Thursday, December 24, 2009

My response to the William Daley @ The Washington Post...

William Daley of the Washington Post wrote an article that I took some exception to...

The link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122302439.html

Here was my comment:

Mr. Daley is correct in his observation that no side in any political system has a monopoly on good ideas. Where I believe he is mistaken is in his observation that the Republicans have been captured by their own radical fringe and that the Democrats have only to moderate their position. The Democrats presently in power are not Clintonians; they are extremists. They can't ‘moderate’.... It isn't in them.

Clinton was enough of a realist to moderate is position, thus stay 2 terms and be seen as "successful". Pelosi, Reed, Obama and their sycophants are ideologically incapable of making the changes necessary as Clinton once did. When Clinton tried to nationalize the healthcare delivery system in the early 90's he was excoriated and the plan shelved. Obama and his minions have made huge attempts to pass extremely leftist programs like ‘Cap and Trade’ and the so-called healthcare reform bill that just passed the Senate and faces conference committee review.

How did we end up where we are now? Republicans have fielded weak candidates and have not articulated strong conservative economic or fiscal plans. Their managing of the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq has been disjointed and poor, even if well intentioned. The Democrats came to power due to that poorly executed war policy and seemingly lackluster response to the economic problems that were beginning to come to light in 2007 and 2008. That protest vote brought charismatic radical leftists to power.

Conservative Republicans, who were generally ignored by the ‘Neo-cons’ who took control of the Republican Party after the Bush defeat in 1991, have now begun to reassert control of the party. This is best seen in the resurgent rise of Reaganesque Conservatives who are made up partly of conservative Democrats, who are fiscally conservative and who resent the massive debt Obama has run up and the radical nature of a majority of his policies; Independents who have seen the debt rise and unemployment swell nearly 3% in 11 months and no apparent plan to correct the job losses; and the more traditional conservative Republican elements who make up what is being called the "Tea Party" conservatives, who are livid at the massive debt, loss of jobs, fall of the dollar, and the seeming lack of assertive leadership when it is needed most. They resent the Obama ‘Apology Tours’ and the chummy behavior towards the likes of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Daniel Ortega and the kowtowing to foreign potentates. They also resent the damage the neo-cons did to the party during the Bush II years and want to return to a more Reagan-like conservatism that seemed to them the best option for the country. They especially want tax relief for small business and reduction of the tax burden on those who carry a majority of the burden as key to stimulate the economy. There are even those who advocate a removal of the regressive personal and corporate income tax; a repeal of the 16th Amendment, and the establishment of the so-called ‘Fair Tax’, which would spur an immediate economic and business revival.

Mr. Daley is also incorrect in his assessment that the extreme liberal wing need only come up with a better way to sell their position to the American People...that they not surrender or in any way concede defeat in the wake of the rising tide of anger and vitriol. The problem with that opinion is that when surveyed, most Americans are conservative in their positions. Even abortion, the great litmus test of the left and the right, is less popular according to recent polls. What most leftist don’t understand is that what the “New Right” wants is a return to constitutional government, a more lawful and less radical, activist government. They have seen what the Obama Cabal has in store for the nation and are revolted and even frightened by that agenda. No amount of consoling or creative wordsmithing is going to sell a majority of the American people that multi-trillion dollar budgets and ever-mounting debt and confiscatory taxation or nationalized healthcare, or increasingly intrusive and extra constitutional activities is a good thing. Increasing debt ceilings, printing dollars by the billions, and borrowing cash from our adversaries to fund even more programs is a recipe for disaster, and every intelligent person knows it....except the Liberal Congress and Obama.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Into the breach, dear friends...The Senate passes their bill...

Has anyone considered that the new Healthcare de-evolution bill that just passed the Senate may do for the insurance industry what the Community Reinvestment Act did for the banking industry?

In short, The Community Reinvestment Act required lending institutions to lend money to marginal characters living in even more marginal geographical areas. In time, this degenerated into the lending of money to people who began playing fast and loose, speculating on real estate with other people’s money. The insurance industry is on track to become like the banking and savings and loan industry when the government mandates are implemented and activated. We will see people who presently are unable to qualify for policies in the free market for many reasons, forced into that market at bayonet point (by the government) and private companies forced to sell them health insurance policies. The private insurers will be compelled to do so at that same governmental “bayonet point”. Meanwhile, as the persons with pre-existing conditions draw on the system, causing a corresponding increase in costs, the private insurers will loose billions of dollars due to extra claims, increasing the cost for the rest of the pool which will rise to cover those additional costs. So we will see nearly all Americans forced to pay into a system by force of law and see them additionally forced to pay what is in effect a ‘tax’ for healthcare to private insurers that will rise as the load increases.

What could very well happen is that people, who were paying their own way, will reach the breaking point when the costs become too great and simply opt out of the whole private health insurance system and pay the fine for non-compliance to the government rather than pay ever increasing premiums. That point could be reached relatively quickly for America’s employers who pay a large share of healthcare costs for their employees. As the costs rise to cover the additional costs of those who are brought on board due to federal mandate, employers may simply drop their employee’s coverages and pay the fines for not covering them. Young, healthy people who before didn’t pay at all because they were generally more healthy and made the personal calculation that they didn’t need coverage, will opt to pay the fines, which cost less than paying ever increasing amounts for coverage. This will still leave them effectively uninsured as they were before. These uninsured people would become a revenue stream to the government via the fines paid for non-compliance. One could argue that this is in effect, a way of taxing people and businesses in a new, and more cynical way.

As the pool of insured people falls in response to the increasing premiums, due in part to added burdens caused by pre-existing condition customers and due to losses of individual and business group policy holders, private insurers may simply shut down and drop health coverage as a product. If that were to happen en masse’, the nation may find itself with few if any health insurance providers. This is not a scenario beyond the pale when you consider that products like group annuity and whole life insurance have dramatically declined due to market forces. It is possible that these lines of coverage may in the fullness of time; disappear entirely, as the administration costs and servicing costs make them uneconomical to offer. If this were to happen with health insurance, what would happen to the existing policy holders? Who or what would rise to fill the void?

The answer seems obvious. The government would undoubtedly step in to fill that void they caused by their attempt to provide coverage to all in the first place. Single payer would become defacto as the government took over in the void created by them and all the worst case scenarios would come to pass: price controls, ‘death panels’ and eventually, rationing of care. Complete government control of the health delivery services of the nation would become a fact of life for all Americans, thus destroying arguably, the world’s greatest health care delivery system...

As the old Community Reinvestment Act began the march that lead to the collapse of the housing finance industry in America, these governmental mandates on the private health delivery and payment system will hasten the beginning of the march toward a single payer system. This system will ultimately control aspects of your life that were once the exclusive purviews of the citizens and their doctors, and lead to horrific deficiencies in quality and quantity of health services to the people of this nation. It will also lead to ultimate financial collapse of the governmental budgetary system as we would see crisis after crisis develop as we do now with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, only on a much grander scale. If one doubts the results, they simply have but to look north to Canada or across the Atlantic to Great Britain to see what single payer systems have done to healthcare in those nations. All the worse case scenarios have come to those countries including rationing, delays in critical services, and outright denial of services and cutting edge drugs and procedures due to cost or government regulation.

Is that what we want? Is that the best we can do for our country?

Global Warming...on Mars????

According to award winning journalist Ron Bain and the website Space.com, Mars appears to be coming out of an Ice Age and is slowly warming. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any humans there or any industries on Mars. To blame humans for Mars' apparently shrinking polar ice caps seems to be a difficult thing to do, though I am sure some attempt to minimize this fact will be made...

And that's the point. Planets change.... they are cyclic, even when there is no life at all on them. Glacial ice sheets form and then recede; continents drift; ice caps grow, fragment, then shrink; oceans grow and recede; atmospheric temperatures vary up and down, ranging from tropical to polar-like despite the latitudes. And all of these things have occurred on Earth. The all have happened long before man evolved as a species. They all have happened prior to the industrial age of man began. They are also happening elsewhere in the solar system too.

I wonder if it’s too late to let the folks in Copenhagen know.....

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

A note to Sherrie....

