Please write your congress person to insist that these great American citizens who were wantonly murdered on their way to deployment should not only get a purple heart, but the increased benefits to their families that is required of our nation. That is, if are willing to be honest and insist that our dead, (they are dead brothers and sisters, and their children are without them!!). These American soldiers volunteered to serve the military mission of our nation. They were American service personnel. They would not have been brutally murdered if they were not on their way to carry out the commands of the American government. Yes, that means the orders of President Obama. (look folks, those are merely the facts and not anti Obama statements.) So let’s not be small-minded and childish in our treatment of these heroes. Yes, they did not die in combat, they were murdered. They were brutally and wantonly murdered by a fellow soldiers who was himself a secret terrorist. So they were killed by terrorists and we must demand that our military do the right thing and the right thing is NOT to allow Attorney General Holder’s insistence that this was “workplace violence”. Shame on us if we do not honor these service members with a purple heart and decent benefits to their spouses and children.
Tag: Democrats
Leave Afghanistan Now
http://news.yahoo.com/afghan-teenager-fatally-stabs-us-soldier-105007454.html
We must leave Afghanistan now, today, pronto, to hell with their damn country, Muslim fanaticism, and terrorist people. Let them kill themselves, as they always have, and let them do it until they are satisified with their human sacrifices to their terrorist fanaticism, and then they will stop.
Leave Afghanistan Now
http://news.yahoo.com/us-commandos-hand-over-troubled-area-afghans-085617778.html
President Obama said that this was the war that absolutely must be won. NOT. America is in fast retreat from this hell hole.
Secretary of State Kerry, as a Senator, said that the Afghanistan war is the true war for freedom and democracy. Now he is making deals with the Taliban.
President George W Bush thought this was a significant place to fight against terrorism, ignorance and Muslim bigotry. NOT.
Is it any wonder that the USA under the Obama administration is in full retreat from Afghanistan?
The writer of this blog does not agree with the idea that because we have already spent the lives of thousands of Ameria’s best patriots, therefore, we need to stay and spend the lives of thousands more.
Rather, I believe that the entire Afghanistan venture was a total and complete waste of time and effort. That our young men’s lives were tragically wasted. And that Bush, Mrs. Clinton, Obama and Kerry are responsible for the carnage inflicted upon American families during this twelve year long stupidity.
Therefore, the USA should immediately and completely withdraw from Afghanistan. We shoud not consult with, seek the approval of. nor worry about, the silly Karzai government. We should just order our troops to destroy all USA equipment in Afghanistan. We should order the total destruction of all USA installations in Afghanistan. And this is to be done by a few dozen volunteers who will remain after we unilaterally and immediately withdraw 100 % of the the USA forces from that nation State. As to the contractors? They got there by our USA government and USA military machinations. Therefore, give the USA government and military a “secret date certain” for the 100 % withdrawal and get the very highly paid volunteer civilains out,However, only after we are certain that our volunteer military forces are safe to leave.
Let Afghanistan have Afghanistan. And Allah bless them as they build their nation upon the principles of Islam.
childlessness Could Doom the Childless and the Nation
This is a very extensive, interesting and insightful article on the “Childless Culture” of modern urban America. Will there be enough children to replace those who are growing older and those who are dying? If there are not enough children who will pay for the elderly? If the childless generation succeeds, then they too will suffer. For this writer, one area that the author of this article neglected, and probably could not gauge, was the effect of aging on those who are electing to be childless.
Now, these folk have living parents and often grandparents. But grand parents and parents will die leaving the childless children without family. Friends, yes. But are today’s friends the same as today’s children who remain your children when you are old! This idea of family as companions along the journey of life may be quaint, but I suggest a visit to a contemporary elderly life home, or a nursing home. The people in these places often have families and yet, they cannot stay at home because of illness, frailty, behavioral problems, or simply because their children do not want to take care of them.
So, we posit the idea of millions of men and women who today could have children we imagine that they successfully carry out their childlessness. So, imagine that they are now fifty or sixty. They are weaker than they are now. Some are sick. Some are frail. All are without grandparents, parents or children. They are also either out of a job because of technological advances eliminating their employment, or they are forced to continue working until they are dead because of the increasing costs of urban singleton living.
Hey, they may indeed be happy. But this is also true, there comes a point in biological life when it is no longer possible to have children. So, the decision to be childless becomes, at that point, not reversible. Hey, they may be used to being a “family” of one. However, the socially hip scene changes with age. The friends move away or die away. The body degenerates. So, what! They may think that is not their problem. And it isn’t.
