibles arise.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

Warfighting 101

February 21, 2010

Once again Mark Alexander nails it with an essay that combines insight, logic, and rational thinking. Which means of course that the left, muslim believers, and all the rest of the hate America first brigade will hate his words, again. Strong work Mark, keep it up!

Please follow the link at the end for more great work by great Americans.

Alexander’s Essay – February 18, 2010

Warfighting 101

“A universal peace … is in the catalogue of events, which will never exist but in the imaginations of visionary philosophers, or in the breasts of benevolent enthusiasts.” –James Madison

The Long Road Ahead

I spent much of the last week participating in a national security forum organized by the Air War College and hosted by the Twelfth Air Force and the 355th Fighter Wing at Davis-Monthan AFB.

Discussing the challenges of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and the surge for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan with command personnel makes for lively debate, but the best part of these forums is incidental — the opportunity to meet many enlisted airmen and those flying the planes they make ready.

I have been on military bases across the nation, and without fail I am most impressed by the young uniformed Patriots who are the foundation of our military might. Simply put, their dedication, talent and spirit are second to none.

In a nation where most young people are devoted, first and foremost, to themselves, our young airmen, sailors, soldiers, coast guardsmen and Marines serve a much higher calling, true to their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” If only their civilian political leaders were true to the same.

Among other operations around the world, these young people, and those in their chain of command, have made enormous progress toward establishing a functional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, Iraq. And despite what Vice President Joe Biden may believe, this remarkable achievement is theirs, not his.

After launching military operations against Iraq in 2003, our enemies were greatly emboldened by traitors on the Left and their Leftmedia minions, especially those running cover stories such as Newsweek’s “We’re losing…” proclamation.

In a debate some years ago with a professor from MIT who had written many policy papers on why we should not have prosecuted OIF, I asked him how many papers he had written on the consequences had we not prosecuted OIF. That query returned a classic “deer in the headlights” gaze.

My point, of course, was that it’s easy to criticize anything past or under way. Hindsight can be 20/20, but military battle plans rarely withstand the first shots fired, which is to say that you start where your boots are, and fight on from there.

All those Leftist talking points notwithstanding, Iraq is now well on the way to restoring its once great Mesopotamian heritage.

To the east of Iraq, on the far side of another Islamic trouble spot, Iran, our military forces now face a daunting task in Afghanistan, a very different battlefront.

I was in the region shortly after the Soviets retreated in 1989, and I can tell you that this vast, desolate moonscape offers little more than a meager subsistence for even the most seasoned tribal people.

Consequently, Afghanistan has two — and only two — exports: heroin and terrorism, and not necessarily in that order.

Since we first launched strikes in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, our objective has been to kill or capture al-Qa’ida terrorists and dislodge their Taliban hosts. That mission was, and remains, quite different from our mission in Iraq, which is a mix of war-fighting, peacekeeping and nation building.

Most recently, U.S. and Afghan warriors, supported by other allies, launched Operation Moshtarak (a Dari word meaning “together”) in the center of Afghanistan’s southern Helmand province and the town of Marjah.

There is very little chance that a functioning democracy, or much else, can be established in Afghanistan. The internal regional conflicts, with or without the Taliban mixing things up, preclude such establishment.

Our objective is to prevent the Taliban from occupying uncontrolled regions there long enough for us to support and build up the Afghan military to a sustainable level. Once this is accomplished, the Afghan military will endeavor to rid the countryside of Taliban extremists, and keep them out, even if it invites eradication efforts across the southeastern border with Pakistan. (Pakistan is much more concerned with its neighbor, India, than its border with Afghanistan.)

Why prosecute the Taliban?

Because their presence in Afghanistan serves as a launch pad for jihadi attacks around the world.

On 10 September 2001, after eight years of Clinton administration national security malfeasance, and eight months of the newly installed Bush administration’s efforts to reorder national security priorities, most Americans were unaware that a deadly enemy had set up shop on our turf.

On 11 September, that enemy attacked us, leaving a hole in a Pennsylvania field and collapsing not only our World Trade Center towers and one fifth of the Pentagon, but also the U.S. economy, which was its ultimate objective. That attack was organized by Sheik Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, al-Qa’ida, from Taliban-occupied territory in Afghanistan.