In my response to a Facebook posting I was chastised for my views on Sarah Palin as a potential candidate in 2012. I felt her not a good choice in light of her past performance and her lack of experience. I was hit with a multitude of arguments why I was wrong including the slam that I was a "sexist". Anyone who knows me knows that that label is totally off the mark. Here is my reply to Sherrie. One thing I need to say is that I think Sherrie is a passionate advocate who believes in many of the same things I do.... but in this I disagree with her. Here is the excerpt:

Sherri.... I knew when I wrote my remarks, somebody would take exception...you did so here goes. I am an Objectivist. I always try and separate emotion from my decision making process when deciding things like who is going to lead the free world at the most dangerous time since 1930’s. I do so with as cold, ruthless and logical mindset as I can muster. I do this because when you are talking about the survival of the Republic, we can’t afford otherwise. Sarah Palin for all her attributes earlier on now has earned a less than passing mark as far as I am concerned as a candidate for the highest office in the land. There are OBJECTIVE reasons for this, none of which have to do with gender. She had reasons for resigning office as Governor. Fine...she had reasons, good ones even, but that doesn’t mean that her actions lack consequence. In my mind there are few good reasons to resign. Illness, indictment, arrest, or promotions are the reasons one leaves office early. The consequence is that you will most likely be unable to pursue further high office if the reasons aren’t administrative, like promotion. This is Palin’s problem. She left for what are essentially personal reasons and that smacks of a lack of fortitude..a "quitter" if you will, regardless the circumstances. Her leaving makes her a good mom, a good wife, and all that, but it makes her a questionable leader when the going gets tough. What happens if the stars cross in her life while occupying the White House? Will she bail then too? As a former military person, I know that true leaders can’t just quit because things become hard or inconvenient. I have made many decisions that were life and death caliber decisions. I made them and lived with the consequences. I question her ability to make those choices, especially if her family has to take a hit (for the good of the country). If she can’t do that, then she shouldn’t be in the big chair. Another thing Sherrie, why are you playing the "sexist" card??? That is like playing the "Race" card... You are better than that Sherrie...I know that. My remarks on her appearance are completely valid...Be objective...look at the men and women who are elected today...most are rated "very photogenic/telegenic" ...objectively, that IS an asset. I have worked on campaigns and know this is a fact. Understand this as well... I am a CONSERVATIVE.. not a Republican nor a Libertarian. Where you are also dead wrong is that there is nothing 'squishy' about me or my beliefs. As for what I "feel" about her...I don't. I don't "feel" about candidates. “FEELINGS” got us into the mess we are in now. We need some cold, hard, and yes, ruthless logic to fix what “feelings” have broken. You also mentioned my stooping to low levels... The only thing 'low' around here is the bar we as a nation have set for those we have been electing. Real achievement and real intellect and real experience and real courage under fire are what matter. Failure is NOT an option.

Monday, December 7, 2009

And so it begins........The Great Copenhagen Global Warming Swindle

The Great Climate Change Lie-fest, A.K.A. : The United Nations Climate Change Conference has convened in Copenhagen, Denmark, today. It seems appropriate that this conference convenes on December 7th, exactly 68 years to the day that America was attacked by a foreign imperial power that attempted to destroy American sovereignty.

The great irony is that this time, we are architects of our own demise.

The great, Marxist / Socialist movements of the past and present has found a safe sanctuary in the United Nations, specifically; they have found aid, comfort and active assistance both political, scientific in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This cabal of third world and socialist politicians and scientists has found a method of unifying their efforts and perpetrating a massive fraud on the rest of the world. Corrupt and sympathetic scientists at such institutions as the University of East Anglia, which was revealed (by a whistle blowing computer hacker)to have been the epicenter of much of the fraud of Global Warming, was the point of origin for leaked documents and e-mails indicating that scientists actively manipulated data, destroyed data, actively subverted the peer review process and sought to “black ball” those who were in opposition to the orthodoxy of global warming from participating in peer review panels. These corrupt scientists freely admitted to having tailored data and results to fit their thesis that the earth’s climate was changing due to man made releases of carbon dioxide. Some e-mails even acknowledged that there were counter indicating data streams against their initial belief in global warming and lamented the fact that they could not explain the cooling that was occurring globally.

Diplomats with axes to grind from every third world cesspool, corrupted scientists, politician who are the bought dogs of special interests as well as left wing radicals, displaced and discredited when the Cold War brought their visions of world communism to an end, have found new purpose in attacking and destroying the great, productive and prosperous democracies of the western world. All this is being done in the name of the fantasy called Global Warming. The meet and greet in Copenhagen will try to cement a treaty that will result in the greatest transfer of wealth and greatest impediments to progress that have ever been conceived. Massive new taxes on all forms of energy, designed to “spread the wealth” between the failed, corrupt and inefficient third world and the free, prosperous and technologically advanced economies of the west. The costs of this agreement will be so large as to dwarf any financial or economic agreement or compact that has ever existed. Over 190 nations are participating in this process and all will be affected by the outcomes of this meeting. The fly in the ointment however, is that the entire process is based on what appears to be a lie.

Our government and special interests led by such luminaries as our own President Barack Hussein Obama and former Vice President Al Gore, both of whom seem to be more internationalist than American in their outlooks, are doing all they can to advance the agenda of this meeting. The fact that Al Gore has massive conflicts of interest in that he sits on boards of directors of organizations that profit handsomely from the Global Warming and alternative energy and technology industry seem lost to most people. That the leftist Congress and White House seem bound and determined to do all they can to tax energy production via the “Cap and Trade” legislation languishing on the back-burner of the U.S. Senate’s agenda and to prevent exploitation of oil, coal and natural gas discoveries all in the name of Global Warming.

What the American people seem not to realize is that this little meeting in Copenhagen has many other consequences that aren’t being published in the neo-Marxist press in this country. Willing stooges of the liberal Democrat party, they leave out very salient points about pending legislation and agreements like the treaty that will come out of Copenhagen.

The U.S. did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol which is set to expire in 2012. Copenhagen is designed to replace this failed treaty. Why did the U.S. not ratify the Kyoto treaty? Simply, it was an unfair and ruinously expensive enterprise that would have cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars with little or no effect on emissions levels due to massive exemptions on emissions to third world nations like China and India who were and still are considered developing nations. What is interesting is that comparing those nations who signed and did not sign, the U.S. as an outsider from the treaty did better on reducing emissions than did many signatories like Japan or Canada who ratified the agreement. This is a point that seems not to be talked about by the mainstream media here or abroad. The fact that such exemptions for nations like China and India would most likely occur again rendering the treaty pointless. It may also prove, like most treaties, unenforceable. If those 2 economies are exempted or given “special considerations” the brunt of attention will fall on the U.S. and other Asian counties and Europe, which are improving their emissions profile via technological advancements even without any treaty. As automobile, industrial and electromechanical devices and equipment becomes more efficient, the natural consequence of that increased efficiency is reduced energy use and reduced emissions.

Another point to be made is what the costs to the American people will be if these sorts of treaties and laws are passed into effect. Cap and Trade (the Waxman-Markey Bill) will cost the average American household of 4, approximately $3000.00 yearly and a loss of an additional 1 million jobs in the energy and higher emission industries. These are the most critical jobs in our economy as they are basically the heavy industrial areas needed to defend the nation and the agriculture industry which feeds us. Nobody seems to speak of the issue in these terms.

Having said all this there is an even more insidious agenda afoot that has only been mentioned in a couple of the more learned circles who have looked at the treaty in depth.

One of the major warnings about this potential treaty came from a most unexpected source. A British politician and hereditary Peer, Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Monckton and Brenchley, who has been instrumental in sounding the call to arms against this latest assault against the western world.

Lord Monckton has been a major critic of the concept of anthropogenic causes for climate change for decades. An advocate of the Solar Variation Theory which states that solar activity has caused and does cause changes in terrestrial temperatures.
Lord Monckton has made a review of the draft treaty and came to some startling conclusions.

Beginning on page 18 of the draft, there appears to be the beginnings of a scheme to create a transnational institution that will have governing powers that cross borders and take precedence over sovereign states’ established governments. The purpose of this entity is to give this as yet unnamed organization the power to circumvent national laws and directly intervene and control financial, tax, economic and environmental law in all signatory countries. The reasons for this are clear when you consider that with this sort of power, this new “government” would be able to levy taxes across national boundaries and cede monies to those whom they deem worthy of receiving them. These “adaptation debts”, paid by wealthy countries will flow to the favored developing countries supposedly to give those nations parody with the developed ones in mitigating climate change. Clause 33 on page 39 of the draft outlines the scope and amounts, some in the range of $70-$140 billion dollars a year. You, the American people will be paying this... on the top of any taxes that come from “Cap and Trade” which is still pending approval in the U.S. Senate.

During an interview with an Australian journalist, Alan Jones, Lord Monckton said “this is the first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a 'government.' But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He added: "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that's even before it starts asserting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do."

In another venue, the Minnesota Free Market Institute, Lord Monckton gave a 95 minute address on October 14, 2009 during a symposium outlining what may be the greatest threat to the U.S. Constitution and our sovereignty in decades. An excerpt of this address can be viewed at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8 .

I encourage you to see this address to get the full picture of the danger posed by Copenhagen and any agreement that comes from it.