As the article inferred, Obama will take care of them. Oh, I forgot, he will be old too. And surprise! Obama is married and has two children. His retirement will be generous. His wife is a successful business person. And although his parents and grandparents are dead, I am sure he will have plenty of friends to keep him company as he grows older. Maybe, using him as the image for ourselves is not the best idea. Well, to each his/her own.
Obama Administration’s Foolish About Benghazi
http://news.yahoo.com/libya-militia-linked-u-attack-returns-benghazi-141851547.html
The Obama administration is the reason for the continued terrorist success in Libya. Why? Because Obama backed the rebel insurgents and terrorist Islamists who fought against Gaddafi. Using the romantic notion that all the Islamic countries needed was a breath of fresh Spring air, Obama ignited and then supported what has become a nightmare of terror for Libya, Egypt, and Syria.
A glaring fault of the Obama administration’s worldview is directly attributable to the President. He seems to think that simply forcing an autocratic government out of power will automatically produce a grass-roots movement akin to the American Revolution of 1776. However, the governments of Libya and Syria are autocratic for a vast array of social, ideological and tribal reasons. The leadership of these regions, like that in Iraq and Iran is based on powerful clan and tribal allegiances. These forces produced the autocratic governments, perpetuated them in existence and reinforced their continuation into this era. The obvious breakdown of Libya and Iraq into competing tribal and clan factions, each at war with the other over land, influence and Islam, is evidence of the correctness of this analysis. Yet, the Obama administration, its State department and the CIA that serves him, followed an amateurish plan based on romantic notions of hope and change.
Surprisingly, it is Vladimir Putin who is the voice of a seasoned and reasonable national policy regarding the Mid Eastern nations in general and Libya and Syria in particular. Putin was betrayed during the illegal aggression against Libya which was carried out by Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy. In conjunction with the Belgians, these three leaders had gotten United Nations permission to protect rebels forces fighting against a member of the UN (Libya). But the UN resolution 1973 was then used by these leaders as a cover under which they engaged their nations in criminal aggression against the legal government of Gaddafi, a government, which until his murder by the rebels, was recognized by 103 nations as the legal government of Libya. The criminal aggression was carried out by bombing, and strafing the legal army of Libya by NATO forces. It was carried out by the use of 213 USA cruise missiles fired against the legal army and government of Libya by NATO. The illegal aggression was carried out by the use of USA Special Forces personnel on the ground in Libya who aided the rebels, guided the bombing raids, and spotted for the missile attacks. The entire affair enraged Putin because it was illegal under International law. But the powerful Belgians, French, English and Americans were never called accountable. Instead, the puppet press of the Obama administration depicted the Libyan aggression as a war of freedom against tyranny.
Evidence of confiscated weapons shipments by Russia to the Syrian government of Assad, seems to indicated that the Russians are doing legally what the USA did illegally. How so? The Syrian government, like the Libyan government of Gaddafi, has an internationally recognised right of self-defense against all enemies foreign and domestic. By the way, it is illegal, regarded as treason, and punishable by death, if a citizen or group of USA citizens attempts to overthrown the federal government by force. So, what’s the difference with Libya? Oh, I forgot! We declared Gaddafi a dictator and that made every illegal and criminal action that we took, well, it made our action right!!??
Strange, isn’t it, that a former Communist KGB agent, Vladimir Putin, should be more of defender of national sovereignty and I believe in Libya, of national self determination, then the Obama administration?
Gaddafi had moved very forcefully to attempt to atone for his terrorist actions in Lockerbie. He acknowledged the crime and paid the blood money. Which, although Westerners do not agree with the process, is nonetheless, regarded as an expiation for the crime. So, if the relatives of the victims accept the blood money, they are required to exonerate the perpetrator of the crime. (Hey, I don’t agree either. But if we are going to play the game and accept the money then we cannot secretly decide that we have other rules that we apply to the game that are unknown to the other participant.)
Gaddafi had stopped all Nuclear bomb development in acquiesce to American demands. He had stopped all International terrorism funding and activity in return for USA government recognition of his government. A fact attested by the visit of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Gaddafi.