Al-Qa’ida was, and remains, part of an increasingly unified and asymmetric Islamist terror network supported by nation states including Iran, Syria and extremist factions in Saudi Arabia, and previously by Iraq.

Unlike symmetric threats emanating from clearly defined nation states such as Russia and China — those with unambiguous political, economic and geographical interests — asymmetric enemies defy nation-state status, thus presenting new and daunting national-security challenges for the executive branch and U.S. military planners.

The strategy to-date in Afghanistan has been somewhat modeled after our strategy in Iraq. The operational blueprint has been “shape, clear, hold and build”: Shape the conditions to secure population centers; clear insurgents; hold the region so that insurgents can’t regain tactical advantage; and build, which includes the provision of humanitarian and reconstruction efforts until such control can be transferred to national authorities.

However, as noted, there remain serious questions about whether any such national authority can be established in Afghanistan, or if the best we can hope for is the development of a military authority, heavily underwritten by the U.S. and NATO, and sufficient to contain the Taliban and its terrorist campaigns against the West.

Afghanistan remains an ideal breeding ground for the active cadres of “Jihadistan,” a borderless nation of Islamic extremists comprising al-Qa’ida and other Muslim terrorist groups around the world.

A borderless nation, indeed. The “Islamic World” of the Quran recognizes no political borders. Though orthodox Muslims (those who subscribe to the teachings of the “pre-Medina” Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, large, well-funded sects within the Islamic world subscribe to the “post-Mecca” Quran and Hadiths (Mohammed’s teachings). It is this latter group which calls for jihad, or “holy war,” against all “the enemies of God.”

For the record, these “enemies,” or infidels, are all non-Muslims.

Are you a non-Muslim?

Jihadists, then, are characterized by the toxic Wahhabism of Osama bin Laden and his heretical ilk — those who would remake the Muslim world in their own image of hatred, intolerance, death and destruction. In the words of bin Laden himself: “We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us.”

Does Barack Hussein Obama get the message?

Given his penchant for appeasement and for ill-advised withdrawal timelines from Iraq and Afghanistan, one would think not.

Moreover, the Obama administration’s newly released quadrennial outline for national and homeland defense makes no mention of “Islam,” “Islamic” or “Islamist,” preferring instead to reference “violent extremism.”

Obama’s “Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism,” John Brennan (a.k.a. “Terrorist Czar”), has deflected criticism of the quadrennial reports, and of Obama’s re-warming of the Clinton model for treating terrorists as “criminals” rather than “enemy combatants.”

“Politics should never get in the way of national security,” says Brennan, who insists that Obama’s detractors are “misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe.” The thin-skinned Brennan has also charged that “politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qa’ida.”

Obama’s foreign policy is driven by nothing if not politics, and this includes his Afghanistan strategy. It’s a strategy necessitated by his phony bravado during the 2008 presidential campaign — a strategy with the ultimate aim of an easy political out.

Carnegie Endowment policy analyst Robert Kagan observes, “The new doctrine that seems to enjoy enormous cachet among the smart foreign policy set is: Fight wars until they get hard, then quit.”

I prefer John Stuart Mill’s assessment: “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. … A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Tenth Amendment Wyoming

February 3, 2010

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I recently attended a meeting in Sheridan that addressed the growing movement for strengthening the Tenth Amendment in Wyoming. Indeed, this should be boilerplate for any politician at local and state level in each and every state.

The Federal government has abused the states ever since the War of Northern Aggression and, simply put, it needs to be reigned in. From abuse of the “commerce Clause” to Second Amendment issues to drug laws the Federal Government is, and has been as out of control as a drunk teenager. Anytime that anything within the Bill of Rights is weakened,the entire body of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution is weakened.

All to often though our so-called leadership does a roll over and licks the boots of the Federal lairds.

See video Here

Hat tip to Anthony Bouchard!

We need laws passed, not toothless resolutions.


State of Disunion : Epic Fail Obama

January 21, 2010

Mark Alexander hits out of the ballpark again, please see the blogroll for the link to The patriot Post.

Alexander’s Essay – January 21, 2010

State of Disunion

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” –Article II, Section I, U.S. Constitution

On Wednesday, 27 January, Barack Hussein Obama will deliver his first “State of the Union” speech as president, a self evaluation of his first year’s achievements.