This revelation alone gives me pause enough to question the motives of our government and when viewed along with the evidence from the whistle-blower e-mails and documents showing a pattern of scientific fakery on the part of climatologists involved in the whole Global Warming effort; I think there is enough evidence to warrant shelving the entire process until all known data worldwide is made public and all processes used to evaluate that data is made fully public and cross-discipline reviews are done to establish the veracity of all the data on the subject. If the science is proved a hoax, all funding for any compromised scientists and institutions must cease and be repaid to the granters, and legal redress pursued against those individuals responsible for the hoax.

An open letter from a member of the "Greatest Generation"...


This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii
For his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes
All over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body,
He has never spoken out before about a government official, until now.
He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.



Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13
of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my
age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

" We're no longer a Christian nation"

" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the
world,"America is mean-spirited. " Please tell her to try
preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all
over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of
strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor
do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious
gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness
is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

"After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than
discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people
understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue.

You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of
murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people
not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13
of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts,
Who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police
calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by
calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the
Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission,give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political
strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.


Sincerely,

Harold B. Estes


When a 95 year old hero of the "the Greatest Generation" stands up and speaks out like this, I think we owe it to him to send his words to as many Americans as we can. Please pass it on.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

I love history



I have never made any secret of that fact and consider myself fortunate to live in the times we find ourselves in. History is all around us and when we have opportunities to see it unfold before us we should feel ourselves fortunate, even if it is a negative event.

As I was growing up, the benchmark events were always marked by my elders who asked questions like “where were you and what were you doing when Kennedy was shot?” or “where were you when Pearl Harbor was bombed?” For my generation, the benchmarks were somewhat the same. The questions “were where you and what were you doing when Reagan was shot?” or “where were you when the towers fell..?” All these have been watershed events of our time. The problem is that in the not so distant past, we had leadership that followed through and would accept nothing less than absolute victory. That concept seems to have been lost to our political and governmental leadership and become nothing more than historical footnote. Neither we nor our leaders seem to know how to think things through or to follow through as we used to. Now we are involved in two major land actions in the Mideast and yet the concept of absolute victory seems as distant as the stars above.

Last evening, we had the opportunity to listen to the President of the United States give a speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point. As Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, this venue is somewhat apropos considering that the young people who attend will most likely find themselves facing combat situations themselves in very short order. It is a situation I have found myself in when I was lucky enough to see both the President and the Secretary of Defense address us back in the 1980’s when the Cold War was still very real and the Soviet Union was still very much a threat to western security. I even had the privilege to spend some quality one-on-one time with the Secretary of the Navy, who during my period of service was a reserve Naval Aviator who did his requisite drill time with my squadron, flying the venerable A-6E Intruder with my old unit, VA-42 at NAS Oceana, Virginia. Seeing and talking with someone at that level, seeing them as people and not just positions is something rather special. I was just a junior enlisted man but Mr. (Commander) John Lehman never made me feel like an inferior underling. He respected my knowledge and experience with the weapons system that I worked on day after day, year after year. He was really a leader of men, and it showed when he was in and among those who were in his nominal if not actual charge. His leadership was real, and actual. Q.E.D...something that was demonstrated to us all.

President Obama is a gifted speaker. None can doubt that, but in the last few months it has become evident that his gift of speaking is no longer ringing well with the majority of Americans and is also loosing its effectiveness. Even in Europe, where they still were seeing him as the “Anointed One”, his words and behaviors are falling very flat. Last June, he insulted the French at the D-Day commemorations and has also gone on a host of world wide “Apology Tours” to Europe, Asia and to the Mideast. He told the world that America was going to step back off the world stage, and that we had made many mistakes, that we had been wrong about much. Then adding insult to that injury, the President made several major gaffs in protocol and custom by bowing before foreign potentates. That simple act was the last straw for most of us. It showed not humble respect as the folks in the White House thought it would. It was perceived as weakness, subservience and deference that a President of the most powerful nation on the planet does NOT do...ever. America fought a revolution against a despotic monarch over 230 years ago to have the right NOT to bow before such people. We in naval parlances saw that bow as something akin to “dipping the colors” to another nation’s vessel. That is something that is never initiated... ever. Others dip their colors to us first, and we may return that salute.

But as a matter of national dignity and sovereignty, Presidents don’t bow down...ever. Subjects bow. Vassals bow. Inferiors bow.... Not the American President.

He, unlike the leaders of the past, lacks the mantle of a true leader, and is shows....a lot.

When the President went to West Point, he was a man on trial. He and his staffers may not have realized it but he was. His remark made over a month ago that being in the presence of the military was a “great photo op”. That remark still weighed heavily in my mind. What an incredibly crass and disrespectful thing for a Commander and Chief to say to those whom he must lead to say. Essentially, he had characterized out troops as nothing more than window dressing...little more than props to be used in his pursuit of policy approval. The cadets at West Point have seen all that has happened over the last year and now have the measure of the man who is their Commander and Chief. By the expressions on their faces and the very overly polite and measured responses to his remarks, it is clear that they aren’t impressed. They clearly seemed to want to be anywhere but there. They felt undoubtedly like they were just another photo op.

Commentators like Chris Matthews at MSNBC said that Obama had been in an “enemy camp”..... It is utterly extraordinary that Mr. Matthews, a member of the so-called mainstream media would make that characterization. Labeling West Point an “enemy camp” and by extension, the cadets “the enemy” is unconscionable. What further amazes me is that he obviously didn’t pay attention to the substance or nature of the speech when viewed in context with the surroundings that it was given. Mr. Obama was in the very bastion of military orthodoxy. He was surrounded by those who have placed themselves into positions where they will possibly be called upon to fight and die for this country. The have made commitments that will last decades for some. He gave a speech that was one part Neville Chamberlain, one part George Custer, and no parts Franklin D. Roosevelt, for whom he tries to channel.

Why refer to the former British Prime Minister and the late U.S. Cavalry General? Mr. Chamberlain was the quintessential appeaser and apologist; the poster boy for denial in the face of potential conflict. General Custer was arrogant, felt he was infallible, and failed to recognize the danger the enemy presented and failed to utilize the superior capabilities available to him. He went off half-cocked as it were, to face a force he believed he could beat with a too small a force, in unfamiliar terrain. He engaged a motivated, determined, capable and well equipped enemy and came up short.

Objectively, the same can be said of our forces in Afghanistan.

The substantive points of the Presidents speech were that he would dispatch 30,000 additional troops, when his field commander asked for 40,000. He also outlined his exit strategy and gave a specific timetable on the withdrawal of our forces, 18 months hence.
The historian in me harkened back to World War II, and I imagined F.D.R and Prime Minister Winston Churchill sitting at a great conference table planning Operation Overloard, the liberation of Western Europe, with their theater commanders, Generals Eisenhower, Montgomery, and Bradley. I can just see Roosevelt saying something along the lines of “Sorry Ike. That invasion of France thing...that liberation of the Continental Europe thing you, Monty and Omar are planning.... well, it is just too much, too big, too costly and politically dangerous. Too many troops, too much equipment and by the way, you only have 18 month to finish the job against Germany. I’ll give you 25% fewer troops than you asked for and incidentally, I have already given the press a statement that will be in world wide distribution by lunch on our new war plans and policies....”

Obama has in effect if not in fact done just such a thing.

He has given General Stanley McCrystal, his theater commander in Afghanistan, less than he asked for, and is relying on others (Europeans) to make up any shortfall in troop numbers. He has also given specific information on when we will leave and under what circumstances. The enemy; Al-Qaida and the Taliban, now can sit back and formulate a counter-strategy to this new situation.

If one sits back and really thinks this trough, the multitudes of scenarios that come from Mr. Generalissimo & President Obama are truly scary. Let’s examine two possible and very real possibilities...

1. “The sit and wait them out” scenario.

The “Bad Guys” simply hunker down in the mountains and valleys in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and simply husband their resources: train up, acquire supplies, and build coalitions among the tribes in places like the Swat Valley and in Waziristan, recruiting and scheming away. Then when things have cooled off, and American and European troops have been drawn down according to the Obama war plan, they can slowly and quietly infiltrate back in and then when ready, strike in great numbers across the frontier and overwhelm the Afghan National Army and Government, which can no longer rely on massive back-up they enjoy now.

2. “The keep up the pressure and go after the Europeans” scenario.