However, President Obama did not honor the promises of the previous USA administration. President Obama reneged on government to government agreements. He decided to repudiate the promises of the USA made to Gaddafi, instead using our prestige at the United nations to get Resolution 1973 passed and then using it as a legal cover for illegal and criminal aggression against a sovereign Libya government, an action which was condemned by Nuremberg when it was done by the Nazi against Poland, etc.
The amateurish and cavalier approach of President Obama to foreign affairs in terribly illustrated by his handling of the Benghazi murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens. It seems that President Obama thinks that he can engage in acts of war and then walk out of the oval office and go to bed, leaving the conduct of the war to others. But what is his plan? What is he intending to accomplish? What is his focus in terms of the macro and micro scenario of international politics? Where is his instruction manual for what he intends for his officials to achieve? Just saying to his staff, “handle it.” and then going to bed is not the basis for policy, anymore than just giving a speech on a USA issue is the same as the proposal of legislation to the Congress.
Speeches and statements to staff to “handle it” are evidence of a politician who is not engaged in governing. They are the cavalier statements of a person who has little regard for the mechanics of real life government. Maybe, Obama thinks that all he has to do is think and speak and everybody else has to work.
Hilary Clinton is an Old Woman
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-interview-clinton-raps-benghazi-critics-084552064–politics.html
It is time for those of us, and I too am 65, to give over and let the younger generation have a time at bat. This is why I am appalled by those who want to run Hilary Clinton in 2016. By then she will be 70 and frankly, although I too, do not think of myself as old, nonetheless, she and I are old, and it is time to give over the world to our children.
Regarding Benghazi, it seems to me that she should just move on and be a grandmother. Her last grandstand is merely a revenge tactic against fellow citizens who do not agree with her view of what happened and what we can do about it. She is merely trying to focus attention upon her critics and not upon the facts. And this is doubly egregious since her whole speech is about the real world and the facts. Yet, she is spinning about others and ignoring the false information from President Obama about the video, and the false talking points from some bogey man in the CIA, and the false statements on national television by the USA UN ambassador, and the weeks of administration insistence upon the video and the mob.
Mrs. Clinton lashes out at others as being not realistic, while she and the Obama administration attempted to blind fold the American public to the facts of Benghazi and her own and President Obama’s failure to treat the attack realistically. She, and Obama, and the joint chiefs and the CIA and the FBI were all watching the events as they were happening. It is the same as watching a person on a public street being attacked by a gang of four knife wielding crooks and doing nothing about it. Because that is what she and President Obama did, they watched it happen, did nothing about it and went to bed as our citizens were tortured and brutally murdered at our embassy in Libya.
Mrs. Clinton should not be allowed to escape the verdict of the people that she and President Obama failed, and that they covered up by lying to the Press and the American people. Both she and all involved should not be allowed to turn the tables on her accusers. She and President Obama were in charge, our military was at the ready and it was Mrs. Clinton and President Obama who failed to grasp the gravity of the real life situation and instead waited for some kind of magical solution as they watched our citizens die in Benghazi.
This writer is not a Clinton hater and I know that many admire Mrs. Clinton for standing by her man during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Nonetheless, Benghazi is something that we cannot ignore in an attempt to “honor” a spurned wife. Some would ask why I bring up the impeachment over the Lewinsky scandal. Some would ask why I bring up Mrs. Clinton’s own evaluation and scathing criticism of Obama when she was running against him. I do it because history is real and no amount of good intentions or fervor in favor of a particular person should blind us to the facts. In fact, Mrs. Clinton’s parting speech says the same thing. However, she wants to apply the rules to others but not to herself. Well, friends, that is not real.
Obama Administration Always Fast to Point Finger
http://news.yahoo.com/gdp-reminder-congress-address-spending-white-house-150028918–business.html
“Today’s report is a reminder of the importance of the need for Congress to act to avoid self-inflicted wounds to the economy,” said Krueger in a blog post shortly after the release of new government data on gross domestic product.
Amazing that the White House and those sympathetic are fast as lightning to point the finger of accusation against the Congress. Every time there is any bad news, the President or one of his advisors immediately diverts attention away from the White House and toward the Congress. This is so very convenient for them and easy to do. There are only a few of them at the White House while there are 100 Senators and 495 Representatives. Easy for the few at the White House to quickly accuse while the 595 Congress people are always hesitant to speak for any other Representatives. The result is the impressive myth that the White House pronouncements speak for the whole Government and not merely the executive branch. However, any member of the House or the Senate who accused would be considered speaking only for him or her self.
