Monday, August 30, 2010

Obama slams Arizona before the world

The outrage that is Barrack Obama’s Presidency continues as his internationalist streak once again rears its ugly head and overrides his sacred duties and responsibilities as President of the United States.

In what can be seen only as a tragically flawed act to appease the worst players on the international scene, the Obama Regime has created a report for release to the United Nations Human Rights Council. This particular group is charged with determining the level of compliance and actions of member states to principles established decades ago when the U.N. began weighing in on the concept of “human rights”. The problem with this concept is that the membership of this sub-group contain many of the worst offenders of “human rights” and make no attempts to adhere to the basic principles or concepts of “humane treatment” as defined in the U.N. Charter. In deed, many give only lip service to the concept.

Cases in point are Cuba, The People’s Republic of China, and Egypt. And yet another, Saudi Arabia; a theocratic monarchy that treats women as chattel property with virtually no rights to property or to due process of law. Many members are military dictatorships or quasi-democracies with single party rule. Truly they are fine examples to sit in judgment on the conduct of others when it comes to the rule of law and the fair and equitable treatment of people. The United State in 2007, disgusted by the hypocritical, anti-Semitic, and anti-American stances taken over the years, formally withdrew from the council, electing to just “observe” their activities. The Obamanites in the Department of State have now decided to re-apply for full membership. Not content with just sitting down with the bad actors on the council, the Obama Administration has decided to prostrate our nation before them. They are issuing a self-deprecating and demeaning report about the state of human rights in America. But the main item on this report is what makes it especially egregious.

The Regime has decided to give the actions of the State of Arizona top billing in their mea culpa opus to the U.N. Not content with abrogating their responsibilities to the citizens of this county, the Obama Regime has decided to bring ridicule and derision upon the sovereign State of Arizona and her people for daring to enforce existing federal immigration policy at the state and local level.

Arizona Senate Bill 1070, or SB-1070, was a bill passed by the Arizona legislature and signed into law by that state’s Governor, Jan Brewer. This was done in response to the utter lack of action on the part of federal authorities to curb the rampant illegal alien invasion of our southern border. Not only is illegal immigration an issue, but human trafficking and drug smuggling are also pandemic in the borderlands of the southwestern United States. The federal government has been completely derelict in its duty to secure the border, and the states in that region have been demanding action. Not content to just sit by and be invaded and victimized by drug cartel criminals, Arizona drafted then passed this bipartisan law that was a virtual mirror image of the federal immigration statutes with some additional language that permitted the local and state police to question the immigration status of any person they reasonable believed to be here illegally.

The usual suspects, Hispanic nationalist groups like “La Raza” (which means “The Race” in Spanish…) and others like the ACLU saw this bill primarily as racist. Their reasoning ran the gamut: the law was an infringement of federal powers and was essentially racist in nature; specifically, that it was designed to target Latinos only and that it would lead to racial profiling and harassment. Even though the law was drafted specifically prohibiting such activity, the leftist elites went to war against Arizona and Governor Brewer for daring to put the spurs to the feds over their inept action on immigration.

The Obama Regime, never content to let a crisis go to waste, mobilized the Legal Commissars in the Justice Department to file suite in Federal District Court to block the new law. They were successful in getting a court injunction of the major enforcement provisions of the law that required police to make inquiries of a person’s immigration status. This will likely put the law on track for review by the Supreme Court.

Arizona and her people are being held up to the world for official international review and criticism thanks to the Obamanites. I know of no other time in our nation’s history when a sitting governor, state, or state law has ever been held up to ridicule on the international stage, especially to likes of Communist China, Russia, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia who sit on the Human Rights Counsel, and the other paragons of virtue that make up the United Nations as a whole. It is a travesty unlike any that has ever been perpetrated before by the federal government.

It is unfortunate that our President lacks the character or propriety to even see this as the affront it is to the nation as a whole and to Arizona in particular. That American diplomats that are supposed to serve the interests of our nation are so shallow and so banal as to have even drafted such a document shows just how far we have fallen in such a short time.

Not content with bankrupting the treasury of the nation or nationalizing huge sectors of our economy, Obama now wishes to see the nation brought low and made a mockery of; a target ridicule before the entire world community, shredding our only real capitol in the world- our moral authority.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Mark Halprin/Time magazine ask for Republicans to "do the right thing..."

I find it interesting Mark Halperin of Time magazine says that Republicans should "Do the right thing" when it is the Muslim community that should be asked to do so.... But then again, it seems the aggrieved are always asked to be tolerant and understanding. It has been a one way street in that regard. The only thing I agree with the author here is that Conservatives/Republicans don't need to bang the drum on this. Obama and his Progressive sycophant friends in New York are digging their own graves and the Muslim community will continue to demonstrate that their cultural norms and practices are incompatible with western norms of behavior and tolerance. If the Islamic community had any sense of decency, they would never have even considered this site as a place to put their Mosque/cultural center. I recall a similar issue occurring in Poland. In 1984 Cardinal Macharski, archbishop of Cracow, announced the establishment of a Carmelite convent in Auschwitz in a building on the camp periphery which had originally been a theater but was utilized during World War II to store the poison gas used in the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria. Needless to say, Jewish survivors and the Jewish community at large objected to this on similar grounds as 9/11 families and survivors – that it is completely inappropriate, unwanted and out of context with the nature and history of the location and what it meant to those who survived the camps and the families of those who died there. Needless to say there was a great fight over this issue between the Catholics of Poland and the Jew who see the site as hallowed ground. Eventually the convent project was canceled when the convent was relocated by direction of the Vatican. We face a similar issue in New York and unfortunately, we lack leadership with the sensitivity to veto this project. Nobody is saying that Muslims can’t build a mosque. The families and survivors of 9/11 aren’t saying it either. What is being said is that the location is wrong and that if “tolerance” means anything to the Islamic community, then they need to yield on this issue and relocate to another site a respectful distance from “ground zero”.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Atomic Apologies: Is the U.S. Ambassador going to say "Sorry for the nukes?"

This is a re-post of an article I wrote in November of last year, when rumor circulated that the "Dear Leader" was going to Japan and "apologize' for nuking Japan at the close of World War 2.

Now word comes that the U.S. Ambassador to Japan, John Roos, will lead a delegation to the 65th annual commemoration of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Evidently the "Dear Leader" and his minions feel that we, the aggrieved party in that conflict, must demonstrate remorse for winning. That we must display regret for utilizing a weapon that Japan and Nazi Germany most certainly would have used on us (had they had it).

Showing up with an official delegation lead by our Ambassador, who will be undoubtedly asked for comments and sentiments, is just a really bad idea. Japan was defeated by this country and her allies by force of arms, and going to a Japanese city that was destroyed in that war serves no purpose. All a reasonable person could do is grieve over the loss of life in general and the reflect on how terrible the scourge of war is. But in the recent past, the "Dear Leader" has been anxious to minimize, criticize and indeed apologize for past actions of the U.S. He has even denied the nature of our nation and culture in order to curie favor in regions of the world where we are engaged in a struggle to preserve our civilization. Sending Ambassador Roos to Hiroshima or Nagasaki at this time, and knowing this administrations penchant for apologies, can only be viewed as an opportunity to lay low the sacrifices made by millions of service men and women and civilian scientist and workers who made victory possible.

If you read the following, I think you may get an inkling of what goes on in the head of Barrack Hussein Obama, The Apologist and Chief.

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....