The weak link in the present coalition is the NATO contingent. The threshold for casualties is much lower for those European governments who are operating forces so far from home. Other than the British and to a lesser extent the Canadians, the other forces present are token numbers at best. These smaller NATO contingents are operating in more humanitarian modes; training police, conducting civil affairs and some small scale security operations. If I was the operations planner for the opposition, I would target the smaller contingents of troops, inflicting and wounding as many of their forces as possible, and try to poison the European “street” against the Afghan operation. By inflicting body count on these smaller national contingents, the citizens in the affected countries may well demand their troops be withdrawn. This then would drive a further wedge between Europe and the U.S. and force the U.S. military to pick up the slack.
I , as operational commander of the opposition, might also at the very end of the 18 month period outlined by President Obama, mount a “surge” of my own, infiltrating fighters into the cities like Kabul and Kandahar and just before the major forces have departed, initiate a massive numbers of small attacks against Afghan National Army, police and government installations. I would especially target personnel; run up a body count as high as possible in order to demoralize and sew confusion. It would be politically difficult if not impossible for Obama and his European allies to reverse themselves and their militaries and redeploy back in country. It would take on a Vietnamese War-like tone and feel. The liberal, mainstream press, being useful stooges for the opposition, would make the logical comparisons to the Tet Offensive of that war, the liberal base of the Obama governmental coalition would turn up the heat on him politically and excoriate him if he attempted to retrench especially after beginning a long publicized withdrawal. The whole rotten, stinking policy mess would collapse around his head. He would then be forever “the President who lost Afghanistan”....

Both of these nightmare-like scenarios are very possible consequences of the Obama policy as articulated last evening. The question begs: Do Obama or his staff and sycophants realize what they have done? There are only three possible answers:

1. Yes, they know and don’t care if we loose, or

2. Yes, they know and they want to loose, or

3. No, they don’t know because he, as commander in chief and they as his group of advisers are totally incompetent and can’t understand military necessity, operational art, or the ramifications of incongruent and disjointed planning, obtuse Rules of Engagement, nor do they understand the enemy we fight.

I hope number 3 is the correct answer because number’s 1 and 2 would be too cynical or even treasonous to believe as possible.

If it is in fact choice 3, we can hope that our forces can hold the line and make some headway in spite of the lack of Administration support. We can also take some comfort in the knowledge that the mistakes and miscues to date can be corrected in 2010 and 2012 when sober and serious men and women of conscience and resolve can be put back a the helm of the Ship of State.

Monday, November 23, 2009

The Great Afghan Dither-ex

In July of 1942, the Allies were fighting a defensive war with the Axis powers of Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Nowhere in the world were the forces of Freedom or Liberty gaining any significant advantage except perhaps in the Pacific where the U.S. Navy had just inflicted a major surprise blow against Japan at the battle of Midway, causing Japan to loose the cream of her carriers and naval aviators, and dealing a bitter defeat to the Admirals who led and planned the Pearl Harbor strike in December of the previous year.

America can find some glaring parallels today to what we faced 6 decades ago. We are fighting a war of attrition against another intractable enemy, Islamofascism. This enemy however, does not have a nation-state to call home as did the Germans or the Japanese. They live in small groups and fight asymmetrically in many locations throughout the world. Presently, however, we have come to grips with this enemy in the far-off reaches of southwest Asia in the borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan. This savage fight has cost us dearly but we have had some success, but more needs to be done and more will be needed from America and her Allies if we are to be victorious.

In June of 2009, the theater commander, Gen. Stanley McCrystal issues a report that summarized the situation in Afghanistan and ended by asking for an additional 40, 000 combat troops to help him increase the presence, increase pressure on the enemy and to expand security to the remote reaches of that country. These forces will be needed until the national Afghan military has sufficient training and capability to act on its own. This “surge” would be in the same vane as the successful one conducted in Iraq a couple of years ago.

Now we find ourselves 5 months later, getting ready to cook up Thanksgiving turkeys and the President has yet to make a decision as to weather of not he will honor the requests of his field commander, and give the support requested.

Why the dithering?

Why the vacillations?

If you look at the historic record, this lack of action seems laughable if not down right criminal. People are fighting and dying in a war against terrorists and the President and his sycophants sit around the White House, seemingly baffled as to what they should do. It seems that neither community organizing, nor a Harvard law degree gives a man the tools, talent or temperament to be Commander and Chief of the Armed forces any more than it gives him the insight to understand economics, the business cycle or the healthcare delivery system. One merely has to see look at the state of the nation and our war effort to see this. Q.E.D.


When looking at the historical record, I think back on those dark days of 1942, and look at all the challenges we as a nation faced along with our beleaguered allies, I can’t understand the leadership (of lack thereof) we have in Washington today. I feel we are really in greater trouble now then when we were then. In the waning days of July, 1942, the allies decided on a massive invasion of North Africa to begin the process of pushing back the Germans and forcing our will against the fascists. A newly promoted and untested commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was given the task of planning then leading an Anglo-American attack against North Africa and her Vichy-French garrisons.

In a matter of a little more than 3 months, Eisenhower and his staff had planned, staged and then executed the massive invasion of North Africa, called Operation Torch, which was hugely successful in forcing the German Africa Corps to turn from fighting the British in Egypt and to face a larger combined forces enemy in their rear. What did this action entail?

First; the quantity of forces must be looked at. Seemingly unlike Mc Crystal, Eisenhower was given all the support that a field commander could ask for. He estimated that the invasion would require the largest amphibious effort ever attempted to that time. Over 125,000 troops and support forces were involved in the landings. What makes all this so amazing is that all those troops were trained, placed on slow moving transport ships, with all their armor, ammo, fuel and equipment, then moved by ship over 4000 miles from their ports of origin and under fire, landed and then supplied over beachheads.

The planning for this operation was accomplished in it’s entirety in a scant 100 day’s time.

Flash forward 67 years...

Why is it that the Obama Administration can’t seem to make the decision to move a force a fraction of the size in manpower or equipment that Eisenhower had? Ike did his magic in the middle of a world war, when we were fighting over oceanic distances, with almost non existent air assets and at a time when it took weeks to move materials and forces anywhere. It isn’t as if our troops would be landing in Kabul or Kandahar under heavy fire or that we can’t airlift forces from places we control like Iraq or even from here in the U.S. This lack of support in Afghanistan seems to be a failure of will or a lack of tactical or strategic acumen by the national command authority. Like the Roman Emperor Nero, Rome is burning and Obama fiddles away....

Oh, God in heaven......

How much have the mighty fallen!!!

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

It’s amateur hour again and “failure IS an option”....

Eric Holder, the Attorney General is not doing the right thing.

Obama and his administration are making another historically bad mistake.

What have they done now?

The administration has elected to move the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York Federal District Court. This is a huge mistake on so many levels that it defies logic or prudence.

Civil courts are designed to discharge justice on criminal and civil matters involving citizens and aliens that have been in the custody of civilian authority. This is not the case of K.S. Mohammad. He has been in the custody of military authority at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since he was captured. As the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington D.C., he committed acts of war against the United States. War is a military act and thus a military tribunal is more appropriate a venue for seeking redress against this man.

There are many issues that need to be considered, and Mr. Holder has not done so to any objective standard that can be judged reasonable. In fact, there is no known legal process in place to deal with this sort of situation.

First, as this will be a civil trial, how will the issues of military pretrial confinement (Guantanamo Bay), detention and treatment at the hands of CIA and military interrogators (the water boarding sessions) and lack of Miranda Rights (he was captured on the battlefield, not “arrested’ by cops on the street) be addressed? If he prosecuted in a civil court, aren’t the issues involving the lack of correct civilian treatment and observation of customary civil procedure and defendant rights going to be an issue? After all, any criminal is entitled to those protections and since he didn’t get them, doesn’t it logically follow that the possibility exists that there could be a mistrial or outright acquittal on the grounds that the defendant didn’t get due process protections and was denied his “civil rights”? On this, Mr. Holder is silent.

Secondly, there is the issue of his confession. He confessed his role in 9/11 and was later water boarded in order to extract additional information. It might be argued by the defense that his confession was coerced as well and that since he was “tortured”, he should be released. The “cruel and unusual punishment” issue will come up at some point too.

Thirdly, what about the defense for the accused? In a civil trial there is a discovery process. In this process, the prosecution must surrender all its information used to formulate its case and release a list of witnesses. That information will now be in the hands of people who are under no obligation to the nation to ensure that confidential elements don’t leak out. That means that potential witnesses on that list will now be known and at possible risk of retribution. National security data used in the arrest, and the content and scope of information extracted from the defendant during interrogation will most certainly make its way into the public domain, potentially destroying its value to those who are charged with the defense of the realm. This process will allow our adversaries worldwide information useful to them in countering our intelligence gathering efforts against them or allow them to gauge the knowledge of what we know from interrogations that were conducted in the past.

That begs the questions: What will be admissible? What will not?

Many of these issues make it possible that this process could go badly for the government, and in fact, could have many unforeseen consequences. There is the nightmare scenario of the defendant being found not guilty or this proceeding being declared a mistrial, or the judge could simply order him released on some technicality.