Sprinkled between his infamous “let me be clear” or “make no mistake” introduction to his lies, he will, characteristically, attempt to spin a plethora of failures into something including these phony fallback phrases: back from the brink; signs of recovery; restored our reputation; achieved some successes; more work yet to do; fiscal restraint; greed on Wall Street; affordable health care; relief for working families; job creation.

He’ll also use the word “inherited,” as in “I inherited this mess.” He’ll speak of “unprecedented” reforms or achievements or challenges. And he’ll mention “those who seek to do us harm,” but he won’t dare utter the term “Islamic terrorists.”

In advance of his teleprompted propaganda, then, let’s take a reality check on Obama and his first year.

Never before in the history of our great nation has any sitting president held so much disregard and outright contempt for our Constitution and Rule of Law.

Perhaps the operative words in his oath were, “to the best of my ability”?

Of course, what were we to expect from a Marxist, whose views on government and economy were shaped by his surrogate father and communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis; whose first campaign for political office was launched by Maoist anarchists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn; whose political career has been stewarded by the likes of Leftists Richard Daley, Michael Pfleger, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, et al.

And don’t forget his religious mentor, Jeremiah Wright, who married Barack and Michelle and baptized their children.

Wright preached hate, plain and simple: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government gives [black people] drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strikes law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, g-d d— America. G-d d— America for treating our citizens as less than human. G-d d— America.”

Wright sermonized that our great nation is in fact the “U.S. of KKK-A” and is “controlled by and run by rich white people. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in god. And god has got to be sick of this sh-t!”

How did Obama respond when asked about his pastor’s perennial anti-American tirades? “It sounds like he was trying to be provocative,” concludes Obama.

At a foundational level, Obama’s ability and his agenda have been shaped first and foremost by his condition as a pathological narcissist, a young man driven by a blinding need for acceptance and its coefficient, power — the result of a childhood characterized by his father’s, and then stepfather’s, rejection.

It should be noted that the young Barry Obama did not ask for or deserve the hardship he suffered as a child any more than millions of other children abandoned by their fathers today. In that respect, he deserves our compassion.

However, Obama’s insatiable pathological need for power renders him a very dangerous person in power.

He was elected on a promise that should have served as a warning sign: “This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

He ran his charismatic campaign on a promise of “hope,” but in the words of Patrick Henry, “It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth — and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts.”

As for “fundamentally transforming” our nation, that is a thinly veiled reference to an outright assault on our Constitution and our Essential Liberty, one that thrusts an ever more powerful central government upon us.

Not since 1860 has the Union been at such odds with the fundamental rights of the States and the People.

Obama’s effort to endow the central government with absolute authority follows his Socialist political playbook, Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

Obama was elected just weeks after an economic collapse which can be tied directly to Leftist economic policies.

His effort to “Reclaim America” involves taxing and borrowing more than a trillion dollars from the private sector, sifting it through the bureaucracies of his political appointees, then “investing” it into the public sector to grow government and pay off his special interest constituencies and other benefactors.

He is plundering private sector resources under the pretense of private sector “job creation.”

He has attempted, with some success, to nationalize, by way of regulation, coercion or “investment,” the major industrial and service segments of the economy — including energy, banking, investment, education, insurance, automotive and real estate — and he has supplanted free enterprise with Socialism.

He is endeavoring to nationalize our nation’s largest single economic sector, health care, and he laughs off any suggestion that there is no constitutional authority for such folly. Moreover, the House version creates 111 new oversight bureaucracies. (1)

He has attempted to advance his domestic agenda on a global scale under the guise of “climate change.”

Further, Obama’s national security failures present even greater peril to life and liberty.

Coddling Islamic extremists, bowing to Saudi kings, apologizing to the world, politicizing terrorist interrogation methods at Gitmo, treating terrorism as “criminal activity” and moving the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York, using Operation Enduring Freedom as campaign fodder and setting a timeframe for withdrawal from Afghanistan — these and many more grossly errant policy decisions served only to hinder and demoralize us and our allies while empowering and emboldening our enemies, thus enabling jihadi attacks such as the murder of 12 soldiers, one civilian, and an unborn baby at Ft. Hood, and the narrowly averted bombing of a U.S. airliner this past Christmas Day.

Of course, there were other ridiculous gaffes, like the one at his last public press conference (six months ago), when he offered his impromptu assessment of the arrest of his friend, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, by claiming that the Cambridge Police “acted stupidly.” His subsequent “beer summit” was a forced and feeble attempt at damage control.