Is this an unfair advantage? Yes, it is. However, it can be argued that is the nature of politics. So be it. However, the news reporters can be un biased and represent the facts clearly. Instead they abet the myth that Obama speaks for the whole government while the Congress people speak only for themselves.
Syria and Terrorists
The terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusra does not differ ideologically from other Syrian Salafi Islamist groups like Ahrar al-Sham and Liwa al-Tawhid. In the end what they want is to establish an Islamic State. Since November 2011 the group has claimed responsibility for “nearly 600 terrorist attacks, killing and wounding hundreds of Syrians
Like Jabhat al-Nusra, a number of other Islamist groups also want to install an Islamic state in Syria, while even secular rebel units increasingly speak in ugly sectarian terms that demonize minorities, particularly members of Assad’s Alawite sect and the Christian minorities.
I am not with the regime but I am against their enemies because they are worse than then them! I pray for the safety of all innocent lives in Syria, especially the Christian minorities that are now being targeted by these radical Islamist groups.
Obama is Not a Dictator
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-immigration-reform-ill-act-congress-doesnt-224408712.html
“But the president indicated that his patience is provisional. He laid out principles he said should be reflected in any comprehensive immigration-reform legislation, and he said that if lawmakers get bogged down bickering, he’ll act.”
Obama is not a dictator. He is an elected president. His election is according to the law and it is under the rule of the law. We need to remind our young reporters of this fact. It seems that they very much want to give him dictatorial power. Or they want a daddy. Maybe all young college educated reporters want the tyranny of the classroom Professor to remain in their lives forever. Whatever is it, it is annoying to read news reporters using language in describing the President that casts him in the above mentioned roles.
The facts of our national law, however, are in the way of the unmerited enthusiasm of our young reporters who want to grant Mr. Obama power that he does not possess. Hopefully, the rest of the nation sees this and will not fall into the Obama mania crowd.
Mr. Obama’s bellicose pronouncements and threats to the US Congress are actually the rants of someone who thinks of himself as the law or above the law. These kinds of statements are not mere politics such as one might use to influence the decision-making of the 595 elected officials of the US Congress. Rather, they are cast in the language of threat and they are meant to convey a threat. He is saying that either they act of he will do whatever he wants to do, and he will do it whether or not he has the power to do so.
President Obama does not respect the Congress of the USA and by extension, he does not respect the people of the nation because they are the ones who elected the Congress. His threats indicate a person who still believes that America should be thankful that he is willing to allow himself to rule over us and if we don’t recognize that, it is we who are wrong.
There is a Constitutional process in place for Mr. Obama to influence the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is called proposal of legislation. That means that he has his staff actually write down proposed legislation, submit this legislation to the House and Senate through his surrogates and let them debate the issues. The second is to use the threat of a veto of proposed legislation to influence the Congress.
Mr. Obama does not work within the system. He thinks that he is supposed to say something and it is to be done. He thinks that he is supposed to give a speech and that is the same as proposal of legislation. In order words, he wills it to be done, like some kind of Czar and everyone else is to bow down, says yes your majesty, and then go out and do exactly as he says to do.
But the USA is a Republic and not a monarchy. It is also not a dictatorship with a merely phony Congress. The USA is a Constitutional democracy ruled by laws and Mr. Obama is not outside of nor above those laws. So, although the process may be tedious and at times it may make mistakes, ultimately, its is the will of the people as expressed by the people’s elected Representatives in the Congress. If Mr. Obama wants to get things done, he should work harder at the actual writing of legislation and he should be more cooperative in working with the Congress and not against it.
Obama a Centrist?
http://news.yahoo.com/don-t-hem-him-in—liberal–can-t-define-the-obama-presidency–154423941.html
Indeed, Obama is now a second term President, fair and square. But the so-called mandate is not true. Yes, he won 53 percent of those who voted. But how many eligible voters actually voted? His four years have tempered him for the better. I did not vote for him. But I do have hope. My hope is that he will be more left of center than left of left. America, I believe is a fair-minded and good nation. I do not know if President Obama loves the America over which he fought so hard to Preside. But I know that I love America. I love it enough to accept him as the legal President. I love it enough to pray that God will help him to be just, fair and magnanimous in his administration. I love it enough to hope that he really, maybe way down deep, but I will take what I can get, that way down deep, he does love his country.
Progressive Politics 