When asked what would happen if the defendant were found not guilty or the case thrown out; Attorney General Holder said “Failure is not an option”.

What is that supposed to mean? Does that mean that the fix is in on the terrorist trial?
Does that mean this is all just one, big kangaroo court...all for show, just like the old Soviet show trials that we saw in the bad old days of the Cold War?

There is also the issue of security.

Would you want to sit on a jury in this trial and risk becoming a target of jihadist cells here if you found him guilty or the target of ire and/or violent revenge from your fellow Americans if you found him innocent? Would you want to risk your families?

Would you want to be a judge in this trial for the same reasons?

What about the fact that now New York is now back in the spot light again? The terrorist element has a new reason to target New York and vicinity, as if they needed another reason to do something to that city and its people...

What about trial security? These folks love car and truck bombs and other such things. This makes a rational person wonder if anyone with intelligence and forethought considered any of these possibilities.

What about a possible escalation of terrorist activity to our nation or to our interests abroad? As Islamo-fascists worldwide see this legal evolution, it may become an impetus to act against us more than they have already.

The questions and issues abound. Attorney General Holder has no answers, just platitudes, assurances and no game plan that is discernible. He claims all is well and that the system will work as promised.
Are the people of this country ready to take the word of a man who helped get FALM terrorist released? How about trusting the motivations of a man who lets the likes of the New Black Panther Party get away with intimidating voters with clubs outside voting stations in California during the last general election? Do we trust the words and judgments of this man or his boss, Barrack Obama, to make this work?

In my mind, the jury is still out on that trust.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

I like Facebook.....


I admit that I like this social network site and spend an hour or two a day reading posts, answering inquiries and posting information on a variety of subjects. Facebook lends itself well to my newest passions, political and social discourse, commentary and blogging. It allows me to share and compare with others who view the world as I do and even those who don’t.

I have expanded my footprint on the web, and as a result of that expansion, I have received a great deal of feedback on my specific views and my personal life. I welcome and am thankful for that feedback as it keeps me honest. Some think I just espouse a partisan position without anything to back it up. They who think this would be very wrong indeed. What most people don’t know is that I spend a great deal of time looking up the information that I comment on then post.

One characteristic most people focus on when they look at my positions is how vociferous I am about my feelings, especially about the way the elitist leadership class has failed to govern well and true by constitutional principle. The failure to do so lies in both parties that dominate the political landscape we live. Somewhere we left the concept of rigorous constitutional adherence and began attempting to pursue something else entirely. That something else is the attempt to govern in an ad hoc/by-the seat-of –your-pants manner against common sense and against the constitution. Few people today remember the basics from high school civics, but Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the specific powers of the Federal Government. These were all that the folks in Washington were supposed to do. The states and the localities and the people were to do the rest. We need to stick to these specifics and cut back on the extra-constitutional ones that have come into being. This federal power creep has robbed the American people of freedom and have put our nation into near-fatal financial jeopardy.

As of the last published reckoning I saw a couple of weeks ago, the present administration, led by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have borrowed and spent over $1.42 TRILLION dollars. None of this money is ours (America’s). It was borrowed, every dime of it, from Communist China, the Oil Monarchies in the middle east, or from private financiers in Europe and Asia. What responsible government borrows more (almost) money than it raised in tax revenue, especially when it is over 13 TRILLION in the rears already? What responsible government spends in 9 months more money than the previous administration did in its entire second term in office, especially with no discernible improvement in the national economic position which was promised?

Another bone of contention I have commented on, rather forcefully, I might add, is that the President is not acting as a Chief of State should. I am asked why I am so harsh a critic; why can’t I just give the guy a break. Why am I so mean or so disrespectful to he who must be obeyed?

The answer is that I am hard on anyone who shows abject and serial incompetence and banality. I was harsh on Bush for his war policies as he had demonstrated a lack of vision or historical understanding of how to properly wage war. Bush and his clan did not read history of the Mideast (or anywhere else for that matter...) and realize that unless you are ready to fight a total war, willing to root out and kill the enemy and break his stuff en mass, you will loose.

Obama and Company have made some horrible decisions and have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how our economy works. He and his minions are apostles of gospel of class warfare and wealth envy. Every policy and spending bill now on tap will result in higher taxes on the so-called “rich” and non-rich alike. 80% of Americans are employed by small businesses. The owners of these small enterprises do their business taxes on their personal tax forms, thus marking them as targets for additional attention of the Looters in Washington. These “rich” people, who are the job creators for most of us Americans, are going to be the ones who bear the brunt of all the tax schemes that Obama and Pelosi have in store. Since they are as myopic about economics as Bush was in the art of war, we can expect the economy not to improve much as government sucks up all the cash it can from the private economy (those “rich” folks)and shunt it to government spending programs for the Moochers and incompetents who tanked the economy. This will destroy the ability for their small business to have the capitol available to hire more people or to expand their businesses or to by the means to improve productivity.


My latest rant on the present occupant of the White House is his general deportment. As a former military type who had the pleasure and privilege to escort many VIP’s, their staffs and families about when overseas or here at home, I can tell you that Obama has made many serious and embarrassing gaffes in his interactions with other heads of state. These were of the sort that I or my shipmates would have been excoriated had we made them. We were briefed and trained better than that.

His use of the bow is especially heinous. The President NEVER BOWS...EVER! This is an act of a subjugation to a potentate or a King. We fought a revolution against a monarchy to have the right NOT to bow to anyone...ever. This has been the case since George Washington’s time and still goes today. Obama has done the bow-down on two occasions when it was very public and particularly distasteful; first, his kowtow to the King of Saudi Arabia, and second, the apology bow to the Emperor of Japan. As a matter of “bow etiquette” the second incident with the Emperor was done badly from the get go. Strictly speaking, only “subjects” bow. If you bow, you are showing subservience. By bowing, the President showed a perceived weakness and subservient posture to the Emperor. It was totally inappropriate. The Emperor comes from a country that uses the bow as a matter of courtesy and course. Obama obviously didn’t get the protocol brief or ignored it as you never shake hands when bowing nor do you bow lower than another unless showing contrition for some crime or misdemeanor to the person you are bowing to. Emperor Akihito looked surprised and embarrassed by the Obama bow and did not return it. He ignored it because it was done badly and to return it would have been to compound the error. The man is a walking, talking faux pas; a protocol train wreck incarnate. This may seem minor to the uninitiated masses, but in global statecraft, perception is reality.

One last thing I should like to address is my enjoyment of the shooting arts. I like guns for a multitude of reasons. As a resident of the sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia, I get to carry a concealed one and do so (from time to time). I have a very simple, unequivocal view on the subject. I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and exercise my right just as some exercise their right to free speech or to worship God in their own way. But above all that, I have a right to protect myself and those near and dear to me and my property. Make no mistake, I take this very seriously!

I also get a real charge taking a small slug of lead and placing it precisely down range exactly where I want it. I am very good at it and this month, my son, his girlfriend and a couple of old Navy buddies are going to go to the rifle and pistol range and punch some holes in some paper. This will be the last SHOOT-EX of the year due to the ever chilling weather, but I will still bask in the warm glow of comradeship and fun as we spend the afternoon all together punching holes in man-shaped silhouettes at long and short range. I firmly believe in the adage “Peace can only be achieved through superior firepower...” or a much more ancient Roman axiom “Si vis pachem, para bellum” or “If you want peace, prepare for war.” It works for nations, it works for people too.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Another Obama foreign policy blunder....when will they stop?

I guess President Barack Obama didn’t take any history classes when he was in school.
Nor did he have a teleprompter available to refer to when queried about the historical significance of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States in August of 1945.

The Community Organizer and Chief has embarrassed his country once again and made himself look the uneducated, uninformed and tactless rube when he was questioned by Japanese media during the joint press conference with the Prime Minister of Japan.

The reporter asked the President about his desire to visit those two cities and what his understanding was of the historical context of the atomic bombings of the cities and weather or not he felt the attacks were justified. Looking like a deer in the headlights, the President began a very disjointed reply about his desire to pursue an active anti-nuclear proliferation policy and how he has begun to cut back America’s nuclear stockpile. He commented on the unique perspective that Japan and her leadership had on the subject of nuclear weapons and their use. Then he commented on his lack of firm travel plans to either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The Stammerer and Chief then went off on a tangent about North Korea.

What was blatantly clear was that he was unprepared to for the question and equally unprepared to defend the actions of the United States or its leadership who at the time were fighting a war to preserve not only our freedom but the freedoms and the sovereignty of all the free nations of the world against the forces of German and Italian Fascism and rabid Japanese Militarism. In fact, he dodged the subject all together.