And then there was the Nobel Peace Prize, a ridiculous Euro-leftist albatross of an award that was bestowed upon Obama just days after he ascended to the presidency.

Were it not for the threat of unbridled laughter, Obama’s SotU address might also reflect on some of the most egregious prevarications from his brief tenure.

On his plans for massive government expansion: “Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t.”

On his grand Socialist schemes: “I’ve never bought into these Malthusian, woe, Chicken Little, the earth is falling — I tend to be pretty optimistic.”

On the so-called “stimulus package” (i.e., record debt): “Less than one month after taking office, we enacted the most sweeping recovery package in history, and we did so without any of the earmarks, pork-barrel projects that are usually accompanying these big — these big bills.”

On bailouts for behemoth auto producers: “Let me be clear. The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM.”

On his friends at ACORN: “You know, it’s — frankly, it’s not really something I’ve followed closely. I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.”

On blame shifting: “You haven’t seen me out there blaming the Republicans.”

On taxes: “I will tax just the rich. I want to give a tax cut to the middle class.”

On the cost of ObamaCare: “It won’t add to the deficit. And I mean it! … It’s designed to lower it!” And how about this one: “I have not said I am in favor of a single-payer system.”

On the transparency of his health care “reform” deliberations: “It’s going to be on C-SPAN.”

On jobs (record unemployment): “My administration has created or saved… [ad nauseam].” (2)

On the political influence of grassroots Tea Party participants: “Those people waving their little tea bags around…”

Clearly, Obama has underestimated the influence of those who support America’s First Principles. In addition, he has also grossly misread his mandate as the heir of the once-noble Democratic Party.

These miscalculations were manifest in the recent Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections, and again this week in Massachusetts.

Who woulda thunk it — that in the most liberal state of the union, whose legislature hastily amended laws so the governor could immediately appoint a Demo replacement for the seat vacated by the U.S. Senate’s most liberal member, Ted Kennedy, who had occupied the seat for 47 years since the departure of his brother, JFK, and whose life ambition was to nationalize health care, whose designated replacement, Martha Coakley ran on his platform — who woulda thunk that a Democrat who just weeks ago held a 30-point lead in the polls would be defeated by Scott Brown, a moderate Republican state legislator of the Mitt Romney variety, who ran on a platform against nationalized health care?

Clearly, the loss of a Senate seat in Massachusetts is a major reality check for Obama. When asked about the rising rejection of his “vision” for America, Obama responded, “I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we’re making a good rational decision here, then people will get it.”

In other words, “The people are just too dumb.”

And speaking of “the people,” when Scott Brown was asked in his last debate with Coakley if he would be willing to “sit in Teddy Kennedy’s seat” and vote against the health care bill, he responded, “Well, with all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy seat, and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.”

Every Republican and Independent running for election or re-election in 2010 should, first, take that cue from Brown — the seats they seek belong to the people. Second, they should take a cue from Ronald Reagan, who left a timeless template for success: Run on a platform that, first and foremost, insists on the re-establishment of constitutional Rule of Law, and then governs accordingly.

For too long, too many Americans have been complacent about liberty, believing it to be their birthright and the birthright of generations to come. They have enjoyed the fruit of liberty defended by others, taking rights for granted and knowing nothing of the obligations for maintaining that blessing.

Most Americans have never had to fight for liberty and, thus, have little concept of its value or any sense of gratitude for its accumulated cost — a cost paid by generations of Patriots who have pledged their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama was an egregious affront to our legacy of Essential Liberty, and a clarion call to action for the many good citizens who honor the rights and obligations of citizenship.

As was the case with the first American Revolution, we now face a crucial battle for liberty. The upcoming elections, more than any other in recent history, are about the restoration of constitutional integrity.

Indeed, fellow Patriots, this is our time. The road to recovery is long, but the momentum is with us.

Footnotes: 1. With the election of Brown, ObamaCare in its present form is dead, but expect Obama to call for passage of revised legislation, which has support of both Republicans and Democrats. Once passed, it can then be readily amended.

2. Credit where credit due — Obama’s recovery plan has not created any real jobs, but it did secure new employment for at least three Republicans: One in Virginia, one in New Jersey and now one in Massachusetts.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US