I don’t know who he thinks he is fooling by changing the subject. He clearly didn’t want to answer the question and was very uncomfortable with the subject. Uttering platitudes on the subject of non-proliferation is comfortable, appealing, politically correct, but most of all, safe. Defending the reputation and motives of a past administration desperate to quickly end a world war that had cost millions of lives by the most expeditious means possible, seemed beyond his capabilities. He seemed stymied by the prospect in fact.

It is unfathomable to see that over 60 years after the end of the second world war, we, the United States of America, are still having to explain our actions to the very people who attacked us on December 7th, 1941, or that we are made to feel as if we have somehow done something evil in using nuclear weapons to end the greatest war in the history of the world. It is the United States and her nuclear shield that has in fact deterred aggression in the world ever since the end of that war.

What were the alternatives?

Militarily, we could have blockaded Japan and just stood off and bomb them and shelled them and hoped they grew tired or hungry enough to surrender... The odds of this working were small. The fact that allied prisoners of war in their thousands were also being held in the home islands of Japan, suffering untold agonies and miseries meant that they would probably be wiped out as retribution by their desperate and angry captors who were not very humane with prisoners under the best of circumstances. Civilian casualties from an unrestricted bombing campaigns and from the starvation and disease that would have resulted from a prolonged quarantine and from continued military attacks around the clock, day in and day out would have been horrific. Casualties would have certainly been in the millions.

The option of just demonstrating the weapon to the Japanese rather than actually using it on them was not an option as we had so little material to use in actual weapons that we couldn’t risk expending it and it not have a tangible military result. Nor could we risk letting other countries know just how far we had progressed in the development of nuclear weapons, especially the Soviet Union, who we viewed as a potential rival in the future. There was also the altogether not unreasonable belief that even having seen a demonstration that Japan’s leadership would have acquiesced and given up.

That left a conventional amphibious and airborne invasion of the home islands of Japan.

The plans for that eventuality, Operations Olympic and Coronet were being formulated at that time. Previous attacks against Iwo Jima and Okinawa had given war planners some idea what to expect if the U.S. and her allies were to attempt such a venture. The prospects weren’t good at all. Unlike Europe where civilian populations were seen as non-combatants, and for the most part behaved as such, this would not have been the case with Japan. The militarist government there had conditioned and trained the populace over the previous years to take an active role in defending the home islands from invasion. If the civilians had actively resisted and the military elements in Japan proven as stubborn and intractable as they had in previous operations like Okinawa, the projected casualties on both sides would have been astronomical. The Okinawa, Iwo Jima and the Philippine campaigns were the basis used to gauge how a possible amphibious and airborne invasion of the home islands would be resisted. Okinawa had generated 72,000 American casualties in an 82 days action. The liberation of the Philippines took nearly a year, and cost Japan 336,300 dead and the Americans 62.514 dead or wounded. Iwo Jima’s “butcher bill” was nearly 22,000 Americans killed or wounded, with only a little over 1,100 prisoners taken out of a defending garrison of over 22,000 Japanese soldiers, marines and seamen.

In contrast, the planners of the invasion of Japan envisioned a nightmare scenario of over 1.2 million casualties to Allied forces and 5-10 million military and civilian casualties to the Japanese. With those sorts of numbers, it was no small wonder that any responsible, reasonable or humane leader would have looked for other options to that sort of body count.

When viewed objectively, when all the aforementioned options were looked at, even in hindsight, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best options in a bad situation for all parties concerned. They provided a stark reality check to the leadership of Japan as to what their futures would be if further resistance continued. Were the results horrible? Certainly they were. Were the results desirable? When viewed against the possible loss of life and treasure in a conventional attack, the answer is and unqualified YES.

Too bad President Barack Obama didn’t seem to know any of this and too bad he seemed unable or unwilling to articulate these facts to the world at large.

Maybe he’ll get it right next time....

Monday, November 9, 2009

Fallout from Fort Hood: Don’t allow Islamofacism lead to gun control



In the wake of the Ft. Hood massacre, the gun control cabal has now found another cause to rally around.

There have been rumblings that the terrorist, Major Nidal Hassan used a “cop killer” gun in his assault on the unarmed soldiers preparing to deploy to Iraq. This is of course, the rantings of the shrill and uninformed anti-gun lobby and their willing accomplices.

The weapon in question is a FN Herstal Five-seveN Tactical Pistol in 5.7x28mm. This is a very finely made pistol is designed for close quarters combat (CQB) operations by military, police and civilians in need of an excellent personal defense weapon. The cartridges for this pistol come in many types and capabilities depending on the task and the user. The pistol also has the added flexibility for sporting use as it can be fitted with optics and can be used for hunting or precision shooting.

That this particular pistol is being called a “cop killer” is complete diatribe and just plays to the fears and emotions of the uninitiated in our population who have little or no knowledge of firearms. Let’s be clear on some facts here in the real world, not in the popular press pages.

1. The pistol in question is no more a “cop killer” than any other pistol made and available to the general population. In the hands of a trained military shooter it would be more effective only in the sense that the person using it has greater firearms proficiency than the average person. If I, a former member of the armed forces were so inclined, I could have probably done the same damage Maj. Hassan did with my 9mm Glock or my .45ACP Government Colt Automatic if I had prepared properly for the assault as he seemingly did. His only problem was the armed woman who actively objected to his shooting spree by shooting back, once again showing that an armed citizenry is the best defense against nut jobs, criminals or in this case, terrorists.

2. The Ammunition and gun in combination make it a “cop killer” argument is also false. As previously stated, the ammunition that can be used in this weapon comes in many types. There is a standard military “ball” cartridge, hollow point hunting cartridge, and “tracer” and armor piercing cartridges for military and police use only. We don’t know what Maj. Hassan used, but any of the cartridges available would kill a human, as would all similar types used in any other pistol in almost any caliber you could name. We must not allow the anti-gunners panic the populace in believing that they are in greater danger than before or that our police are facing a “super weapon” wielded by Al Qaeda wannabe’s. Nothing has changed since last week.

3. It is a well known fact that almost any rifle caliber of sufficient velocity and size will defeat a KEVLAR vest used by most police. Military grade vests are better, but much more bulky and used only by SWAT teams as they are not worn except in specific high-risk circumstances. My World War 1(1915) vintage British Lee Enfield Bolt Rifle will defeat police grade body armor easily out to several hundred yards, as would my model 1895 Krag Jorgensen rifle. Both these weapons are nearly 100 years old or older and both considered museum pieces. Why are they not labeled “cop killers”? My old CZ-52 pistol armed with ancient World War 2 vintage 7.62x25mm ammunition could very possibly defeat light body armor (class 1, 2, and 2A) as it does generate speeds in excess of 1400 feet per second. A common 12 Gauge shotgun armed with sabots (slugs) could also “defeat” light police body armor by delivering fatal or near fatal damage to personnel via blunt force trauma at close range.

We would do ourselves and the world a favor by not allowing ourselves to become overwrought by the events at Ft. Hood. We must remember that a weapon is tools. How that tool is used and by whom determines the good or evil of a thing or action. Major Hassan did evil by killing innocents, and should face the ultimate penalty for such an action. He used a tool in an evil way to do evil work. He could have just as easily have used a bomb or some other means of human destruction. The woman who took him out used her weapon for good, defeating a terrorist and defending innocent life. Her use of a firearm, like millions of other Americans have done before her, was the quintessential proper use of a firearm and should be lauded. We must not allow particular types and classes of weapons to become bogeymen for the anti-gun crowd. Terms like “cop killer” are created to incite and to inflame the unknowing and to create media buzz. We have to be objective and clear headed on what the problems are and how to solve them.

Maj. Hassan, his belief system and motivations were at fault, not the choice of weapon. The Army, neutered and corrupted by the Political Correctness/Multi-culturist idiocy that the rest of us find ourselves mired in, failed to act decisively in removing a malcontent from its ranks for fear of being labeled discriminatory, or racist. This nonsense must stop. A couple of years ago, a young Muslim convert committed fratricide within his own unit in Kuwait, in a zeal to punish the infidel for perceived crimes and misdemeanors against the faithful. It is time to seriously challenge the Islamic community here in America and demand that they police themselves, that they make a real and fundamental attempt to route out the dangerous radicals in their mosques and places of worship or face the whirlwind. It also may be time to take a serious look at the military’s policies and procedures on dealing with Muslim’s in its ranks and how they view their duties in the military and indeed how they feel about our nation. We can’t have an active Islamofacist 5th column within the very services that we rely on for our national security and survival. We should also consider a moratorium on further immigration from lands whose populations are predominantly Islamic as they do not seem to integrate well into our much more permissive and liberal culture. Why import potential trouble?

Friday, November 6, 2009

My open letter to Rep. Glenn Nye

This is the letter I sent to my Congressman here in the 2nd district of Virginia. I cobbled this letter together as a way of voicing my displeasure at the attempt of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the Liberal Democrats to blitzkrieg the Pelosi Health care bill through this weekend. We shall see what happens....



November 6, 2009



Hon. Glenn C. Nye

116 Cannon HOB

Washington, D.C.

20515



Dear Congressman Nye,



I wish to register to you my absolute and incontrovertible opposition to any measure presently under consideration in the House or Senate on the issue of healthcare reform.


We have seen so many versions of health care reform from both the House and Senate that most of the people of this nation are completely confused. Even legislators are confused as they themselves are forced to await simple language versions of the bill sent to committees for review and vote. The size and arcane nature not to mention the scope of the bills themselves preclude the average person, let alone Congress members or Senators from even reading and understanding the cost, benefits, detriments and effects of these bills they must consider.

The latest incarnation has been brought to us by Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. In a delusional flight of fancy, she and her denizens have drafted the largest, most convoluted piece of tripe to come down the pike yet. At 1990 pages and over 400,000 words, HR 3962 is by far the biggest health care / tax raising / freedom killing proposal yet in a cacophony of bills on the subject.



As contrast; the Social Security act of 1935 was only 50 pages and 15,600 words...



The Congressional Budget Office has made preliminary estimates that this bill will cost approximately 1.055 TRILLION dollars. Dollars that must be raised on the backs of individuals and businesses in an economy still reeling from the financial crisis the entire nation finds itself. The revenue to cover this will have to be borrowed from foreign sources like the Communist Chinese or the oil monarchies of the mideast, or generated via offsets from massive cuts in Medicare Advantage ($426 billion), tax increases ($572 billion), or by expansion of Medicaid enrollment by some 15 million persons due to expanded eligibility rules in the bill.

One of the interesting aspects of this bill is the list of revenue targets that Speaker Pelosi and Co. has created.

Medical device and drug makers: The House added $20 billion in taxes on sales of medical devices like artificial hips, pacemakers and heart stents to the legislation. The measure is even worse for the pharmaceutical makers, an industry that agreed to a deal with Obama and key senators to hold down its costs. Pharmaceutical companies agreed to pay protection to government up to $80 billion in the health overhaul. It would give the federal government power to negotiate (compel?) drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

Specific language in the bill has many facets. Some of the more glaring examples are:

Page 94 Section 202 (c) which will prohibit private insurance purchases not approved as part of the “public option” pool exchange created by the federal government. In other words, if you change job, and your coverage changes with employer after 2013 (Y1 or Year 1 of the start of enforcement), you MUST buy from approved plans via the government.

Page 110 Section 222 (e) states: “ COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.— The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A).
The aforementioned paragraphs 4(A) and (B) are specific abortion sections. 4(B) describes the abortion program elements that are allowed and 4(A) describes abortion prohibitions, which means that that Public Option Plans will be able to cover abortions...ergo, by extension; public monies will be able to cover abortions through this legislation.

Page 225 Section 330 allows for but does not require members of congress to enroll in the “Public Option”. Mind you, all the rest of us will be required to participate if we don’t have coverage or if our existing coverage’s lapse and we need to buy new plans or change carriers or coverage. Once again, congress has made a law that is elective for them but mandatory for the rest of us.

Page 297 Section 501 describes a 2.5% tax on individuals who fail to purchase “approved” insurance plans. This is in direct conflict with Barack Obama’s promises NOT to raise taxes on poor or middle income earners; those who make $250,000 or less.

Page 520 Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, placing millions of seniors’ existing coverage in imminent jeopardy.

Page 704 Section 1308 provides for coverage of marriage counseling... There’s a vital service that needs government support subsidy and protection.

Page 1131 Section 1771 describes specific dollar amount increases in payments to the territories and possessions and protectorates of the United States that amount to billions in increased spending and subsidies to areas of the country that don’t have federal income tax burdens. We mainlanders in the 50 states will foot the bill for those who don’t have the same tax burdens that the rest of us do.



As you can see, I and my friends have spent several hours looking this bill over and are well versed in many of its aspects.

This bill is a major blow against all Americans who believe in freedom and liberty. Looking at the arcane legalisms are enough to put a speed freak to sleep, but if honest analysis is done by thoughtful people, it becomes blatantly obvious that the purpose of this bill is nothing short of placing all Americans solidly under the thumb of federal bureaucrats and removing choice from as to what health care we can expect in our futures and wealth from the private sector to government. Barack Obama said in a speech to members of labor unions prior to his election as President that he wanted to see America onto a single payer system like those used in Great Britain and Canada and other nations in Europe. He acknowledged that it may take many years, but that was his objective.

This bill will put that objective on a fast track. This bill will lead to huge increases in the deficit and in tax burdens and reductions in existing programs and coverage’s for most everyone.



The Second district that you serve is a very conservative one, and I am sure you are finding that my sentiments are quite common. I would sugjest you find it within yourself the will to resist the urge to follow the more liberal of your colleagues who favor this abhorrent piece of legislation. I further urge you in the most strenuous manner to actively oppose and strike this bill down, or you will most certainly find yourself facing an energized and hostile electorate in the 2010 elections next November.



Respectfully yours,


Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.

Friday, October 30, 2009

1990 pages and 19 pounds of Insanity


It seems that we now have incontrovertible proof that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has made a clean and total break from reality, if not sanity.

We have seen so many versions of health care reform from both the House and Senate that most of the people of this nation are completely confused. Even legislators are confused as they themselves are forced to await simple language versions of the bill sent to committees for review and vote. The size and arcane nature not to mention the scope of the bills themselves preclude the average person, let alone Congress members or Senators from even reading and understanding the cost, benefits, detriments and effects of these bills they must consider.

The latest incarnation has been brought to us by Her Majesty, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. In a delusional flight of fancy, she and her denizens have drafted the largest, most convoluted piece of tripe to come down the pike yet. At 1990 pages and over 400,000 words, HR 3962 is by far the biggest health care / tax raising / freedom killing proposal yet in a cacophony of bills on the subject. The Congressional Budget Office has made preliminary estimates that this bill will cost approximately 1.055 TRILLION dollars. Dollars that must be raised on the backs of individuals and businesses in an economy still reeling from the financial crisis the entire nation finds itself. Costs in this bill are somewhat offset by massive cuts in Medicare Advantage ($426 billion), tax increases ($572 billion), and result in expansion of Medicaid enrollment by some 15 million persons due to expanded eligibility rules in the bill.

One of the interesting aspects of this bill is the list of revenue targets that Speaker Pelosi and Co. has targeted.

Medical device and drug makers: The House added $20 billion in taxes on sales of medical devices like artificial hips, pacemakers and heart stents to the legislation. The measure is even worse for the pharmaceutical makers, an industry that agreed to a deal with Obama and key senators to hold down its costs. Pharmaceutical companies agreed to pay protection to government up to $80 billion in the health overhaul. It would give the federal government power to negotiate (compel?) drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

Specific language in the bill has many facets. Some of the more glaring examples are:

Page 94 Section 202 (c) which will prohibit private insurance purchases not approved as part of the “public option” pool exchange created by the federal government. In other words, if you change job, and your coverage changes with employer after 2013 (Y1 or Year 1 of the start of enforcement), you MUST buy from approved plans via the government.

Page 110 Section 222 (e) states: “ COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.— The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A).
The aforementioned paragraphs 4(A) and (B) are specific abortion sections. 4(B) describes the abortion program elements that are allowed and 4(A) describes abortion prohibitions, which means that that Public Option Plans will be able to cover abortions...ergo, by extension; public monies will be able to cover abortions through this legislation.

Page 225 Section 330 allows for but does not require members of congress to enroll in the “Public Option”. Mind you, all the rest of us will be required to participate if we don’t have coverage or if our existing coverage’s lapse and we need to buy new plans or change carriers or coverage. Once again, congress has made a law that is elective for them but mandatory for the rest of us.

Page 297 Section 501 describes a 2.5% tax on individuals who fail to purchase “approved” insurance plans. This is in direct conflict with Barack Obama’s promises NOT to raise taxes on poor or middle income earners; those who make $250,000 or less.

Page 520 Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, placing millions of seniors’ existing coverage in imminent jeopardy.

Page 704 Section 1308 provides for coverage of marriage counseling... There’s a vital service that needs government support subsidy and protection.

Page 1131 Section 1771 describes specific dollar amount increases in payments to the territories and possessions and protectorates of the United States that amount to billions in increased spending and subsidies to areas of the country that don’t have federal income tax burdens. We mainlanders in the 50 states will foot the bill for those who don’t have the same tax burdens that the rest of us do.

This bill is a major blow against all Americans who believe in freedom and liberty. Looking at the arcane legalisms are enough to put a speed freak to sleep, but if honest analysis is done by thoughtful people, it becomes blatantly obvious that the purpose of this bill is nothing short of placing all Americans solidly under the thumb of federal bureaucrats and removing choice from as to what health care we can expect in our futures and wealth from the private sector to government. Barack Obama said in a speech to members of labor unions prior to his election as President that he wanted to see America onto a single payer system like those used in Great Britain and Canada and other nations in Europe. He acknowledged that it may take many years, but that was his objective. This bill will put that objective on a fast track. This bill will lead to huge increases in the deficit and in tax burdens and reductions in existing programs and coverage’s for most everyone.

The only positive thing I can see about this bill is that coverage for pre-existing conditions like insanity or other psychosis such as those suffered by Nancy Pelosi, architect of this disastrous bill, would most likely be covered. Maybe she can finally get some much-needed help.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Simple reasons to doubt "The Government Option"

To those in the “Kumbaya Crowd” who think government health care will be a good thing, remember that government has never...not once EVER run a program of any real scale or magnitude that has worked as advertised, on budget or efficiently. Look at Social Security (it’s broke...congress raped the trust fund), Medicare (it’s broke too...), AMTRAK (never has shown a profit though mandated to do so...), and Postal Service (same as AMTRAK...). When government is slated to “compete” there is no competition. Private insurers work on an average 2.2% profit margin. The Government run health services and “insurance option” can loose millions and billions and run inefficiently because they aren’t held accountable and can always count on congress and by extension, the taxpayer to bail them out. Private insurers can’t do that, therefore are at a marked disadvantage. How long will it take for private companies to dump private coverage for the more “competitive” government plan, even if it isn’t as good a coverage just to reduce cost to them or to just pay the cheaper “fine” and not cover employees at all? Not long!! Then there is the cost...nearly 1 TRILLION dollars (probably more when all is said and done)...and no way to pay for it. All this nonsense, all that debt just to deal with less than 15% of the total population...
Oh, ye suckers!!!

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Obama, the Budgetary Slight of Hand and “Obamacare”... Just more debt!!




As if the entire Democrat health care debacle were not enough of a national disgrace, we now have another point of contention to argue with the powers that be.


One of the most boring, convoluted and confusing issues in government is the federal budget. Most people think this is a fairly simple thing in principle, but it most assuredly is NOT a simple thing because the entire process is a political and mathematical nightmare of biblical proportions. Nothing is as it should be and nothing is as it seems.


The language of the budgetary process is a unique dialect that defies all translation and is as understandable as Sanskrit or Urdu to the average guy on the street. No word in the language of the budget means the same thing as it would in common spoken or written colloquial English.


If one speaks of “spending cuts”, he is actually not cutting any money from a program of a service or agency. They are merely reducing the amount of the percentage of increase in a given line item expenditure. Nearly all government expenditures have built in increases year to year. The politicians who advocate spending cuts are just decreasing the increases, not actually cutting spending in any real sense, or measurable way.


An example is that Agency “A” has a budget of 10 million dollars this fiscal year. Each year, the administrator goes to congress and asks for an increase, say a 12 % increase in funding to cover pay raises, additional resources and other costs for the next fiscal cycle. After much debate in committees and many revisions, the congress agrees to a 10% increase. That means that now Agency “A” will have an additional 1 million dollars to spend the next fiscal year. If congress or the executive branch does a cut in expenditures as a way of placating fiscally conservative people who object to higher expenditures, they will routinely say something on the order of “Well... we will cut the budget back 10% on all discretionary spending increases or on all general increases...” That sounds like a good thing. Agency “A” should loose its 10% increase, right?


Wrong.


Here is what happens.....


Rather than revoke the entire increase, they cut 10%...off the increase. That means that Agency “A” will only have an increase of $900,000 rather than the 1 million they were originally slated to get. What most people think is that Agency “A” was not going to get its raise or that they might actually loose $1 million out of their total budget of $10 million, reducing them down to $9 million. They (congress) can say they cut spending “10%” and the public is duped to believe that the congress is actually cutting expenditures in a real and meaningful way. In other words, the politicians and the civil service administrators and the executive branch of government are all in it together to fool the tax payers into thinking one thing as they in fact, do another.


The budget process is so confusing and made overly complex on purpose in order to conceal and to mislead any casual reviewer as to its content. The reasons for this are that they, the political elites, don’t want the average person to understand any portion of the process nor do they want John or Jane Q. Public to truly understand the scope and depth of the budgetary disaster that faces this country. So in one of the great slights of hand since Houdini, the congress, who has the constitutional power of the purse strings, drafts a budget that is so confusing and mesmerizing in its complexity that most who attempt to read and understand may be rendered mute, eyes a glaze, while others may run screaming off into the night in frustration and some others may even succumb to madness...


In all seriousness though, the real subterfuge in the process is not the massive deficits that appear on the budget, but that little known bookkeeping trick called “Off Budget” spending.


What is this you may ask?


It is a trick, or if you prefer the truth, it is a LIE designed to protect the political backsides of the powers-that-be from getting excoriated by us, the American people, by concealing the true amount of spending of the Federal government. If they, the congress and the sitting President, were up front and truthful in putting ALL spending programs on the actual Federal Budget, there would be massive political upheaval and potential sanctions to whatever party was in power in the congress and to whatever President approved such inflated budgets. Granted, they approve deficit budgets now, but the “off budget” subterfuge hides the true scope of the practice of spending what we as a nation can’t afford.

Let’s look at an example. President Reagan and Congress placed strategic petroleum reserve spending off-budget in 1982. Instead of using other means to control the size of the deficit, such as raising revenues (taxes) or cutting spending, they used the trick of placing this program off-budget making the deficit seem smaller, even though the government still needed to finance (borrow the money) for this spending program to purchase oil to just store it...just in case.

The savings and loan bailout provides another example of this practice of hiding true costs of government from the people. The Bush Administration in the years 1989 through 1992 wanted spending on this bailout program, a huge spending program in terms of the overall budget, to be placed off-budget, circumventing balance budget legislation that was on the books. Congress retained some of the spending as on-budget so there was an appearance of propriety, while placing most of it off-budget to hide the true scope.

The other great lie that has been foisted on the American people is the concept of the “Social Security Trust Fund” which has become a great piggy bank that can be raided and exploited by the political powers that be for extra cash to fund pet projects of major expenditures. The Social Security system was supposed to help folks have something for retirement, but it has proven to be a pile of loot too big for the politico’s to resist.

Social Security trust funds are financed through dedicated payroll taxes. Because of the unique nature of the funding source, it is kept off-budget and its purpose is considered sacrosanct, to provide a decent quality of life for the elderly. The funds are off-budget, supposedly safe from expropriation. The payroll taxes levied on workers were raised in the 1980s producing vast surpluses in anticipation of the baby boomer generation retiring in the following decades. The problem is that the government has since returned to on-budget deficit spending as of 2001. This has led to the federal government to borrow from the Social Security trust fund surpluses to pay for other on-budget programs. This causes the trust fund to end up in deficit (little cash and many IOU’s from the treasury) and therefore unable to have sufficient funds on hand to pay out to the growing population of retiring citizens that are beginning to come on line, utilizing the program.

In other words, we have robbed from ourselves to cover up for the lack of fiscal discipline and foresight needed by our nation to survive and to be prosperous. All this has happened regardless of political party affiliation. Both Democrats and Republican have participated and are indeed continuing to participate in this great lie and need to be brought to heel. We need to stop the practice of keeping what is in effect, a duel set of books for the national budget. If we, the common citizens did this, we would go to jail. Congress and the sitting administration need to be held accountable for this travesty. We as people need clarity - we need the truth as to what our government spends.... no games, no slight of hand to hide the real fiscal situation.

We NEED the TRUTH!

So how are they going to hide some of the costs of the “Obamacare” health care reform package off-budget you may ask?

Where is the lie?

It is complex and but in effect, they will rob from Medicare by using a 12 year old piece of legislation as a model to fix doctor payments from the off-budget Medicare program and shunt the projected $250 billion dollars they expect to save over a 10 year period to cover the on-budget shortfalls caused by the costs of “Obamacare”. This results in doctors getting paid money for “Obamacare” and Medicare and the monies being shunted off as off-budget debt (that most folks don’t know about) increasing the national debt by $250 Billion dollars. It is a complete lie...A complete fabrication and if you wish to read further details of just how this fraud works please go to:

http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2009/10/medicare-doc-fix.html

This site has the whole sordid chapter and verse on this...